El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y la relevancia del vínculo genético: una revisión de la jurisprudencia sobre gestación por sustitución transfronteriza / El Tribunal Europeu de Drets Humans i la rellevància del vinclegenètic: una revisió de la jurisprudència sobre gestació per substitució transfronterera / The European Court of Human Rights and the relevance of genetic linkage: a review of the jurisprudence on cross-border surrogacy

En ausencia de instrumentos internacionales que establezcan pautas comunes sobre los acuerdos de gestación por sustitución transfronteriza, los ordenamientos que los prohíben o los consideran nulos han tenido que enfrentarse a la cuestión de sus efectos, lo que ya ha dado lugar a varios pronunciamientos del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. A partir del precedente Mennesson c. Francia(2014), el trabajo analiza las diferentes aproximaciones al fenómeno que han sido objeto de escrutinio por parte del TEDH. El trabajo presta una atención especial, por su mayor frecuencia, a los casos que tienen origen en la negativa de un estado a reconocer la filiación resultante de un acuerdo de gestación por sustitución celebrado fuera de sus fronteras y, en particular, al peso otorgado a la exigencia de vínculo genético entre el menor y al menos un progenitor de intención. Los más recientes Valdís Fjölnisdóttir y otros c. Islandia(2021) y A.M. c. Noruega(2022) evidencian quelimitar el reconocimiento de efectos de estos acuerdos a los casos en que existe dicho vínculo no es coherentecon el interés superior de los menores que resultan de los mismos, en especial cuando su adopción ya no es posible.(AU)

A manca d’instruments internacionals que estableixin pautes comunes sobre els acords de gestació per substitució transfronterera, els ordenaments que els prohibeixen o els consideren nuls s’han hagut d’enfrontar a la qüestió dels seus efectes, el que ja ha donat lloc a diversos pronunciamentsper part del Tribunal Europeu de Drets Humans. A partir del precedent Mennesson c. França (2014), el treball analitza les diferents aproximacions al fenomen que han estat objecte d’escrutini per part del TEDH. El treball posa una atenció especial, atesa la seva major freqüència, en els casos que s’originen en la negativa d’un estat a reconèixer la filiació resultant d’un acord de gestació per substitució celebrat fora de les seves fronteres i, en particular, en el pes atorgat a l’exigència de vincle genètic entre el menor i com a mínim un progenitor d’intenció. Els més recents Valdís Fjölnisdóttir i altres c. Islàndia (2021) i A.M. c. Noruega (2022) evidencien que limitar el reconeixement d’efectes d’aquests acords als casos d’existència del mencionat vincle no és coherent amb l’interès superior dels menors que en resulten, en especial quan la seva adopció ja no és possible.(AU)

In the absence of international instruments establishing common guidelines for cross-border surrogacy agreements, jurisdictions that prohibit them or consider them null and void have been confronted with the question of their effects, which has already led to several rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. Based onthe leading case Mennesson v. France (2014), this paper analyses the different approaches to the phenomenon which have been scrutinized by the ECtHR. Due to their greater frequency, the paper pays special attention to cases arising from a state’s refusal to recognize parenthood resulting froma surrogacy arrangement concluded outside its borders and, in particular, to the weight given to the requirement of a genetic link between the child and at least one intended parent. The more recent Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and other v. Iceland(2021) and A.M. v. Norway(2022) make it clear that limiting the recognition of the effects of these arrangements to cases where such a link exist is not consistent with the best interests of the resulting children, especially when adoption is no longer possible.(AU)

Riesgos psicosociales considerados por jueces de familia en decisiones sobre pérdida de patria potestad: Estudio exploratorio / Psychosocial risks considered by family judges in decisions on loss of parental authority: An exploratory study

La investigación realizada tuvo como objetivo identificar riesgos psicosociales considerados por jueces en decisiones sobre pérdida de la patria potestad. El tipo y diseño de la investigación fue cualitativo. Las fuentes de información eran dos: (1) se preseleccionaron 50 documentos judiciales en las siguientes ciudades de Colombia: Bogotá, Tunja y Duitama y (2) se hizo una entrevista grupal con ocho jueces. Los documentos fueron analizados con un protocolo y para diseñarlo, se determinaron categorías orientadas por los objetivos y sustento teórico. La entrevista consistió en un grupo focal. El audio de la entrevista se transcribió literalmente y se realizó un análisis categorial inductivo. Los hallazgos indican que en la mayor parte de casos, la causal más común corresponde al abandono. Allí se identifica más un interés por viajar con el niño fuera del país sin tener que pedir permiso al progenitor demandado. Igualmente se observa que poco se tiene en cuenta la interdisciplinariedad y el interés superior del menor dentro de las decisiones. En el momento de tomar la decisión los jueces utilizan más la lógica silogística que la realista. Empero, en la discusión generada dentro del contexto de la entrevista grupal, anteponen la experiencia profesional y posiblemente vivencias propias para describir las situaciones evaluadas (lógica realista). De la misma manera, reconocen riesgos psicosociales que no quedan expuestos en el documento judicial. Finalmente, se encuentra la necesidad de evaluar más detalladamente la historia relacional de la pareja parental, ya que suelen existir secuelas psicológicas que afectan las competencias parentales.

Suspension of custody as a right of the child may lead to psychosocial risks considered as potential dangers to the well-being of the child, his family or his community in various dimensions. It is therefore important to consider the possibility of these psychosocial risks when making these judicial decisions about the loss of parental rights. The phenomenon of psychosocial risk has been more studied in working environments and also linked to health problems. This fact assigns a new connotation to this study, since it opens the door to the interdisciplinarity from Psychology and Law, when investigating if the psychosocial risks in the judicial decisions on loss of parental authority are taken into account. The research aims to identify psychosocial risks considered by family judges in decisions about loss of custody. The type and design research is qualitative, since one of its general pretensions is the understanding. The sources of information are two. The first corresponds to 50 pre-selected court documents in the Colombian cities of Bogota, Tunja and Duitama. The other is a group interview with 8 family judges. The documents were analyzed by means of a protocol. For the design and implementation of the protocol, categories oriented by interdisciplinary research team objectives, theoretical support and expectations were made. The interview consisted of a focus group interview with family judges (four men and four women). The audio of the interview was transcribed literally and an inductive categorical analysis was made. Results of the analysis of the interview and documents were contrasted. Judicial documents reviewed show that judges use syllogistic logic when seeking to accommodate situations to the causal. Within the judicial decisions it is observed that the best interest of the minor is not privileged. The analysis of the interview in which the use of experience and intuition is observed following a realistic logic, invites us to reflect on aspects such as: the subjectivity of udges in the evaluation, the pressure they face on the number of lawsuits and the speed of judgment, and the need to revise the causal deprivation of liberty superior to one year. The judges manifest a deficit in the interdisciplinary work and the lack of more training in aspects of mental health that would make possible the use of psychological reports and the greater understanding of causes such as disability. It was possible to identify a pattern that leads to the decision of loss of custody power by abandonment (most common causal): (1) Search for legal advice. (2) To promote the notoriety of the physical and emotional distance between the defendant and the child. (3) Establish the claim. (4) Accumulate evidential evidence on the causal. (5) Obtain witnesses. In the discussion generated in the group interview, judges recognize psychosocial risks that are not exposed in the court document or sentence. Finally there is the need to assess in more detail the relational history of the parental couple, as they tend to be psychological consequences that affect parenting skills. The discussion between the researchers of Family Psychology and those of Family Law appear questions that build an interdisciplinary bridge. One limitation of the study was that it was not possible to have sufficient time and resources to conduct group and individual interviews with a greater number of family judges in other cities of the country and achieve more generalizable results. The research question on whether judges take into account the risks to make the decisions is answered that it attends to the grounds provided in the law taking the decision guided by the syllogistic logic. Causals can be equated with psychosocial risks.

[Statement by the Spanish Paediatric Association in relation to gender diversity in childhood and adolescence: Ethical and legal view from a multidisciplinary perspective]. / Posicionamiento Técnico de la Asociación Española de Pediatría en relación con la diversidad de género en la infancia y la adolescencia: mirada ética y jurídica desde una perspectiva multidisciplinar.

An ethical and legal view of gender diversity in childhood and adolescence is presented from the perspective of the best interest of the child and the principle of protection against vulnerability. The identification of gender diversity in childhood and adolescence is a process that requires support, coordination and a multidisciplinary team that improves care and helps to obtain evidence that is lacking today. Secure, equitable and comprehensive access to care and health care should be guaranteed when required. It is necessary to promote a changing of social outlook, capable of overcoming the stereotypes that lead to discrimination and increase suffering. Respect for gender diversity in childhood and adolescence is a fundamental Human Right. The recognition of a positive value in diversity is an ethical imperative. All of this, without forgetting that we are talking about minors often in contexts of vulnerability, and currently very uncertain, so prudence is the main rule that should guide decision-making.