their possessions, and is becoming used to a precarious relationship and situation from which she will be taken […] to experience a new situation. But this reality will be increasingly painful, difficult and traumatic for [M] the longer it takes to return her.”32 33. On May 17, 2001, the first instance judge granted legal guardianship of the child to the couple B-Z for one year. In the judgment, he considered that: (a) the inexistence of a “formal relationship of more than 12 months” between Mr. Fornerón and Ms. Enríquez, the fact that the child “was not the result of love” or “the desire to form a family,” and the existence of the strong opposition of the biological mother to the possible surrender of the child to her father, are circumstances that “reveal[ed] a real conflict” between the child’s parents and “the absence of a biological family”; (b) Mr. Fornerón had not shown any type of interest or collaboration with the mother before the child’s birth, or filed any legal motion to safeguard his relationship with the child; (c) the length of time between the birth of the child or her acknowledgement and his appearance in the case to claim the surrender of M was excessive; (d) if the child were to be surrendered to her biological father, she would not have a biological family, or the presence of a mother, and (e) although he took into account the rights of the father, the best interest of the child was the most important factor and, in the expert’s opinion, she would suffer irreparable harm if she was transferred to Mr. Fornerón. He concluded that “if the biological father agrees to it, in the future […] a visiting regime could be established so that he maintains contact with the child.”33 34. On June 4, 2001, Mr. Fornerón and his lawyer filed an appeal against this judgment,34 indicating, inter alia, that: (a) Ms. Enríquez had never provided evidence to the case file about the identity of the father; consequently, if it were not for his “determination to know the truth […] and the decision to acknowledge his daughter […] extrajudicially, he would never have found out about his paternity”; (b) the first instance judge did not order the necessary evidence and did not summon Mr. Fornerón; (c) the search, the acknowledgement, and the filing of a case before the court demanding the suspension of the guardianship are indicative of his concern to have, to take care of, to educate and to live with his daughter, so that the judge cannot affirm the father’s lack of interest; (d) the judge supposes that it will be more beneficial for M to grow up with the couple than with the presence of her father, thus prejudging and underestimating the position of Mr. Fornerón, who unmarried, but with the full support of his family, claims his daughter; (e) considering that the absence of a family is an impediment to taking care of a child, or invoking the difference between “constituted family” and biological father is contrary, among other norms, to the national law on adoption and guardianship, as well as to the American Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and (f) in addition, the judge has not complied with the legal principle that require the father’s consent to an adoption, because Mr. Fornerón “unequivocally expressed his decision not to grant guardianship of his daughter.” 35. On June 10, 2003, the First Court of the Second Chamber of Paraná (hereinafter also “the Chamber”), having taken various measures, 35 revoked the first instance judgment, 32 Cf. Judgment of the first instance judge of May 17, 2001, supra note 31, folios 15 and 16; brief of Mr. Fornerón of May 7, 2001, and psychological report of May 9, 2001 (file of attachments to the answer, tome III, folios 3192 and 3198). 33 Cf. Judgment of the first instance judge of May 17, 2001, supra note 31, folios 16 to 20. 34 Cf. Appeal filed by Mr. Fornerón on June 4, 2001 (file of attachments to the answer, tome III, folios 3220 to 3234). 35 The following measures were taken, among other: (a) on August 14 and 15, 2002, the inter-disciplinary team interviewed the couple B-Z, Mr. Fornerón and Ms. Enríquez, and on August 16, 2002, the report of the interdisciplinary team that had been appointed was sent to the court; (b) a socio-environmental report was prepared on Mr. Fornerón, which was submitted to the Court on September 8, 2002; (c) on February 14, 2003, a hearing was 12