In a Brazil increasingly dominated by excessive state intervention, the case of the children of Arroio Grande, in Rio Grande do Sul, emerges as an alarming example of how public power can trample on the fundamental rights of the family
Two innocent children-a four-year-old boy and a one-and-a-half-year-old baby, still breastfeeding-were torn from their parents’ arms in November 2025, under the pretext of “health risk” resulting from a medical contraindication to vaccines in the National Immunization Program (PNI).
This action, orchestrated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Rio Grande do Sul (MPRS) and endorsed by a local judge, not only separates a united family but also imposes a judicial gag that silences parents and lawyers, constituting a clear abuse of authority and a violation of freedom of expression.
A Traumatizing Nighttime Removal
It all began when the parents, concerned about previous allergic reactions to vaccines, presented a medical certificate contraindicating the National Immunization Program (PNI) vaccines for their children.
Furthermore, they demanded a court-ordered medical consultation be filmed, a legitimate measure to ensure transparency in a system that is often opaque.
In response, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Rio Grande do Sul (MPRS) requested the immediate removal of the children, who were taken to the Casa de Passagem Novo Amanhecer shelter around 10 PM on November 18, 2025-a nighttime operation that, according to sources close to the family, caused “irreparable trauma.”
The children, now 63 days separated in January 2026, face questionable conditions in the shelter.
The parents reported a bruise on the boy’s arm shortly after arrival, raising suspicions of mistreatment, especially considering a history of similar incidents at the location.
Visits were prohibited for almost 40 days and, when resumed, limited to a mere 30 minutes per week.
Worse: the children were vaccinated against their parents’ wishes by the State, resulting in strong reactions, which reinforces the validity of the family’s initial concerns.
The parents’ defense emphasizes that there is no history of neglect, violence, abuse, or drug use.
Reports alleging “unsanitary conditions” in the residence were contested with expert reports and videos, proving the contrary.
Conservative influencers, such as lawyer Lais Jordy and the president of the PL-RS, Daniel Borges, publicly denounced the case, questioning why the State prioritizes forced vaccination over natural family bonds.
Censorship and Abuse of Power
Not content with separating the family, the judge imposed a draconian prohibition: the parents and, subsequently, the lawyers are forbidden from speaking publicly about the process, under penalty of fines reaching R$ 5,000 per publication.
The parents have already been fined R$10,000 and forced to delete content, with threats of asset seizure-an unsustainable financial pressure for a carpenter father with a modest income.
Renowned jurists classify this measure as “absolutely abusive” and a “complete outrage.” Alessandro Chiarottino, a professor of Constitutional Law at USP, argues that the judge can protect the privacy of children, but cannot silence the opinions of parents, which are protected by freedom of expression.
André Marsiglia, a specialist in freedom of expression, goes further: it is a matter of practical censorship, since facts of public interest cannot be hidden, even in confidential proceedings.
The Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-RS) has been contacted, with a request for action under analysis, highlighting violations of the prerogatives of the legal profession.
This gag order not only inhibits the defense but also prevents public debate on crucial issues, such as state overreach in the name of “collective health.” In a country where the family is the pillar of society, such intervention evokes the worst authoritarian regimes, where the State arrogates to itself the right to educate and “protect” children from their own parents.
In Defense of the Family Against the Leviathan State
This case exemplifies the danger of state progressivism, which prioritizes ideological agendas-such as mandatory vaccination-over the natural rights of parents.
The Brazilian Constitution and the Statute of the Child and Adolescent (ECA) emphasize the “best interests of the child,” which invariably reside in the natural family, except in extreme cases of violence or abandonment, which are nonexistent here.
Prolonged removal causes irreparable emotional damage, breaking affective bonds essential for healthy development.
Why does the State, instead of supporting the family with guidance, opt for drastic separation? The answer seems to lie in an ideology that sees parents as obstacles to public policies, especially those related to vaccines, often driven by questionable global interests.
Furthermore, the imposed censorship reflects an erosion of freedom of expression, a quintessential conservative value.
Parents and lawyers must be able to denounce injustices without fear of retaliation, guaranteeing transparency and accountability.
Influencers like those from the BandeiraDrones profile highlight that the debate transcends child custody, touching on the essence of democracy: freedom of defense and expression.
It’s Time to Restore Family Justice
The children of Arroio Grande are not mere statistics; they are victims of a system that, in the name of “protection,” destroys families.
It is imperative that the Judiciary reverse this decision, return the children to their parents, and revoke the unconstitutional gag order.
Conservatives throughout Brazil must unite to defend family sovereignty against the advance of the omnipotent State.
Only in this way will we preserve the traditional values “”that sustain our nation: God, country, and family.
Published in 02/04/2026 22h52
Text adapted by AI (Grok) and translated via Google API in the English version. Images from public image libraries or credits in the caption.
Reference article: