2 ordered a search for the next of kin of L.M. and, on August 10, 2009, granted provisional custody of the child to the B.I.5 family. The B.I. family was appointed the “foster family,”6 “as an essentially precautionary measure” until his legal situation was defined, and after the Adoption Center had proposed the family owing to its previous experience in this role;7 c) On September 17, 2009, the married couple composed of E.A.P. (who is a judge of the Republic among other activities) and O.O.Z - who were taking steps to adopt a child – asked for provisional custody of L.M. d) On November 10, 2009, after a “social and environmental study” of the O-A family had been conducted, a judicial ruling was issued revoking the provisional custody exercised by the B.I. family, and granting custody to the O-A family. The same ruling ordered that L.M. be registered in the Registry Office;8 e) On November 12, 2009, the same day that the child was given to the O-A family, the Adoption Center attached to the Children and Adolescents Secretariat reported that it had found the child’s biological parents, and indicated, inter alia, the following: […] understanding that the child has not yet been transferred, that the biological parents have been found, and that the possibility of reinsertion exists, we believe that, at this time, it would not be appropriate to transfer the child from a foster family to a family that intends to adopt;9 f) On November 16, 2009, L.S. and V.H.R. registered L.M. as their son in the Civil Registry Directorate General;10 g) On November 18, 2009, V.H.R. appeared before the court, presented the registration he had filed, and expressed his intention of assuming responsibility for L.M., explaining that he had been unaware of the situation and requesting that the child to be handed over to him. Specifically, he asked that the provisional custody granted to the O-A family be revoked;11 h) On November 19, 2009, in a petition filed by the couple O-A, a proceeding for forfeit of parental authority (patria potestad) was initiated against L.S. Regarding this proceeding, the State indicated that “all of the files from the Children and Adolescents Jurisdiction were sent to the Second Criminal Court for Adolescents, 5 Cf. Decision of August 10, 2009 of the Children and Adolescents Court of First Instance (attachment 3 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 6 The information available indicates that this expression differs from that of “adoptive family” in that the former seeks to protect the child while his or her situation is being resolved, while the latter is of a definitive nature. 7 Cf. Decision of the Children and Adolescents Court of First Instance of August 10, 2009 (attachment 3 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission) and decision of the Children and Adolescents Court of First Instance of July 2, 2010 (attachment 4 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 8 Cf. Decision of November 10, 2009 (attachment 5 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 9 Report of the Adoption Center of November 12, 2009 (attachment 6 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 10 11 Cf. Birth certificate (attachment 1 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission. Cf. Brief of V.H.R. of November 18, 2009 (attachment 7 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission).