Title:
Flavio Ugenin Hernández Márquez y otro con Junta Nacional de Jardines Infantiles
Court:
Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas
Date:
22 December 2014
CRC Provisions:
Preamble
Article 2: Non-discrimination
Article 3: Best interests of the child
Article 5: Parental guidance and the child’s evolving capacities
Article 14: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 16: Protection of privacy
Other International Provisions:
Inter-American Convention on Conflict of Laws Concerning the Adoption of Minors
Domestic Provisions:
Constitution, Articles 1, 6, 7, 19, 20
Civil Code, Article 225
Case Summary:
Background:
The case was brought by Flavio Ugenin Hernández Márquez and Pedro Carvajal Báez, both members of the Fraternity of Evangelical Pastors of the Magallanes region in Chile, against the National Board of Kindergartens, represented by CEO Desirée Lopez de Maturana. The petitioners sought an order from the court banning a book entitled “Nicolas Has Two Dads” (“Nicolás tiene dos papás”) presenting same-sex parenting to children in kindergarten. The challenge alleged that the distribution of the book violated the rights of children and parents to freedom of conscience under the Chilean Constitution as well as children’s right to mental integrity and the right of parents to educate their children.
Issue and resolution:
Best interests of the child; definition of a family; non-discrimination. Whether the publication of the book “Nicolas Has Two Dads” violated the family image depicted by the Chilean Constitution and the CRC and the best interests of the child. The court refused to give an order to ban the distribution of the book, rejected the appeal, and held that there is no set definition of a family in the Constitution, and that the CRC accepts the existence of a variety of family types in order to promote the best interests of the child.
Court reasoning:
The Court discussed whether the rights of the child are violated if he or she is raised by two fathers or two mothers. The judges came to the conclusion that the Constitution does not define one specific family constellation and that Article 5 of the CRC at the same time does not exclude homosexual parents from its definition of a family.
The Court argued that “the Constitution of the Republic, has not defined the concept of family, let alone has limited it to one particular modality”. Citing General Comment 14 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the rights of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, the Court held “that the term family should be interpreted broadly to include biological parents, adoptive or foster parents, or, where appropriate, members of the extended family or the wider community”. According to the interpretation of the Court, the Convention on the Rights of the Child “conceives the existence of a variety of (family) modalities without direct reference to parents, male and female, father or mother” .
Similarly, the Court rejected the argument of the petitioners that gay or lesbian parents might violate the moral development of children and thereby violate the CRC. The Court instead reasoned that “a morale of the sort which the appellants are interested in, which excludes as incorrect a formation of a family with two men who assume the overall parental function derived from one of the two of them, cannot be based without objection on the Convention”.
The Court underlined that according to Article 2 of the CRC all forms of discrimination have to be opposed, including discrimination based on sexual orientation. The judges further acknowledged that the National Board of Kindergartens has the authority and duty to distribute any reading materials it deems appropriate for the positive and comprehensive education of children and to promote education in areas such as non-discrimination and diversity.
Excerpts citing CRC and other relevant human rights instruments:
As in full-text Spanish decision:
En efecto, la misma Convención de derechos del niño, sobre el concepto de “familia”, al cual recurre reiteradamente, entrega una noción con elementos generales, “es la unidad fundamental de la sociedad y el medio natural para el crecimiento y el bienestar de sus miembros, en particular de los niños (preámbulo de la Convención). El derecho del niño a la vida familiar está protegido por la Convención (art. 16). El término “familia” debe interpretarse en un sentido amplio que incluya a los padres biológicos, adoptivos o de acogida o, en su caso, a los miembros de la familia ampliada o la comunidad según establezca la costumbre local (art. 5).” [Comité de derechos del Niño. Observación general N° 14, sobre el derecho del niño a que su interés superior sea una consideración primordial (artículo 3, párrafo 1). Observación 59.]
Se reconoce en la CDN, diversas formas de vinculaciones, que tienen como trasfondo el desarrollo del niño en un medio que reúna las condiciones básicas de una familia, ocuparse de su cuidado, bienestar, educación, en un marco protector, respetuoso de sus derechos y que le brinde afecto y seguridad, donde pueda cumplirse el objetivo del artículo 5, su desarrollo, en el sentido de evolución progresiva en orden al ejercicio de sus derechos, que a su vez es la responsabilidad de los padres u otras figuras claves, que portan la carga de guiarlo y orientarlo en esa dirección. El mismo artículo alude a los padres, o, en su caso, a los miembros de la familia ampliada o de la comunidad, según establezca la costumbre local, de los tutores u otras personas encargadas legalmente del niño. [Comité de derechos del Niño. Observación general N° 14, sobre el derecho del niño a que su interés superior sea una consideración primordial (artículo 3, párrafo 1). Observación 71.]
[…] que, la libertad que la CDN prevé para el niño, en lo confrontado en autos, en el artículo 14, es su derecho a libertad de pensamiento, de conciencia y de religión, cuya guía, de igual modo que en el artículo 5, está radicada en los padres, o en su caso en los representantes legales. Reconoce como límite, solo lo prescrito en la ley, que sea necesario para proteger la seguridad, el orden, la moral o la salud públicos o los derechos y libertades fundamentales de los demás.
La moral, en el sentido que interesa a los recurrentes, excluyente por incorrecta de una formación familiar con dos referentes hombres, que asumen en conjunto, la función parental que corresponde a uno de ellos, no es una idea que pueda entenderse, sin más, representada en la Convención.
[…] que, por el contrario, el acento está en la premisa del preámbulo de la CDN: “Considerando que, de conformidad con los principios proclamados en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, la libertad, la justicia y la paz en el mundo, se basan en el reconocimiento de la dignidad intrínseca y de los derechos iguales e inalienables de todos los miembros de la familia humana.”
A la vez que el principio de no discriminación tiene su base en la prohibición de exclusión de ninguno de la especie en razón de cualquier condición, entre otras, sexo u opinión de alguna índole. En el artículo 2 de la Convención figuran diversos motivos con respecto a los cuales está prohibido discriminar, en particular la raza, el color, el sexo, el idioma, la religión, la opinión policía o de otro tipo, el origen nacional, étnico o social, la posición económica, los impedimentos físicos, el nacimiento o cualquier otra condición del niño, de sus padres o de sus representantes legales. Al respecto cabe mencionar también la oriental sexual, la identidad de género y al estado de salud, en particular el VIH/SIDA y la salud mental. También hay que prestar atención a cualquier otra forma de discriminación que mine la salud del niño y hacer frente a los múltiples tipos de discriminación.”
[…] que, es factible concluir, que la moral de la que está tratando la Convención, no tiene una acepción que permita excluir una opción de vida en familia, homoparental. De ello se sigue, que la Junta nacional de jardines infantiles, al proceder como lo ha hecho, ha actuado dentro de sus prerrogativas y en forma legítima, con las responsabilidades consiguientes a una actuación de organismo estatal.
Por lo demás, la recurrida, así como los municipios, disponen igualmente de las facultades para distribuir o no en los establecimientos educacionales, las lecturas que estimen adecuadas y positivas en el marco de la formación y educación de los menores, sobre cuya educación han de velar, con el fin de instar por un desarrollo integral, normal y completo de los niños, fomentando su educación en materias como la no discriminación y apoyo a la diversidad, siempre en el entendido que no ha de tratarse de literatura perniciosa, sugestiva, cuestionable, o valóricamente dirigida, que pueda afectar negativamente el desarrollo de los menores, teniendo presente su interés superior, de acuerdo al artículo 3 Nº 1 de la Convención de Derechos del Niño.
CRIN English translation:
Indeed, the same Convention on the Rights of the Child, delivers a general notion on the concept of “family”, on which it draws repeatedly, stating that “it is the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of its members, in particular children (preamble of the Convention). The child’s right to family life is protected by the Convention (Art. 16). The term “family” should be interpreted broadly to include biological parents, adoptive or foster parents or, where appropriate, members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom (Art. 5).” [Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 14 on the rights of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (Article 3, paragraph 1), para. 59.]
It is recognised in the CRC that various forms of contacts can meet the objective of Article 5 and shape a child’s development in a way that meets the basic conditions of a family in charge of the child’s care, welfare, education, and provides a protective framework that respects a child’s rights and that provides affection and security. It is the responsibility of the parents or other key figures to guide the child and ensure that his or her evolving capacities are taken into account and that he or she can exercise his or her rights. The same article refers to the parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, as legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child. [Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment 14 on the rights of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (Article 3, paragraph 1), para. 71.]
[…] the freedoms which the CRC guaranteed to children, as has been argued, can for example be found in Article 14 which sets out the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which parents, or possibly in legal representatives, are tasked to provide the child guidance with. The same applies to Article 5. The only limits to this freedom which are recognised are any legal requirements which are necessary to protect public safety, order, morality or public health or the rights and freedoms of others.
A morale of the sort which the appellants are interested in, which excludes as incorrect a family modality with two men who assume the overall parental function derived from one of the two of them, cannot be based without objection on the Convention.
[…] on the contrary, the emphasis of the preamble of the CRC is this: “Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
In the same way, the principle of non-discrimination is based on the prohibition that any person be excluded on account of any condition, such as his or her gender or opinion. Article 2 of the Convention contains a variety of reasons with respect to which discrimination is prohibited, including race, color, sex, language, religion, political opinion or other, national, ethnic or social origin, economic status, disability, birth or any other status of the child, his or her parents or legal representatives. Sexual orientation, gender identity and the state of one’s health, particularly HIV and AIDS and mental health, should also be mentioned in this respect. We must also pay attention to any other form of discrimination that undermines the health of children and oppose all forms of discrimination.
[…] it is feasible to conclude that the morale of the Convention is that it does not permit the exclusion of any type of family life, including same-sex parents. From this it follows that the National Board of Kindergartens has acted within its powers and legitimately, and within its administrative responsibilities.
Moreover, the respondent as well as the municipalities also have the authority to distribute any reading material they deem appropriate for positive training and education of children in educational establishments. The must ensure comprehensive education in order to achieve normal and full development of children, to promote their education in areas such as non-discrimination and support for diversity. They must always ensure that literature is not pernicious, suggestive, questionable or directed by certain values which may adversely affect the development of children, taking into account their best interests, according to Article 3 No. 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Notes:
Further background information on the case is available here via the NGO Movement for Integration and Homosexual Freedom (Movilh). The book was produced by Movilh, funded by the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands and inter alia sponsored by the University of Chile.
For more information on children’s right to freedom of expression and access to information, including a selection of case law, please see CRIN’s campaign ‘Protect children, end censorship’.
Follow Up:
The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 21 April 2015. Movilh hailed the ruling, noting that this is the first time that the highest court in the country has decided in favour of sexual diversity.
Across Chile, eleven challenges overall have been filed against the release of the book: five were declared inadmissible and six were admitted by the courts. Of these, four were rejected in different regional appeals courts. A fifth appeal was rejected by the Constitutional Court and is now also in front of the Supreme Court.
CRIN Comments:
CRIN believes that this decision is consistent with the CRC. As recognised by the Court, it is the State’s obligation to protect children from any form of discrimination, and to ensure all actions concerning the child take full account of his or her best interests. This decision properly found the CRC does not limit the definition of family to a traditional family constellation, but that the State must instead respect the rights and responsibilities of all parents as well as the extended family to provide guidance for the child which is appropriate to her or his evolving capacities.
Citation:
Causa nº 435/2014 (Proteccion), Resolución nº 15475, de Corte de Apelaciones de Punta Arenas, de 22 de Diciembre de 2014
Link to Full Judgment:
http://www.movilh.cl/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/fallofamiliashomoparentales.pdf
This case summary is provided by the Child Rights Information Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.