The high court's decision rejects the appeal filed against the magistrate, who was accused of allegedly exceeding her duties and acting outside legal procedure. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the complainant was never informed that she was "detained, held, or in custody."

According to the ruling, the presence of officers accompanying the woman was "solely and exclusively" due to another magistrate's request. At that time, the complainant was wanted for child abduction, having been a fugitive from justice between June 21, 2024, and July 25, when she received a burofax and the events occurred.

Previously, in June, she had been required to hand over the minor at her home, which she failed to do. Upon appearing at police facilities with relatives, it was decided that she should be accompanied by officers due to a potential flight risk. The woman entered the courtroom without the accused judge ordering her custody.

Regarding the vehicle, owned by the woman but regularly used by her ex-partner, the court noted that there was no verbal or written authorization for its use. The minor's father requested to search the car for clues about the child's whereabouts but was warned not to approach due to a protection order. Authorization for him to use the vehicle was denied, stating it could only be removed by municipal tow truck or its owners.

The complaint was initially filed with the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, which deemed it inadmissible, and later with the General Council of the Judiciary, which also refused to open disciplinary proceedings. The defense subsidiarily requested to transfer the case to the Prosecutor's Office for a possible violation of fundamental rights and abuse of public functions, a request that also failed. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay legal costs, set at a maximum of 2,000 euros.