[ad_1]
Ignacio Santalla and Leonardo Polti were the protagonists of the first case of surrogacy done entirely in the country. His son Juan Pablo was born in June 2015, but the couple still can not share the paternity of this baby that they had together thanks to a borrowed belly because the righteousness does not recognize one of them as a procreating father. Finally, as a last option, they want the Supreme Court to handle the case.
What happened today? We tell you the most important news of the day and what will happen tomorrow when you get up
Monday to Friday afternoon.
After badyzing for four years different alternatives to be parents (like to adopt in the country or abroad, or rent a belly in the United States or India), a friend of the couple finally came volunteer to make the embryo's gesture. , which included a given egg.
Judge Mirta Agüero of the capital's Family Court 81 had initially authorized a new birth certificate stating that the boy was son of two parents. But then, Room E of the House rejected this opinion and gave rise to the appeal of a prosecutor, who recognizes Santalla as father and the woman who lent the uterus as a mother .
The judges, in their decision, rely on the fact that Juan Pablo, three years old, was born before the entry into force of the new Civil Code, which allows procreative parents to register their children, born in a loaned uterus, in the Registry of Civil Status, without judicial authorization.
The couple with Juan Pablo, when they explained their case, in 2015 (File Clarín)
This brought the case of Juan Pablo to enter a gray area in the legal framework, since it was born under the old code, which allowed the prosecutor and the domestic to reject the application of double fatherhood.
Due to this legal vacuum, the Chamber asks an integrative adoption, which means that Leonardo would be only the adoptive father, to which both are opposed.
After the failure of the room, the couple proposed bring the case to the Supreme Court. Last Friday, they lodged a complaint with the Court because, they said, the House had rejected the possibility of appealing this case.
.
[ad_2]
Source link