protection is evident, definite and continuous, and this situation has been verified by the judicial authority. In addition, it shall not be necessary when the parents have been deprived of parental authority, or when they have legally stated their express intention of surrendering the child for adoption. […] The judge shall observe the rules contained in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) or the decision is null. 83. In this regard, the first instance judge, in application of the provisions of article 317 of the Civil Code, summoned the child’s mother who gave her consent to the guardianship. Subsequently, when he became aware of the acknowledgement of paternity, the judge summoned the biological father who expressed his opposition to the guardianship. In Argentina, the acknowledgement of paternity in the civil registry grants the father all his rights and obligations as progenitor.74 Despite Mr. Fornerón’s acknowledgement of paternity and biological confirmation by DNA testing, the first instance judge failed to order the surrender of the child to her father75 but requested an expert opinion “on the possible harm that the minor could suffer if he ordered her surrender to the biological father.” Based on this report, requested when M was nine months old, the judge justified his decision to keep the child with the guardians, considering that it was in her best interests. The legal guardianship granted to the said couple was awarded without observing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (infra para. 120) and of Argentine law,76 without the father’s consent and without the court having verified whether any of the exceptions to the requirement of prior consent established in article 317 of the Civil Code had been met (supra para. 82). 84. The decision of the Chamber that revoked the first instance ruling indicated that, in accordance with “article 317(a) of the Civil Code […], in the absence of consent and of the other negative circumstances established therein, at the present time, the request made [by Mr. Fornerón to discontinue the guardianship] would appear to be clearly admissible,” emphasizing that “the consent that Mr. Fornerón as the father must necessarily give to the guardianship for the purposes of adoption did not exist in the proceedings” (italics added). 85. The need to follow the legal procedures strictly was underlined by the Civil Chamber in one of the majority votes, which indicated that, in view of the purpose that adoption should pursue, “it must be accompanied by or consistent with the legal restrictions that this mechanism includes.” However, it indicated that the “despite the importance of the case, scrupulousness […] in the procedural aspects has not been observed,” and agreed with the Children’s Ombudsman involved in the proceedings that the provisions of provincial Law No. 8,490 had not been complied with. 86. Taking into account these considerations, among others, the Chamber revoked the first instance judge’s decision to award the legal guardianship of M to the couple B-Z. This decision was appealed by the de facto guardians and by the Children’s Ombudsman, and the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the province of Entre Ríos focused on the supposed best interests of the child, omitting any analysis of the failure to meet the legal 74 The judgment of the Chamber of Appeal established that “juridically and legally and while his paternity is not contested, this acknowledgement, of itself, granted him the status cited and all the rights and obligations that it implies and those that, until now, were not […] accorded any merit” (file of attachments to the answer, tome III, folio 3463). 75 One of the judges of the Chamber who heard the appeal filed by Mr. Fornerón stated in the judgment that the latter accepted to submit to a DNA test, “[h]owever, even though the test confirmed fully the alleged paternity […], his request was not answered favorably and, thus, the interested party could ask himself what purpose the test served” (file of attachments to the answer, tome III, folio 3463). 76 Cf. rulings of different domestic authorities (file of attachments to the answer, tome III, folios 3260, 3464, 3468, 3635 and 3636). 26