shows that not every family has a maternal or paternal figure, and this does not prevent the family from providing the necessary well-being for a child’s development. 99. In addition, this Court has established that a decision based on presumptions and stereotypes about parental capacity and aptness to be able to guarantee and promote the well-being and development of the child is not sufficient to ensure the best interests of the child.82 In addition, the Court considers that the best interests of the child cannot be used to deny the right of his or her father owing to his civil status, in favor of those who have a civil status adjusted to traditional concepts of the family. 100. The judicial decisions did not ensure the best interests of the child and the rights of the father, and were based on assertions that reveal a predetermined idea about the circumstances in which her paternity occurred, and that a single parent cannot assume responsibility for a child. d) Judicial delay as grounds for the decision 101. The Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, which decided to confirm the decision of the first instance judge on the legal guardianship, made various observations on the determinant influence that, in its opinion, time had had on the decision concerning the child’s guardianship. 102. In this regard, in one of the votes, one of its members indicated: The reason for these prolonged mounted up […], which explains decide disputes promptly so as to The delay in the proceeding […] decision that must be delivered in proceedings arises from reading all the paperwork that has the slowness of the court system, delaying their obligation to try and cause as little harm as possible to those seeking justice. is not a minor issue; evidently, it will have an impact on the this proceeding.83 103. Furthermore, another judge asserted that “the issue is decided taking into consideration the time that has elapsed from the day following her birth up until today, which makes it utterly undesirable to change the child’s situation, owing to the very damaging effects this would have on her psyche and on the development of her personality. He added that, “[e]vidently, […] if the final ruling had been made at the time of the first instance proceeding, the result would probably have been different.” The same judge indicated that “[t]he duration of this process has not been reasonable; in other words, it has not complied with [international] standards.” He added that they “were deciding a very special case on a problem that is clearly complex and with delayed contributions from the parties, officials, judges, technical personnel, experts, etc., all of this in the context of a Judiciary collapsed by the economic and political vicissitudes that affect Argentines in general and those that affect the people of Entre Ríos in particular. Despite all this, the particularities of the case should have been noted from the outset in order to abbreviate the procedures to complete it.”84 104. This Court has already determined that the guardianship proceedings violated the right of Mr. Fornerón and of his daughter to be heard within a reasonable time, established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention (supra para. 77). Over and above this, the Court observes that the delay in the proceedings and the passage of time constituted a 82 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, supra note 50, para. 111. 83 Judgment of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, supra note 38, folio 223. 84 Judgment of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, supra note 38, folios 242 and 243. 30