Direct testimony, under anonymity, provides new details about complaints of physical and psychological violence in Sophia Augusto's family environment, in parallel with accusations of alleged financial irregularities.
The testimony also focuses on the consequences that these episodes would have had on the children
.“These events have emotionally affected our children, not just the one who lives with me,” he said.
In that sense, he said he was complying with psychological treatments for both himself and his son, as part of the family recomposition process.
Despite the conflict, he stressed that the bond between minors and their mother remains unrestricted on their side.
Beyond the reported episodes of violence, the interviewee raised a current situation that he considers serious: the impossibility of seeing his youngest son since
September 2024.According to his story, this occurs despite the existence of a court ruling that establishes a regime of visits subject to psychological evaluations, which he claims to be complying with.
In addition, he reported having been falsely accused in a case that, he said, had already been dismissed for lack of support.
“Today I can't see my youngest son and I lost contact with my older daughter. It is a situation that remains unresolved, despite the legal actions initiated,” he said.
public complaints against Sophia Marianela Augusto for alleged
scams, the interviewee avoided going deeper.“I don't have detailed knowledge about that topic,” he said.
However, the general context of the case—which combines financial complaints with a history of family conflict—adds complexity to a situation that continues to be under judicial and media scrutiny.
In the midst of the scandal surrounding Sophia Marianela Augusto over allegations of alleged scams and irregularities, a key testimony emerges that brings a different dimension to the case: domestic violence.
The interviewee, who specifically asked to keep his identity confidential to protect his children, confirmed that there was an episode of physical and psychological violence against one of the minors.
According to his story, the incident occurred after the couple separated. It was his son who told him what happened, which motivated the filing of formal complaints and the creation of a Gesell camera, whose records are part of the
judicial file.“The episode did exist. My son told me about it and that's why I started the corresponding processes,” he explained
.However, the court case was eventually shelved. According to his version, the decision responded to the intention of avoiding greater psychological exposure of minors, in addition to an instance of conciliation proposed by the mother that ultimately failed to materialize
.One of the central points of the case is the child custody situation, which had been publicly misinterpreted.
The interviewee clarified that there was no formal removal of custody by the Justice, but rather a tenure process initiated after the separation.
Since June 2022, one of the children has been living with the father, a situation that was judicially recognized in a judgment issued in December 2025.
“The ruling recognizes de facto tenure. My son has been living with me since 2022 and can visit his mother freely,” he said
.
At the same time, the youngest child —7 years old— remains under the mother's care, also under a de facto tenure scheme, with the obligation of both parties
to undergo psychological therapy.However, the interviewee reported breaches on the part of the mother in relation to the provisions of the Justice.
