Brazilian arrested in Paris preschool sexual abuse investigation involving 30+ victims

Over 30 children aged 2-4 were sexually abused by preschool staff; victims experiencing trauma and behavioral changes, with families bearing costs of private psychological care.
Our children had the courage to speak. We will not remain silent.
Parents' association statement on the preschool abuse scandal in Paris.

Brazilian C., 51, was a music monitor at Paris preschools and remained employed despite parent complaints starting in November, transferred instead of suspended. Parents discovered abuse patterns through a January TV investigation; children reported being forced into sexual acts by the monitor and an alleged female accomplice.

  • Brazilian C., 51, arrested May 22, 2026, charged with rape and sexual assault of children aged 2-4
  • Over 30 complaints filed by parents between November 2025 and February 2026
  • C. remained employed and was transferred rather than suspended after initial complaints in November
  • Abuse discovered after hidden-camera TV investigation aired in late January 2026
  • 16 people detained for questioning; 3 referred to investigating judge; 2 men in preventive custody

A 51-year-old Brazilian music instructor was arrested in Paris on suspicion of raping and sexually assaulting children aged 2-4 at multiple preschools. Over 30 complaints were filed by parents after a hidden-camera TV report exposed the abuse.

A 51-year-old Brazilian music instructor sat in a Paris police cell on Friday, May 22nd, charged with the rape and sexual assault of children between two and four years old. His name is C., and he had worked at multiple preschools across the city's seventh and fifteenth districts. He was not alone in custody. Another man, also unnamed, faced identical charges. A woman who worked alongside them had been released but remained under judicial supervision, though parents' advocates were already preparing to contest her freedom.

The arrest came after a police operation that had swept up sixteen people for questioning two days earlier. From that initial dragnet, three staff members—two men and a woman, all between thirty and fifty-one years old—were referred to an investigating judge. The charges against them centered on sexual acts committed against minors in their care.

What made C.'s case particularly damning was the timeline of institutional failure. Parents had begun raising concerns about him in November, alerting authorities in the seventh district. He was not suspended. Instead, in December, he was transferred to another school in the fifteenth district—a lateral move that kept him in contact with young children. One attorney representing families from both schools where C. had worked described him as one of the principal suspects in the entire investigation. Two families had filed rape complaints against him specifically.

The full scope of the abuse emerged only after a French television program aired a hidden-camera investigation in late January. The report showed what had been happening inside these classrooms. Parents recognized C. immediately. They began talking to one another, piecing together what their children had been trying to tell them. A mother of a three-year-old girl, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained how the picture crystallized. Her daughter and others had complained about shouting and anger from staff members, but the sexual nature of the abuse only became clear after the broadcast. "We understood that the children were victims of sexual violence inside the preschool, including rapes committed by several monitors, among them this Brazilian citizen," she said.

The complaints had started arriving in late 2025 and continued through February 2026. More than thirty families came forward. A father of a four-year-old boy described what his son had disclosed: C. had forced the child to perform oral sex. The boy also described a female accomplice who worked in tandem with C., isolating children in pairs and either forcing them into sexual contact or photographing and filming the abuse. The father had filed his complaint in February, along with accusations against three other staff members.

The parents' association at Saint-Dominique School released a statement expressing "immense indignation" not only at the abusers but at the institutions that had failed to stop them—the Paris city government and the school itself. "Despite the threats they faced, our children had the courage to speak," the association wrote. "We are very proud of them, and we will not remain silent."

What struck many families most acutely was what came after the arrests. The city had provided no institutional psychological support. Parents were paying privately for their children and themselves to receive trauma counseling. A father whose son remained enrolled at the school—the boy wanted to stay because of his friends and teacher, and because the "bad people" were finally gone—spoke of his frustration. The only meaningful contact from city leadership had come from Paris Mayor Emmanuel Grégoire, who had met with families, apologized on behalf of the city government, and acknowledged that serious crimes had occurred and that the system had failed to protect children under five. The father's son was still asking whether the "bad people" were in prison. He still feared seeing them. His parents wanted to be able to tell him yes.

We understood that the children were victims of sexual violence inside the preschool, including rapes committed by several monitors, among them this Brazilian citizen.
— Mother of a 3-year-old victim
They failed to protect the children. We trusted in a system that did not know how to protect children under five years old.
— Father of a 4-year-old victim
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Inventor

How did parents first realize something was wrong if the abuse wasn't immediately obvious?

Model

The children were trying to tell them, but in fragmented ways—complaints about anger and shouting from staff. It wasn't until the TV investigation aired in January that parents saw the evidence themselves and could connect the dots their kids had been drawing all along.

Inventor

Why wasn't C. suspended in November when the first complaints came in?

Model

That's the question that haunts this case. He was flagged by parents in November, but instead of being removed, he was transferred to another school in a different district. He kept working with young children for another month.

Inventor

What role did the female staff member play?

Model

According to the children's accounts, she worked in coordination with C.—isolating kids, participating in the abuse, sometimes documenting it. She was released but remains under judicial supervision, and families are fighting that decision.

Inventor

Are the families getting help now?

Model

Not from institutions. The city provided nothing. Parents are paying out of pocket for private psychological care for their children and themselves. One father said the only real acknowledgment came from the mayor himself, who apologized and admitted the system failed.

Inventor

What are the children saying now?

Model

They're asking if the "bad people" are in prison. They're showing signs of trauma—behavioral changes, fear. One boy wanted to stay at the school because he has friends there and trusts his teacher, but his parents plan to move him next year. The children were brave enough to speak. Now they're waiting to see if anyone will actually be held accountable.

Quer a matéria completa? Leia o original em G1 ↗
Fale Conosco FAQ