The Chubut entity justified the actions of the professional and launched threats against those who disseminated the case, but mass rejection forced her to retreat.
The background of the case exposes a previous judicial dispute over the child's possession. Depending on the family environment, the child had lived for years with his father and his close environment, until a court decision, based on psychological expertise, ordered a process of reconnection with his biological mother and led to a change of custody
According to the testimonies released by the family, the minor expressed resistance to this transfer and has been in situations of distress ever since. They also questioned the actions of the protection agencies and pointed out that risks had been noticed that were
not addressed.
The boy's father pointed directly against the judicial process, assuring that an adequate reconnection was never carried out and that the minor had no previous connection with the mother. In this context, he maintained that he had alerted the authorities to possible serious consequences
.Far from closing the controversy, the decision of the College of Psychologists to delete its communication and disappear from networks left more questions than answers. For many, the attempt to defuse the crisis only confirmed the level of disconnection between the institution and the social demand for justice sought by thousands of parents
.The Professional Association of Psychologists of Chubut was at the center of a fierce controversy after publishing a statement in defense of the feminist psychologist who handed Ángel Lopez, the minor murdered in Comodoro Rivadavía, to his murderers. After the negative reaction of public opinion, the entity decided to delete the text and close its social networks.
The document, officially released, expressed the “repudiation of hate speech” directed against Ms. Jennifer Leiva and warned of the dissemination of information that, they argued, could hinder the judicial process. In addition, he demanded respect for the principle of innocence and called for prudence from the community and the media
.
However, far from calming the situation, the statement generated immediate rejection on social networks. Many users questioned whether the agency prioritized corporate defense in a case of extreme sensitivity, marked by the death of a child and strong complaints about the actions of the Justice and the professionals involved
.Social pressure escalated rapidly. Within hours, the College deleted the publication and later deactivated its official accounts, in what was interpreted as an attempt to lower the profile in the face of the magnitude of the repudiation and not as a retraction
