CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 services, the visits would take place on alternate weekends, with no overnights, and would last from noon to 7 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. After another six months, depending on a favourable report from social services, the visits would be expanded to alternate weekends, with overnights, with the possibility of also including half of vacations. At the same time, F.R.C. was granted use and enjoyment of the family dwelling. The decision did not make reference to the continued non-payment of support by F.R.C. 2.13 Despite numerous incidents of violence by F.R.C. during the year and a half of supervised visits, the Juzgado núm. 1 de Navalcarnero (Court No. 1 of Navalcarnero) entered an order of 6 May 2002 authorizing unsupervised visits. The court based itself on a report of social services which did not expressly recommend that there be no change in the system of supervised visits. In that report, social services indicated that F.R.C. “was affectionate with the child, constantly showing love and affection ... The dynamic of the relationship reveals that he does not adapt to the child’s stage of growth, asking questions and making statements that are inappropriate in form and content, giving rise to situations that are far from beneficial to the child. It often seems that he cannot put himself in the other’s place, that there is a lack of empathy. This is shown in his failure to adjust to the child’s young age and failure to understand normal situations that occur in this context.” 2.14 The author appealed this decision without success. On 17 June 2002, the court decided that although “social services cannot predict how the visits will go without their presence and although they do point to some shortcomings in the father’s behaviour, they also stress that relations between him and his daughter are gradually normalizing”. The court designated the social services office as the pick-up and drop-off point for the child. The decision indicates that it is not subject to appeal. 2.15 During the months of unsupervised visits, social services issued several reports which referred to Andrea’s wish, for the moment, not to spend more time with her father beyond the existing regime; that there were probably objectionable situations consisting of repeated questions about the private and emotional life of the mother and confusing comments by the father to the girl; and that the regime of visits had to be closely monitored. In a report of 5 February 2003, social services informed the court that, as reported by the child to her mother, during the visit of 30 January 2003, F.R.C. had insistently questioned the child about the author’s current partner and proffered insults against that partner, and that similar things had happened on other occasions. 2.16 On 24 April 2013, three years after the author had petitioned for the use of the family residence, a judicial hearing on the matter was held. At the end of that hearing, as the author was leaving the building, F.R.C. approached her and told her that he was going take away what mattered most to her. 2.17 On the afternoon of the same day, the author took Andrea to social services for the planned visit with her father. When she later returned to pick her up, they had not arrived. After waiting for an hour, and there being no answer from F.R.C. to her telephone calls, the author went to the police to report the facts and ask that the police go to F.R.C.’s home. When police officers appeared at the dwelling, they found the lifeless bodies of Andrea and F.R.C. F.R.C. had a weapon in his hand. The police investigation concluded that F.R.C. had shot the girl and then committed suicide. On 12 June 2003, the Juzgado de Instrucción núm. 3 de Navalcarnero (Investigative Court No. 3 of Navalcarnero) declared F.R.C.’s criminal liability for Andrea’s death extinguished as he had committed suicide. 14-59288 5