The demand from Christian Nodal against his ex-partner, the Argentine singer cazzuIn order to settle various legal issues surrounding her daughter, she has already been admitted to a family court JaliscoMexico; But experts warn that this legal route could face significant obstacles to moving forward.
It was November 4th when node filed a lawsuit Jalisco to regulate them Custody, regulation of cohabitation and determination of maintenance from the Sonoran.
A local judge has admitted the lawsuit and an official notification is expected cazzu in 2026 through letters rogatory and diplomatic channels, the actual viability of the litigation is doubtful.
And according to the lawyer Marcela Torres, who analyzed the case in the broadcast of the journalist Javier Ceriani, there are several important points that could reverse the lawsuit.
Accordingly Marcela Torreslies the key to moving the process forward in Mexico the answer that Cazzu gives.
“This depends on what benefits the minor. The only way to continue this litigation is for Cazzu to accept the competition and try to find a solution if they offer him something pleasant.” he explained in his message. And it is worth remembering that both the minor and the mother live in it Argentinanot in Mexico.
Given this scenario, the lawyer warned that if Cazzu – or a person sued in a similar situation – does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Mexican courts, the Argentine judicial system has the power to refuse cooperation and not to carry out the lawsuit outside their country of residence.
“I would wait for the response from Cazzu’s lawyers and then we would have the answer to something that has been speculated and alleged in Mexico.”Exactly.
The central argument of Marcela Torres is that him Argentine law stipulates that only the judges of the country where the minor lives can decide on custody, cohabitation and nutrition.
The lawyer quoted the articles 2614 And 2639 des Civil and Commercial Code of the Argentine Nation. The first indicates that jurisdiction in these cases rests with the judge of the girl’s place of residence, and the second reiterates that questions of jurisdiction must be based on the minor’s habitual residence and best interests.
Marcela Torres clarified that the notification on cazzu This must be done by request for legal assistance via the diplomatic channel of the Argentine consulate and with the express involvement of a judge Argentina. This procedure, he explained, allows reporting and requesting international cooperation, but does not oblige the foreign authority to recognize the case, especially if it does not meet the criterion of the minor’s best interests.
The lawyer emphasized that the well-being of the artist’s daughter must always be the focus of these processes: “When it comes to minors, the answer is always: what is in the best interests of the minor and where it is possible for him to do so.”
He stressed that the 1975 Inter-American Convention on Letters rogatory from Panama requires this principle to prevail over all others.
For Torres, the underlying issues can only move forward if there is a practical agreement: “How is it possible to live together in a foreign country where the girl does not live? How is it possible to pay the maintenance deposited in another country? The only thing here is to agree that these are international transfers, which is what Cazzu is really interested in. That’s the only thing I see.”
He suggested that the Argentine singer could only continue the process in Jalisco if she accepted the competition in favor of her daughter and negotiated favorable conditions.
According to the Judiciary of Jalisco the lawsuit has already been accepted decided by a family court judge and is in its early stages. The official notification to Cazzu will be made next year via letters rogatory and through diplomatic channels.
He President of the Supreme Court of Jalisco, José Luis Álvarez Pulidoin an interview with the journalist Ahtziri Cardenas He avoided elaborating on the reasons why the judge recognized jurisdiction over the case despite the difference in residence, pointing out that these arguments were contained in the admission decision and were protected by the well-being of the minor.
He added that the singer’s defense could challenge the jurisdiction of the Mexican court through the appropriate legal means.
About The Author
