3 went there with the respective birth certificates, requesting that her children be returned to her, but she was not informed of the children’s whereabouts nor was she permitted to see them. 11. The petitioners reported that the Court initiated an investigation with regard to the alleged neglect of the children only after having removed them from their domicile and that this investigation was flawed. In this regard, they stated that a report was prepared by a social worker from the Office of the Prosecutor based solely on the anonymous statements of neighbors who indicated that the mother left the children alone because she would go to work and that she did not leave them food. 12. The petitioners pointed out that the Court did not consider other offers from the children’s relatives to care for them. Among these was that of Mrs. María Escobar Carrera, the children’s maternal grandmother. On March 12, 1997, Mrs. Escobar Carrera went to the Court and requested that the children be surrendered to her. The psychological and social studies conducted by the Court stated that Mrs. Escobar had an unstable economic situation, an arrest record, and that “with regard to the maternal grandmother as a family caregiver, it should be borne in mind that an adult with homosexual preferences would be transmitting these values to the children who would be under her charge.” 13. Furthermore, on March 17, 1997, Mrs. Yesenia Edelmira Escobar Carrera de Bonilla, godmother of Jeffrey Rainiery Arias Ramírez, one of the children, appeared and requested that he be turned over to her to care for. The Court’s report had determined that in reality she was the godmother of Osmín Ricardo Tobar Ramírez, the other child, and that Osmín Ricardo had stated that he did not want to go with her. 14. With regard to the children’s mother, the Court had determined that her economic situation was precarious and the psychological report had established that her ability to assume her role as a mother was seriously compromised and that she would need medium-term psychological treatment. The petitioners alleged that the Court did not summon the children’s fathers, despite the fact that they appeared as such on the respective birth registries. Additionally, with regard to the father of Ricardo Osmín Tobar Ramírez, the petitioners have shown that on July 31, 1997, the father and Mrs. Flor de María Ramírez signed a voluntary agreement for payment of child support for their son before the First Family Court of the City of Guatemala. 15. According to the petitioners, based on the quick and flawed investigation, on August 6, 1997, the First Juvenile Court of First Instance of the Department of Guatemala declared that the children, Jeffrey Rainiery Arias Ramírez and Osmín Ricardo Amílcar Tobar Ramírez, had been abandoned and granted legal custody of the children to the “Asociación los Niños de Guatemala,” ordering the institution to include them in their adoption programs.. 16. The petitioners held that August 25, 1997, Mrs. Flor de María Ramírez filed an appeal for review of the declaration of abandonment, asserting that there was no evidence of neglect and presenting written evidence such as medical care and certificates of education. They have further held that if there had been evidence of neglect, Mrs. Flor de María Ramírez had not been given the chance to change her way of life for the good of her children. Mrs. Ramírez also requested that her children be taken from the foster care center and [she be given] permission to visit them. The petitioners added that the appeal was dismissed on September 23, 1997, because “none of the family members of these minors qualify to be their guardians…” On September 26 of that year, Mrs. Ramírez filed an appeal for reversal, which was granted due to the failure to notify the decisions of August 25 and September 23, 1997. This decision ordered all proceedings since November 25 to be invalidated, ordered that the notifications be served, and upheld the declaration of abandonment. On October 2, Mrs. Ramírez presented a brief in which she reported that she had not been notified and requested that evidence be taken for a motion to reconsider. On October 28, 1997, Mrs. Ramírez requested that the Court rule on the situation immediately. On May 4, 1998, the Second Juvenile Court of the First Instance ruled that the declaration of abandonment and the decision to deny the appeal for review were unappealable. 17. The petitioners reported that despite the existence of pending proceedings the children’s adoptions were processed by a private attorney, in representation of two families from the United States. They