5) Filing of remedy of complaint (recurso de queja) with the Supreme Court of Justice and granting of second injunction in favor of the father 53. On April 5, 2004, the girls’ father filed a remedy of complaint (recurso de queja) with the Supreme Court of Chile against the Judges of the Court of Appeals of Temuco and requested that the girls remain in his care on a provisional basis. The girls’ father argued that, in their decision, the judges being challenged had committed a “fault and serious and flagrant abuse” because; i) they [had] given preference to the rights of the mother over the rights of the daughters; ii) they [had] failed in their legal duty to protect the vulnerability of the girls; and iii) they [had] violated the principles governing the conscientious assessment of evidence in cases involving family matters.70 More specifically, Mr. López Allendes argued that the judges had ignored all the evidence in the case demonstrating that “open expression of lesbian behavior produced directly and immediately in M., V., and R. confusion regarding sexual roles that interfered with and will later interfere with the development of a clear and defined sexual identity.”71 The Court granted the requested injunction on April 7, 2004.72 6) Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile 54. On May 31, 2004, the Fourth Chamber of Chile’s Supreme Court of Justice, in a split three-to-two decision, admitted the complaint appeal and granted permanent custody to the father. 73 55. In the first place, the Supreme Court emphasized that “in all measures concerning [children], the best interests of children must be given priority over other considerations and rights related to their parents, in such a way that it might be necessary to separate them from their parents." The Supreme Court also noted that the first paragraph of Article 225 of the Civil Code, which provides that when parents are living separately the personal care of the children falls to the mother, is not an “absolute and final” rule. Therefore, the Court declared that “the court may entrust the personal care of the children to the other parent, terminating the custody of the parent who has it, if there is ‘justified cause’ that makes it essential to make this decision, always taking the interest of the child into account.” 56. In this context, the Court concluded that: i) “no regard was given to the testimony in either the permanent custody proceeding or the provisional custody file with respect to the deterioration of the social, family and educational environment of the girls since the mother began to cohabit with her homosexual partner, or to the possibility that the girls could be the target of social discrimination arising from this fact”; ii) “the testimony of persons close to the girls, such as the house maids, refers to games and attitudes of the girls that reflect confusion about the sexuality of the mother, which they could have perceived in the new cohabitation scheme at their home”; iii) Ms. Atala “put her own interests before those of her daughters when she chose to begin to live with a same sex partner, at the same home where she raised and cared for her daughters, separately from the girls' father" and iv) “the 70 Appeal complaint and petition for injunction filed by the Mr. López Allendes, April 5, 2004 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, pages 2652 to 2655). 71 Appeal complaint and petition for injunction filed by the Mr. López Allendes, April 5, 2004 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2654). 72 Cf. Granting of injunction by the Supreme Court of Chile, April 7, 2004 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2666). 73 Cf. Decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, appendix 22, pages 2669 to 2677). 21