According to the latest report by the Retrospective Analysis Team for Domestic Violence Homicide (EARHVD), published on Wednesday, "despite the various notifications by several entities, the CPCJ [Child and Youth Protection Commission] had a very limited and scarce temporary intervention in the protection" of the child, who was 15 years old when her mother died. "Although it considered that the child was in danger, it never proceeded with her individual hearing", the report reads. According to the information available, the child lived exposed to "a pattern of persistent, psychological, physical and sexual violence" between her parents, "more frequently between 2016 and 2019", the year in which the father ended up killing the mother in their home, after sending his son to the supermarket. In the analysis of the case, the EARHVD says that the child went to an emergency foster care and then to a shelter, with her mother, following an episode of domestic violence, and that "physical and emotional negligence" in which the minor was found were "persistently identified". "Given the weaknesses in parenting, relational instability and conflict, between A (mother) and B (father) and a pattern of aggression and unavailability for intervention, they put C (child) in a situation of danger", says the EARHVD, adding that the child "was the target of several notifications to the CPCJ". According to the team, the first notifications happened in 2015, by the school, because of "absenteeism and negligence". From 2017 onwards, the PSP itself notified the child four times, twice because of episodes of domestic violence, once because she was with her father when he physically assaulted a public transport driver and ended up being arrested, and finally, following the murder of her mother. The social action services also notified the child in 2017, following the reception in the emergency response, because the father "was not a protective alternative". In view of the various notifications, a process was opened in 2015 and in 2017 an agreement for promotion and protection was signed, but "given the repeated non-compliance" by the mother and father of the promotion and protection measure, the CPCJ closed the case and sent it to the Public Prosecutor's Office. The EARHVD recommends that "there be no gap in the protection and promotion of the rights" of children and young people and that the "mandatory hearing of the child or young person regarding the application, review or cessation of the promotion and protection measure and on the situations that gave rise to the intervention" be promoted among the CPCJs and that specialized intervention be reinforced. It also recommends an "effective articulation" between all entities with direct or indirect intervention in domestic violence because the failures were transversal, namely in health services. Despite the fact that the mother frequently resorted to emergency services, with trauma, bruises or multiple abrasions, the health services "did not take steps or carry out an assessment of the risk of domestic violence, nor did they refer her to the EPVA [Team for the Prevention of Violence in Adults]". The criminal police body that received the various complaints for domestic violence, in this case the PSP, always attributed a medium risk level to the mother, even after she admitted that she feared for her life. The father, on the other hand, in a situation in which he also filed a complaint for domestic violence and accused his wife of trying to assault him, was given a high risk level, despite never having presented any injuries or having been treated in a health service. The EARHVD therefore recommends that the risk assessment for the victim be carried out by specialized professionals with experience in the field of domestic violence. Read Also: CEPAC guarantees that it delivered information about the lynching of a Nepalese boy (Portuguese version)