108. The general purpose of protecting the child’s best interest is, in itself, a legitimate aim and is also an imperative. Accordingly, the Court reiterates that the regulating principle regarding children’s rights is based on the very dignity of the human being, on the characteristics of children themselves, and on the need to foster their development, making full use of their potential122. Likewise, it should be noted that the preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that children require “special care” and Article 19 of the American Convention states that they must receive “special measures of protection.” 123 109. Similarly, the Court finds that the determination of the child’s best interest in cases involving the care and custody of minors must be based on an assessment of specific parental behaviors and their negative impact on the well-being and development of the child, or of any real and proven damage or risks to the child’s well-being and not those that are speculative or imaginary. Therefore, speculations, assumptions, stereotypes, or generalized considerations regarding the parents’ personal characteristics or cultural preferences regarding the family’s traditional concepts are not admissible.124 110. In conclusion, the Inter-American Court notes that, “the child’s best interest” being considered as a legitimate goal, in abstract terms, the mere reference to this purpose, without specific proof of the risks or damage to the girls that could result from the mother���s sexual orientation, cannot serve as a suitable measure to restrict a protected right, such as the right to exercise all human rights without discrimination based on the person’s sexual orientation.125 The child’s best interest cannot be used to justify discrimination against the parents based on their sexual orientation. Therefore, the judge cannot take this social condition into consideration as an element in a custody ruling. 111. A determination based on unfounded and stereotyped assumptions about the parent’s capacity and suitability to ensure and promote the child’s well-being and development is not sufficient to guarantee the legitimate goal of protecting the child’s best 122 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 56. In similar vein, see: Preamble of the American Convention. 123 Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, supra note 122, para. 60. 124 Cf., inter alia, in Australia: In the Marriage of C. and J.A. Doyle, (1992) 15 Fam. L.R. 274, 274, 277 (The parent's lifestyle is of no relevance without a consideration of its consequences on the child's well-being); in the Philippines: Supreme Court of the Philippines, Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto v. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto, G.R. No. 156254 of June 28, 2005, stating that sexual preference of itself is not a sign of parental incompetence to exercise the custody of minors (“sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect or incompetence. [...] To deprive the wife of custody, the husband must clearly establish that her moral lapses have had an adverse effect on the welfare of the child or have distracted the offending spouse from exercising proper parental care”); in South Africa: Constitutional Court of South Africa, Du Toit and Another v Minister of Welfare and Population Development and Others (CCT40/01) [2002] ZACC 20; 2002 (10) BCLR 1006; 2003 (2) SA 198 (CC) (10 September 2002), permitting the adoption of minors by same-sex couples, considering that it will not affect the child’s best interest, and Constitutional Court of South Africa, J and Another v Director General, Department of Home Affairs and Others (CCT46/02) [2003] ZACC 3; 2003 (5) BCLR 463; 2003 (5) SA 621 (CC) (28 March 2003). 125 In similar vein, in a case on the withdrawal of the custody of a minor based on the mother’s religious beliefs, the European Court of Human Rights criticized the lack of specific and direct evidence proving the impact the religious beliefs had on the upbringing and the daily life of the children, for which reason it considered that the domestic court had issued a judgment in abstract, and based on general considerations, without establishing a relationship between the children’s lifestyle and the mother’s. The Court stated that “Although relevant, that reasoning was not in the Court's view sufficient. 43. In those circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that there was a reasonably proportionate relationship between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued. ECHR, Case of Palau-Martínez v. France, (No. 64927/01), Judgment of December 16, 2003. Final, March 16, 2004, paras. 42-43. 38