Buenos Aires, March 12 (NA) – The Supreme Court of Justice revoked a ruling that allowed the registration of a child with triple parentage and held that the Civil and Commercial Code sets a maximum of two filial links, so any modification must be resolved by the National Congress. The highest court set aside a ruling by the Civil Chamber that had declared unconstitutional Article 558 of the Nation's Civil and Commercial Code and enabled the minor to be registered as the child of a couple and the gestating woman. According to the ruling accessed by the Argentine News Agency, judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti considered that the current regulations establish a filiation system with a maximum limit of two parental links, without distinction based on sex or other criteria. In his vote, Rosatti pointed out that social and cultural changes have impacted family law and given rise to new legal relationships where the socio-affective factor has become relevant, but he warned that the recognition of new links goes beyond a simple registry issue and corresponds to the Legislative Branch. The magistrate also recalled that the determination of filiation in cases of assisted human reproduction techniques is regulated by Article 562 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which establishes that the child is the one who gave birth and the one who gave prior consent to the procedure. In the case of D.V.K., G.E.C., and P.A.B., they filed a lawsuit in April 2022 for the Civil Registry of the City of Buenos Aires to register the unborn child with triple parentage. The family project contemplated that the woman would gestate an embryo formed with her female gamete and the male gamete of one of the couple's members. The first-instance judge declared the unconstitutionality of Article 558 and ordered the registration of the child with one mother and two fathers, a decision later confirmed by Section E of the Civil Chamber. However, the Supreme Court revoked these rulings after the extraordinary appeals presented by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public Defense Ministry. Rosenkrantz and Lorenzetti held in a joint vote that the questioned norm is not discriminatory and that the Judicial Power cannot depart from a current law due to disagreements with its content. They also warned that lower courts confused the interests of adults with the best interests of the child and pointed out that the regulation of filiation fulfills a legal function aimed at defining parental responsibilities and their consequences. The magistrates also emphasized that limiting the number of parents seeks to avoid conflicts in decision-making regarding the child's upbringing, education, residence, or administration of assets, situations that could require judicial intervention in case of family disagreements.
