Granada Lawyer Jailed for Forcing Daughter to Falsely Accuse Father

Granada lawyer convicted of twelve counts of false reporting

During the July 23 election campaign, Granada made headlines not just for political rallies but for a judicial tweet. The latter proved far more uncomfortable: a local lawyer has been sentenced to three years and two months in prison for filing up to twelve false complaints against her ex-partner with courts and hospitals, and for forcing her six-year-old daughter to tell medical professionals that her father had touched her. The ruling is described as unprecedented due to the repetitive nature of the crime, the harm caused to the minor, and the severity of the sentence. The compensation awarded to the child: €20,000.

Facts established by the court

The investigating judge details the complaints filed by the mother —up to eight over the subsequent two years—and the examinations undergone by the girl, during which she reportedly told doctors that «her mother said the father had touched her». As evidence of specific intent, the judge notes that a relevant fact was omitted from the complaints: the child had been diagnosed years earlier with vulvovaginitis, meaning the signs presented as resulting from alleged abuse could have been attributed to this pre-existing condition.

Based on these elements, the ruling departs from standard practice. Twelve complaints, a minor used as an instrument, and an accusation that, had it succeeded, would have sent the father to prison. Public discourse highlights a key point: while a layperson might attempt such a scheme, a legal professional knows exactly what they are signing. This detail significantly aggravates the offense.

Exact sentencing terms: conflicting figures

Confusion arises here. According to El Mundo, the sentence is three years and two months in prison plus €20,000 for the daughter. Another cited source, Confilegal, reduces the term to two years and five months and adds that the father receives another €20,000. A third report, circulated by another outlet, raises the penalty to five years in prison, ten years of disqualification from parental authority, €40,000 for the girl, and the same amount for the father. Three versions of the same ruling emerged on the same day.

These discrepancies are not minor details. Whether the sentence exceeds two years determines actual imprisonment under Spanish law; whether the father is compensated depends on which version is correct. Some suggest the difference between two and five years stems from cumulative penalties, while others blame judicial journalism. No one involved in the debate has seen the full text of the ruling.

Compensation for the falsely accused father

This is the most troubling aspect. If the conviction only awards €20,000 to the daughter, and those funds remain under the administration of whoever retains parental authority, the payment effectively stays within the family—a form of self-compensation. Versions acknowledging a sum for the father—€20,000 or €40,000 depending on the source—address this objection.

The underlying grievance is different. Harm suffered by men falsely accused is rarely quantified. Those who spent two years defending themselves, undergoing forensic exams and facing suspicion from their community, do not receive the same media attention as the convicted party. What about the father? is the question permeating the entire case.

Custody and parental authority: unresolved issues

None of the published versions clarify what happens regarding the minor's custody or whether the convicted woman loses parental authority. Some infer that a sentence exceeding two years implies imprisonment and thus inability to manage the child's money or maintain custody. Others note that given judicial timelines, the girl may have been separated from her father for years while the process unfolded.

The proposal gaining most consensus is the most obvious: remove custody and parental authority, and disqualify her from practicing law. In this interpretation, the €20,000 is merely a token gesture.

Why false accusations are rarely prosecuted

The discussion shifts to structural issues. It is argued that in cases involving gender-based violence, judges are instructed not to pursue testimony based solely on the possibility of a false complaint. For any other crime, a judge observing clear indications of malicious prosecution is obligated to act against the complainant. The official rationale for inaction is that prosecuting such conduct would deter genuine victims.

This suggests a questionable incentive system: invoking gender-based violence laws in divorce proceedings is cheap, fast, and often effective, while the cost of error—or lying—is low. Accounts also circulate of individuals claiming to have faced coordinated dual complaints, one civil and one incivil, with the latter supporting the former. The real cost isn't measured in euros, but in years of life.

Context: a ruling amid an election campaign

The news broke during the July 23 campaign, in the same city hosting rallies urging votes against «the reactionary wave». This contrast—an unusual ruling in a specific province alongside rights-focused rallies—explains why the case has been interpreted through a political lens. Some analysts see it as evidence of how far a system goes in treating men and women differently. Counterarguments state that an extreme, singular case cannot justify conclusions about the broader system.

With these elements, the matter remains stuck where it began. There is no single verified version of the ruling, clarity on whether the father is compensated is lacking, and there is no confirmation that the sentence includes loss of custody. Twelve complaints, a six-year-old girl, and an unanswered doubt: what is the price of attempting to destroy someone using the Penal Code?