This 38-year-old mother accuses her ex-partner of raping their children, of whom he has sole custody. She appeared on appeal on Wednesday in Versailles, in a turbulent climate.
“Neutrality requires judges to maintain a reserved behavior in court regarding the comments made before them.” This principle, guarantor of the impartiality of magistrates during a trial, was particularly undermined before the 18th criminal chamber of the Versailles Court of Appeal, Wednesday October 11. Sophie Abida, 38, was on trial there for child abduction and for malicious messages against a family affairs judge. This mother of five has publicized her situation, particularly on social networks, since her last four children, aged 8 to 2, were placed with their father despite accusations of incestuous rape against him.
This media coverage of the case and the presence of numerous supporters in the courtroom, including personalities like the actress Judith Chemla, were clearly not to the court’s taste. “We’re not at the theater here”launched the president, refusing the hearing of witnesses among the fourteen cited by the defense, on the grounds that they were not directly “related to the file”. For seven hours, an exceptional duration for this type of correctional case, the parties fought over this emblematic case of mothers. “dischilded” Or “protective”. According to the Independent Commission on Incest and Sexual Violence Against Children (Ciivise), which worked on the subject, these mothers are “suspected of manipulating their child to harm their spouse, by accusing them of incest, most often in the context of a separation”.
Eyes to the sky and invectives
Sophie Abida, sentenced at first instance in April to ten months in prison after spending three weeks in pre-trial detention, was barely able to explain herself, the president accusing her of making this trial “a Tribune”. On hunger strike “for twenty-three days”this former flight attendant said she was once again convinced that her ex-husband had committed “sexual violence” on their children. She repeated that she had acted by “need” by not handing over his siblings and hiding the youngest for several months. Her former spouse, a 49-year-old engineer, for his part brushed aside these accusations, unable to give “explanations” to the repeated statements of the three elders, some of which were recorded and broadcast at the hearing.
On several occasions, in front of their mother, the children’s judge, the gendarmes or even the schoolmaster, who confirmed on the stand, the children affirmed that their father “touched the buttocks”, “the willy”, “the zezette” and put them “the dick in the mouth”. After the dismissal of the preliminary investigation by the Chartres public prosecutor’s office, Sophie Abida again filed a complaint, with the establishment of a civil party. An investigating judge has just been appointed to resume investigations into these accusations of incestuous sexual violence.
Rolling his eyes regularly and sending knowing glances to the attorney general, the president constantly reframed the questions in Sophie Abida’s defense, particularly with regard to the psychological experts. The first admitted to having recommended the placement of the children with their father without having met either them or their mother. The second confirmed that he felt that their words were not “not credible”, whereas it has been recommended, since the report of the working group responsible for drawing lessons from the judicial treatment of the Outreau affair, in 2005, to no longer use the term “credibility” in expert opinions. Taking offense at “laughter” of the court faced with this recall, Sophie Abida’s main lawyer, Pauline Rongier, was described as“hysterical” by the president. Screams and protests in the room. Threatening several times to send the public out, the magistrate allowed the hearing to take place in a stormy climate, made up of invectives from both sides.
“This circus must stop”
During the only suspension, the lawyer for the father of the children, Bertrand Lebailly, said he did not “never seen such a climate”deploring “a breaking defense” with a “very militant dimension”. “This hearing is symptomatic of the case, this circus must stop”he then pleaded. And Bertrand Lebailly to remind the background of Sophie Abida: her conviction, ten years ago, for non-representation of a child, against a backdrop of accusations of sexual assault, during a previous union. “I’m not the only one to attract two unhealthy men into her life”, the person concerned justified herself at the opening of the hearing. An argument which did not convince the opposing party. “Madame has the greatest bad luck imaginable”quipped her ex-spouse’s lawyer.
The Advocate General, for his part, requested the same sentence as at first instance. Referring to previous judicial decisions in this case, he held that “the state of necessity” – which would have allowed Sophie Abida not to hand over the children to the father without being worried, because of a danger for them – was not “characterized”. “We were wondering today who was appearing before this court. However, the gentleman has not yet been indicted,” he pointed.
“The eventful nature of this hearing is explained by the unbearable seriousness of this case, by the revelations of these four children. It is for them that we are here today”, replied Pauline Rongier in her long pleading. Same eyes raised to the sky opposite, same impatience. According to the lawyer, who fought hard to avoid having her speech confiscated, “we are obviously in a systemic problem” with this procedure “crazy absurdity and cruelty”. “The evidence is massive but it is thwarted by botched expert opinions. There is a reversal of guilt”she insisted, pleading for release.
Invited to stand up for her last words, as is the rule, Sophie Abida was quickly interrupted by the president: “I’m not asking you to argue.” In an atmosphere as agitated as at the start of the day, the decision was put under advisement. It will be delivered on November 29.