The open investigation against a couple arrested for the alleged abuse of their baby points directly to the father. This is warned by the order issued by the third section of the Barcelona Court, which releases the mother and keeps the father in prison, considering him responsible for the acts. The investigators have identified two key elements that allow attributing the assaults on the baby to the father.
On one hand, there are the searches made by the mother starting from March 1, the date on which it is suspected that the child began to be abused. The woman made Google searches “related to concern about the baby’s health and also about the discomfort she herself had regarding her relationship with her partner and the worry that her partner was not treating the baby well.” On March 2, she searched for phrases like “my partner is overwhelmed by the baby” and “my partner can’t handle the baby”; on March 4, 2026, she searched “my partner does not treat my baby well” and, that same day, took a photo of the bruise on the baby’s right cheek. There are also searches from March 13, 2026, with content such as “he is not affectionate with my baby” and “he gets nervous, screams with the baby in his arms,” among others.
“My partner does not treat my baby well,” “he gets nervous, screams with the baby in his arms,” the mother wrote on the internet
A report from the Mossos d’Esquadra also found no evidence of abuse by the mother. In view of all this, the investigators conclude in these proceedings: “There is no information or evidence about a possible aggressive or rough character of the mother. Likewise, her reactions when she understood what was happening to her son and the consequences it had were coherent and very expressive,” they wrote. “For example, in court, after the prosecutor’s intervention, she was seen emotionally devastated.” The conclusions are similar to those reached by the EVAMI (Child Abuse Assessment Team), notes the order.
Additionally, a woman who shared a room at Vall d’Hebron hospital with the arrested parents alerted the healthcare staff to protect the baby after observing that the father covered the baby’s mouth when he cried, shook him, and gave the bottle roughly. “Help the baby,” implored the patient, who has been granted protected witness status in this case. These statements incriminate the father, but not the mother. “At no time did this witness make any statement regarding the mother,” the court emphasizes.
The court considers that the evidence against the mother has weakened
The court considers that the evidence regarding the mother “has weakened,” although it does not rule out that she could eventually be charged with abuse “by omission,” for not acting to protect her child. “It will be necessary to assess to what extent she was aware of the seriousness of the facts, whether she acted promptly or not, what her physical and mental health status was after childbirth, and her consequent capacity to react,” the judges maintain.
On the other hand, the father’s appeal has not been accepted and he will remain in provisional detention, considering that the evidence of abuse points to him. Both parents were imprisoned on March 20 after Vall d’Hebron Hospital activated the anti-abuse protocol upon detecting that the baby, only six weeks old, had very serious injuries: callus fractures in five ribs, femur fracture, fractures in both femurs and tibias; bruises on the face, nose, and hand; head injuries, bruises all over the genital area, and a large anal fissure. Two forensic experts determined that the wounds could only have been caused and did not correspond to any illness.
Also read
The father claimed he suffers from a genetic disease that could be hereditary and whose symptoms could explain the injuries his son presents. The court responds that “the genetic alteration” was ruled out by the two experts. “They indicated that the child did not have a single injury, but several, and that there is no known genetic pathology that can explain these multiple injuries.” The child was urgently placed with a foster family under the guardianship of the Directorate General for Child and Adolescent Care. The court emphasizes that “since the child has been separated from his parents, his progress has been favorable, which constitutes another indication of criminality.”
