home is harmful to the well-being of the girls.” The Judge pointed out that it had been established that homosexuality was not considered pathological conduct and that the respondent showed no “contraindication from a psychological perspective that would make her unfit to carry out her maternal role.” 45. In evaluating Ms. Atala’s alleged incapacity to be a mother, because of her acknowledged status as a lesbian and because she was living with a partner of the same sex, the court considered a series of reports from organizations such as the Pan American Health Organization, the Psychology Department of the University of Chile, and the School of Education of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, indicating that: i) “homosexuality is a normal behavior and is not a manifestation of a pathological conduct” and ii) “the ability to love children, care for them, protect them, respect their rights, and promote their life choices […], is unrelated to the sexual identity or choices of the parents” 62. The court also considered psychological reports on the minors and psychological reports on the respondent and the petitioner, concluding that “the presence of the mother’s partner in the home [where] the girls live[d] with their mother [was] not an impediment for the mother to assume the personal care of the minors [and that] no concrete evidence ha[d] shown that the presence of the mother’s partner in the home is harmful to the well-being of the girls.” 46. Regarding the quality of care that Ms. Atala provided for her daughters, the court considered a report issued by a nurse at Villarrica Hospital and educational reports, and indicated that this evidence “demonstrates the mother’s constant concern for the health and education of her daughters and, consequently, it is established that the respondent has provided for the upbringing, personal care and education of her daughters." The court also indicated that although the complaint stated that the girls had been subject to mistreatment by Ms. Atala, “it never describes concrete acts, and whether such acts amounted to physical or mental mistreatment.” In addition, it declared that the court believed that there was no evidence that would “lend credence to any type of mistreatment of the girls” by their mother. 47. On the petitioner’s argument regarding the girls’ risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, the judge considered medical certificates of Ms. Atala and her partner confirming that there is no evidence of such diseases. On the moral danger the minors allegedly faced, the trial court considered a social report on the respondent demonstrating a harmonious family environment, “with clear rules and limits and a family routine that operates appropriately with the supervision of the mother, who in the context of a satisfactory partnership relationship, is seen as being in harmony with her environment and concerned with and close to her daughters.” In addition, the court referred to the conclusion of the report from the Psychology Department of the University of Chile asserting that “the sexual orientation of the mother does not constitute a danger to the morality of the minors because, as already indicated, as it is a normal condition or form of human sexuality it is not subject to an ethical or moral judgment but rather may only be considered a person’s physical condition, and not in itself subject to a value judgment.” 48. Regarding the potential discrimination that the girls might be subjected to and that was mentioned by relatives and witnesses for the petitioner, the Acting Judge also concluded that “the minors have not been subjected to any discrimination to date and what the witnesses and relatives of the petitioner indicate is a fear of possible future discrimination.” On this point, the court considered that it should “base [its] decision on definite and proven facts in the case and not on mere suppositions or fears.” 62 Decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica, October 29 2003 (record of appendices to the petition, volume V, pages 2591, 2594 and 2595). 19