Argentina
España
USA
Israel
Buenos Aires, January 2026 – Total News Agency (TNA) —The ordeal currently faced by Roxana Quiroga Sollinger and her five-year-old daughter in Helsinki, Finland, is neither unexpected nor sudden. This is a case that Total News Agency (TNA) reported in 2022 and again in 2026, through investigative articles that issued early warnings about the real and imminent risk of a serious humanitarian outcome should the child’s international restitution proceed without effective guarantees.
The judicial proceedings were conducted before National Civil Court No. 86, presided over by Judge Bacigalupo de Girard, which ordered the child’s return to her biological father, a resident of Finland. As documented by TNA in its previous publications, the ruling was issued despite explicit warnings regarding the mother’s situation of vulnerability, the lack of a consolidated bond between the child and her father, and prior reports of gender-based violence filed in Europe.
The case dates back to 2015, when Quiroga Sollinger met her then partner in Germany. The couple later relocated to Finland, where they began fertility treatment. In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the woman returned to Argentina so her daughter could be born in her home country. After giving birth, she returned to Europe, where—according to her testimony—episodes of violence began, forcing her to seek refuge in shelters for women in situations of extreme vulnerability.
The couple’s definitive separation occurred in 2021. Faced with repeated threats that the father would take the child, and in the absence of institutional responses capable of guaranteeing protection, the woman returned permanently to Argentina. At that time, the child had not been legally recognized by her father and bore only her mother’s surname. Legal recognition took place later, on Argentine territory, triggering the judicial process that ultimately resulted in the international restitution order.
In its investigations, TNA warned that the court ruling included a series of conditions to be fulfilled before and after the transfer, including adequate housing, financial support, comprehensive medical care for the child, and protective measures. However, once the restitution was carried out, none of these guarantees materialized, according to the mother’s testimony.
Quiroga Sollinger reported that she and her daughter arrived in Finland in December and were left in a state of abandonment. The address initially provided corresponded to her ex-husband’s residence, prompting an immediate objection. Eventually, alternative accommodation funded by the State was arranged—but without income, without food provision, and without health coverage.
“We are effectively homeless,” she stated. The child’s medical treatments were also fully interrupted.
Today, an Argentine mother and her daughter remain in Finland under dramatic conditions—an outcome that was not unforeseeable, but rather anticipated and publicly denounced years in advance.
According to the mother, the child’s relationship with her father is virtually nonexistent. Upon seeing him again, the girl reacted with crying and rejection. This, she claims, represents the father’s first formal claim in more than four years, a period during which he allegedly failed to provide financial support or cover medical treatments.
TNA underscores that the outcome was, regrettably, exactly what had been warned: a forced restitution carried out without effective oversight of compliance with the imposed conditions, leaving a child and her mother exposed to extreme precariousness abroad. The case once again raises profound questions about the actions of the Argentine justice system, the automatic application of international restitution mechanisms, and the State’s responsibility when judicial decisions result in severe humanitarian consequences.
