O direito à convivência familiar das pessoas submetidas a medidas de segurança no Brasil: desinstitucionalização e responsabilidade estatal à luz da Política Antimanicomial do Poder Judiciário

Résumé fourni par la source

The historical use of psychiatric hospitalization as the predominant response to individuals subjected to security measures has produced consequences that go beyond the restriction of liberty, affecting family and community ties that are essential to the construction of life trajectories in freedom. The Brazilian Psychiatric Reform, especially following Law No. 10,216/2001, established a paradigm oriented toward care in freedom, the exceptional nature of hospitalization, and social reintegration. This process received new impetus within the criminal justice system through Resolution No. 487/2023 of the National Council of Justice, which instituted the Anti-Asylum Policy of the Judiciary and established guidelines for the enforcement of security measures in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Brazilian mental health legislation. This article investigates the legal status of family life for individuals subjected to security measures, questioning to what extent the preservation and reconstruction of family ties constitute a legally enforceable State duty and what the limits of family participation in the enforcement of such measures are. A qualitative approach is adopted, using the legal-dogmatic method and bibliographic and documentary research, with analysis of the Federal Constitution, criminal and mental health legislation, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, resolutions of the National Council of Justice, and institutional documents related to the implementation of the Anti-Asylum Policy. Initially, it is argued that family life should be understood as a dimension of the fundamental rights to dignity, autonomy, health, and social inclusion, and cannot be reduced to a therapeutic benefit or made conditional on the existence of an available family support network. It is further argued that the absence of family support cannot legitimize continued institutionalization, and that the State is responsible for developing territorial networks capable of ensuring care and protection without transferring to families the burden of enforcing the security measure. Finally, it is concluded that the effectiveness of the Anti-Asylum Policy requires understanding deinstitutionalization as a process of rebuilding ties and community belonging, and not merely as the termination of hospitalization.