Constelação familiar no judiciário: uma análise crítica sobre sua legitimidade e compatibilidade com direitos fundamentais

Abstract

This study critically examines the use of family constellation practices within the Brazilian Judiciary, taking into account their lack of scientific validation and the risks posed to the legitimacy of judicial proceedings. The research begins with an analysis of the constitutional foundations of procedural law, particularly due process, legal certainty, and judicial impartiality, demonstrating that these principles are incompatible with methods that introduce subjective and non-verifiable elements into decision making. It then investigates the origins, central concepts, and theoretical structure of family constellation practices, highlighting their characterization as pseudoscience due to metaphysical assumptions and the absence of methodological rigor. The study also analyzes how this technique has been incorporated into judicial contexts, identifying normative inconsistencies, lack of regulation, and potential violations of fundamental rights, especially in cases involving vulnerability or violence. Furthermore, it discusses the social and institutional risks associated with the method, as well as recent positions adopted by the National Council of Justice, the Federal Council of Psychology, and other entities that have expressed opposition to its use. The study concludes that family constellation practices do not satisfy the constitutional requirements that structure jurisdiction and therefore should not be employed as judicial instruments.