A Supreme-Court judge has rejected a father's request for joint custody because it is considered that his 80-sq/m flat is too small for them.

The man is father to four children but his live in partner has three of her own, so that would mean seven kids and two adults in a 3-bedroom flat. Therefore, the judges consider that such cramped conditions are more detrimental to the children than not spending time with their own father under one roof.

Social workers armed with a psychosocial report all agreed that they should live with their mother only, because if they stayed with their father they would all have to sleep in the same bedroom, which according to the report, “would inhibit the children’s privacy.”

“The father’s abode only had one bedroom for the four children, which is an impediment for guaranteeing minimum conditions for their individual development and for their education because they would have to share a reduced space for their homework activity and for playing,” reads the sentence.

The court also took into account the bad relationship between the eldest two offspring and the father’s new wife, and, apparently, their wish to remain with their mother but to receive visits from their father.

For all of the above reasons the high-court judges backed the sentence handed down by the provincial law court.

Editorial comment: when I was growing up, four kids to a room wasn’t considered detrimental to a child. Hell, I used to sleep head to toe with my brother in the same bed in our 3-bedroom council house until Mum got bunk beds. Besides, is going camping over a long weekend and sleeping four kids to a large tent considered ‘bad’ for a child’s development. How is it that lacking time with their father is less damaging than sharing the same room over limited periods? And when have older children ever got on with the wicked step mother?

(News: City & Metropolitan Area, Granada, Andalucia)