World

Colate Vallejo-Nágera seeks to review custody decision regarding his son with Paulina Rubio

Colate Vallejo-Nágera requests the judge to modify the custody decision for his son, who wishes to live with him.

26 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Colate Vallejo-Nágera seeks to review custody decision regarding his son with Paulina Rubio — Archive photoPhoto: Daquella manera · Flickr · BY

Nicolás 'Colate' Vallejo-Nágera has returned to court to request a review of the custody decision regarding his son Andrea Nicolás, known as Nico. The original decision granted full custody to singer Paulina Rubio, prompting the businessman to make a new legal attempt to change this resolution.

According to various media reports, the 16-year-old has expressed his desire to live with his father. However, the judge has decided that, for now, the teenager must continue residing with his mother.

This new move comes after an initial ruling that Vallejo-Nágera considers unfavorable. The custody battle for the minor has been a controversial issue and has garnered public attention on several occasions.

Beatriz Cortázar mentioned on 'Y ahora' that the businessman has decided to act in response to the court's decision, demonstrating his determination to change the current situation.

The situation reflects the complicated relationship between Vallejo-Nágera and Rubio, which has had many ups and downs since their separation. Both have been involved in legal disputes related to custody for some time.

As the legal proceedings advance, the judge is expected to evaluate the arguments presented by Colate regarding the new custody request, although no date has yet been set for this review.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.