interest.126 The Court finds that considerations based on stereotypes of sexual orientation, that is, preconceptions regarding the attributes, behaviors or characteristics of homosexuals or the impact these may have on children is not admissible.127 112. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that although the State provided evidence concerning the specific arguments that the father could allegedly offer better environment for his daughters during the custody proceeding, for the purposes of analyzing the suitability of the measure, the Court will only take into consideration the evidence and arguments that have been explicitly used by the Supreme Court or by the Juvenile Court of Villarica as grounds for their decisions on provisional custody (supra paras. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). 113. The Court notes that the Supreme Court of Justice mentioned four arguments directly related to Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation: i) the alleged social discrimination suffered by the three girls due to Ms. Atala’s expression of her sexual orientation128; ii) the girls’ alleged confusion regarding sexual roles as a consequence of their mother cohabiting with a partner of the same sex;129 iii) the alleged priority Ms. Atala gave to her personal life over the interests of her three daughters130, and iv) the right of the girls to live in the bosom of a family with a father and a mother131. The Supreme Court concluded that the appealed judges failed by “not having strictly evaluated in conscience the evidence in the proceeding” and by “having passed over the preferred right of the minors to live and grow within the bosom of a family that is structured normally and appreciated in the social milieu, according to the proper traditional model, and ha[d] incurred in serious fault or abuse, which must be corrected through the admission of the recurso de queja (remedy of complaint)” 132. The main grounds for the provisional custody decision were the mother’s alleged preferred interests and the argument of the girls’ right to live in a traditional family (supra para. 126 In this regard, the expert witness Jernow stated that “analysis of the child’s best interest […] cannot be based on groundless assumptions or stereotypes about parental capacity” (record of merits, volume XI, page 5069). Similarly, expert witness Wintemute stated that “discrimination based on the race, religion, sex or sexual orientation of the child´s parent is never in the best interest of the child. What is in the best interest of the child is a custody decision that considers the qualities of the two parents, without examining considerations that are irrelevant, and that are often linked to social prejudices” […]A non-discriminatory custody decision should not refer to the sexual orientation of either parent. It should focus solely on the parenting skills of each parent, what kind of home they can provide, etc. There should be no need even to mention sexual orientation” (record of merits, volume XI, pages 5355 and 5358). Similarly, at the public hearing, the expert witness García Méndez emphasized that “the sexual conduct that courts have generally taken into account in cases of this nature, are sexual conducts that refer to promiscuity, […] without any other type of consideration.” 127 On the concept of stereotypes, Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 401. 128 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2672). 129 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2672).” 130 Judgment of la Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2672). 131 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, page 2672). 132 The Supreme Court considered that the situation described constitutes an “aggravated cause” pursuant to Article 225 of the Civil Code, to justify handing over custody to the father, given that the current situation represented “a scenario that implies a risk of harm, which could become irreversible, for the interests of the minors, whose protection must override all other considerations.” Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of May 31, 2004 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, pages 2672 and 2673). 39