that she had traveled to the city of Victoria, registered at a private health establishment, given
birth, and registered the child as her own, delivered her into the preadoptive foster care of a
married couple and stated her intentions before a legal officer. The State adds that the instructing
judge also disregarded the claim that either Leonardo Aníbal Javier Fornerón or the child Milagros
had been the victims of any criminal act.
23. The State alleges however that even though on February 5, 2001, the investigating officer
presented an appeal and the criminal court of the city of Gualeguay resolved to reject it, there is
no evidence of proceedings or attempts to dispute the judicial decision by filing an extraordinary
federal appeal, nor that Leonardo Aníbal Javier Fornerón took the proceedings of the case any
further than the mere accusation.
24. With reference to the case entitled “Enríquez Milagros s/ Legal Guardianship”, the State claims
that on August 1, 2000, the married couple who had been awarded provisional guardianship of
Milagros appeared before the judge of first instance in the civil and commercial court of the city of
Victoria to request the legal guardianship of Milagros. On October 18, 2000, Leonardo Aníbal
Javier Fornerón appealed to the same court to prevent the granting of custody and request the
return of the child to him, which he repeated on February 14, 2001, having obtained the results of
the DNA test, and again on May 7, 2001. The State claims that on May 9, 2001, the expert
psychologist presented her report and was of the opinion that it would be psychologically
damaging for the child to be moved from the couple whom she recognizes and with whom she has
built up emotional ties, to another family that she does not know. The State claims that both the
Ombudsman for Children and the Poor and the jurisdictional legal officer agreed with the opinion
of the expert psychologist that Milagros should remain in the guardianship of the couple.
25. On May 17, 2001, the judge resolved to grant guardianship to the said couple. Since Mr.
Fornerón appealed against this, the second chamber of Paraná on April 23, 2002, ordered that a
socioenvironmental study be carried out on Leonardo Aníbal Javier Fornerón, requested any
background information that might be held by the Office of the Ombudsman (
Defensoría Oficial
),
and asked for interviews to be held with the parents and guardians of the child by a technical
psychiatric and psychological team, and by members of the court, all of which, the State alleges,
was carried out.
26. The State says that in the interview carried out with the guardians of Milagros, the
professionals in charge had noted that “both are professionals, of a good social and economic
standing, with a sound family situation that would favor healthy emotional ties and a good
emotional environment which would obviously contribute positively to the child’s development.”
The team also observed that if it was decided that Milagros should be handed to her biological
father “this could cause emotional instability in the child, upset her character, and cause
intellectual impairment, in addition to the anguish caused by separating the child from those she
has come to identify as parents.” In addition, the biological father is unmarried and this would
mean the child would lose a mother.
27. The State states that although on June 10, 2003, the First Court of the Second Chamber in
Paraná resolved to revoke the judgment of the court of first instance, the guardians and the
Ombudsman for Children and the Poor both lodged appeals which were accepted on November 20,
2003, and the judgment of the court of first instance was upheld. On April 2, 2004 the civil court
of the High Court of Justice for the Province of Entre Ríos resolved to reject the extraordinary
federal appeal lodged by Mr. Fornerón. The State emphasizes that the measure used by the
petitioner was rejected by the High Court on the grounds that it did not comply with the common,
correct, and formal requirements necessary within the framework of the remedy described in
Article 14 of Law 48; specifically, that the petition was not self sufficient and did not effectively
introduce the federal question in time or form. Furthermore, the State indicates that
independently of this, the jurisdictional authority resolved that the remedy would not be lawful
because the decision that was being questioned lacked institutional importance and does not lead
5