respect to this point it should be mentioned that this court must base its decision on definite and proven facts in the case and not on mere assumptions or fears … 8. 18. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the girls to return to the care of their mother on December 18, 2003. In the interim, however, on November 11, 2003, the father of the children appealed the judgment and sued for an injunction to prevent their removal (orden de no innovar), arguing that to implement the judgment would entail a radical and violent change in the current situation of the girls. On November 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals granted the injunction. On March 30, 2004, the Court of Appeals in Temuco unanimously upheld the appealed judgment and agreed with the reasoning of the judge of first instance. 19. On April 5, 2004, the father of the girls presented a disciplinary action (recurso de queja) against the judges of the Court of Appeals in Temuco before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that with the appealed judgment the judges had committed a fault and a clear and serious abuse. The father of the girls specifically argued that the decision of the mother to make her sexual orientation public was harmful to the girls' development both mentally and overall, as well as to their social relations. He, therefore, requested that the girls provisionally remain in his care. That request was granted by the Court, which issued an injunction to prevent their removal on April 7, 2004. 20. On May 31, 2004, the Fourth Chamber of the Supreme Court, in a split decision of three votes to two, admitted the disciplinary action and awarded permanent custody to the father. The petitioners say that the judgment of the Supreme Court determined that Ms. Atala had put her interests before those of her daughters when she made the decision to be open about her homosexuality and began to live with a same-sex partner, and that in its decision the Court gave consideration to testimonies that suggested that the girls could become confused about their sexual roles and become the object of social discrimination in the future. The petitioners claim that the judgment of the Court expresses that: In the trial over the custody of the López Atala minors opinions were accepted from different psychologists and social workers indicating that the homosexuality of the mother would not violate the rights of her daughters, nor make her unfit to exercise her rights as their mother, since she is a normal person from a psychological and psychiatric perspective. On the other hand, 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, given that visits by their friends to the shared home have dwindled almost to nothing from one year to the next. For its part, the testimony of persons close to the girls, such as the house maids, refer 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. 9 Apart from the effects that that cohabitation could have on the wellbeing and psychological and emotional development of the daughters, given their ages, the potential confusion over sexual roles that could be caused in them by the absence from the home of a male father and his replacement by another person of the female gender poses a risk to the integral development of the children from which they must be protected. 10 8 Judgment of Viviana Cárdenas Beltrán, Acting Judge of the Court of First Instance in Villarica, October 29, 2003, presented by the petitioners in a communication of November 24, 2004. 9 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004, par. 15, submitted by the petitioners in their communication of November 24, 2004. 10 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, May 31, 2004, par. 17, submitted by the petitioners in their communication of November 24, 2004. 5