A communication from the school attended by Francesca and Isabella Icardi triggered a new alarm in the conflict between Mauro Icardi and Wanda Nara. On Tuesday, June 3, the educational institution expressed via email its concern about the simultaneous absence of both parents from the country and the lack of available contacts in case of emergency.
The school, unable to reach the individuals designated by the family—the maternal grandmother Nora Colosimo and a former nanny—requested urgent information on who was legally responsible for the minors. This situation, unprecedented in the family record, led to an immediate judicial intervention.
The judiciary intervened after the school's alert
The director of the institution, Silvina López Fernández, submitted the case to Civil Court No. 106, notifying that Icardi intended to withdraw his daughters from the school. That same day, the judge issued a preventive measure: the footballer was prohibited from withdrawing Francesca and Isabella until the petition was formally solved.
Despite having shared parental custody and authorized contact with the girls, Icardi was temporarily disqualified from carrying out that action. According to his legal team, the decision was arbitrary and lacked legal basis.
In response, Icardi filed a judicial complaint regarding a situation of neglect. He argued that his daughters were left institutionally and emotionally exposed, and held Wanda Nara responsible for the failure in the emergency contact network.
Lara Piro's statements: harsh criticism of the judge and Wanda
Lara Piro, the striker's attorney, spoke on Sálvese quien pueda (América) and did not hold back in her criticism of the judge in the case. "Mauro can't be asked for more patience or respect for the judiciary," she stated. She also claimed that for six months the magistrate remained passive, but ruled against Icardi "in five minutes" after the school's call.
"Why couldn't he take them if he has shared custody and there's no contact restriction?" she asked ironically. For Piro, the ruling replied more to media pressure than to legal criteria.
