3 because this was the appropriate body, since all the other Children and Adolescents Courts had disqualified themselves;12 i) On November 20 and 25, 2009, the Technical Team for Maintenance of Family Relationships of the Children and Adolescents Secretariat’s Adoption Center, and the “Corazones por la Infancia” Foundation, respectively, issued reports in which they indicated the pertinence of reinserting L.M. into his biological family;13 j) In view of the request by V.H.R. to revoke the provisional custody, on December 14, 2009, a hearing was held before the Third First Instance Judge for Children and Adolescents, during which V.H.R. and L.S. ratified before this judicial authority their request to assume responsibility for the child. In this procedure, the First Instance Judge ordered the intervention of the Judiciary’s Office for Maintenance of Relationships and for “social and environmental studies” to be conducted;14 k) After the hearing, L.S. asked the First Instance Judge to order the necessary measures to allow her to visit her son during the end-of-year festivities. She also stated expressly that she would not give her consent to an adoption and, as a precautionary measure, requested that L.M. be prohibited from leaving the country;15 l) On February 19, 2010, based on the petition filed by the O-A couple, proceedings to challenge paternity were initiated against V.H.R. After several judges had disqualifying themselves, the file was forwarded to the Adolescents Criminal Court on August 31, 2010;16 m) On July 2, 2010, the First Instance Judge issued a ruling in first instance revoking the custody granted to the O-A couple, and ordering the restitution of the child L.M. to V.H.R., with temporary monitoring by a social worker. In addition, a contact and visits regime was established for the child with his mother and his extended maternal family;17 n) As the State reported to the Commission, criminal proceedings were opened for abandonment and others offenses against V.H.R. and L.S., and are being processed by the Sixth Criminal Guarantee Court. Although the date when the proceedings 12 Cf. Brief of the State of Paraguay to the IACHR of September 21, 2010 (attachment 16 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission. 13 Cf. Reports of the Technical Team of the Children and Adolescents Secretariat of November 20 and 25, 2009 (attachment 8 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission), and Report of the Corazones por la Infancia Foundation of November 25, 2009 (attachment 9 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 14 Cf. Transcript of the hearing of December 14, 2009 (attachment 10 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 15 Cf. Request by L.S. to the First Instance Judge for Children and Adolescents of December 2009 - the exact date of presentation is illegible (attachment 11 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 16 Cf. Brief of the State of Paraguay to the IACHR of September 21, 2010 (attachment 16 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission); and brief of the State of Paraguay to the IACHR of October 18, 2010 (attachment 17 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission); 17 Cf. Ruling of July 2, 2010, by the Children and Adolescents Court of First Instance (attachment 4 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). In this ruling the exceptional character of a decision relating to the separation of a child from his/her biological nuclear or extended family was taken into consideration, and the priority that must be given to the biological family in this type of situation. In addition, it mentioned the existence of an extended biological family – even if the parents were sentenced and convicted in the criminal jurisdiction – as well as the Adoption Center’s favorable report on the father.