4 were initiated was not mentioned, the investigation began by a court order of July 7, 2010;18 o) On August 18, 2010, the Children and Adolescents Court of Appeal annulled the July 2, 2010, decision of the First Instance Judge. In this decision the Court of Appeal indicated that there were a number of proceedings that, in its opinion, should be conducted simultaneously, because their effects were interrelated. In addition, it mentioned that the court hearing the case could establish an interim measure regarding contact with the biological family.19 In the words of the Court of Appeal: Given that the guardians have filed an action for forfeit of parental authority against [L.S.], and to challenge the paternity of V.H.R. […] and the parents have been charged in criminal proceedings for the offenses of abandonment and violation of educational or civic obligations, [...] we cannot predict what the criminal court will decide; however, it cannot be ignored that the criminal charges, the forfeit of parental authority, and the challenge to paternity in this jurisdiction are interconnected owing to their effects and, consequently, the judgment appealed conflicts with the appropriate procedures in the three lawsuits, whose results cannot be known until there are judicial decisions accepting or rejecting the actions and, naturally, that these are final. […] The court that follows in the order of rotation is empowered to establish, according to the circumstances, some type of interim contact while the actions are being processed;20 p) On September 16, 2010, the file was sent again to the Second Court whose regular judge had been disqualified from the case. On September 20, 2010, the file was pending transfer to the Adolescents Criminal Court, which at the time of the presentation of the Commission’s request was “on a leave due to travel”;21 q) On October 8, 2010, L.S. asked the First Adolescents Criminal Court to establish contact between L.M. and his parents and maternal grandparents; to require the guardians to provide information on the child’s condition, and that the measures ordered previously of the psychological, social and environmental studies of the biological parents be conducted, to give continuity to the process of maintaining the relationship. V.H.R. made a similar request on the same date; r) On October 19, 2010, the Adolescents Criminal Court rejected these requests, and ordered that the social worker be present in the home of the O-A family to monitor the custody granted.22 The Commission indicated that, as of January 2011, this measure had not been executed; s) The decision of October 19, 2010, was appealed by L.S.,23 and is currently pending a ruling; 18 Cf. Brief of the State of Paraguay to the IACHR of October 18, 2010 (attachments 16 and 17 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 19 Cf. Decision of the Children and Adolescents Court of Appeal of August 18, 2010 (attachment 15 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 20 Cf. Decision of the Children and Adolescents Court of Appeal of August 18, 2010 (attachment 15 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 21 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). 22 Cf. Decision by the Adolescents Criminal Court of October 19, 2010 (attachment 20 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission). 23 Cf. Appeal filed by L.S. against the decision of October 19, 2010 (attachment 21 to the request for provisional measures submitted by the Commission).