Justice was confirmed in a ruling signed by the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeal of Bahía Blanca Woman fined 20 million pesos, plus interest, for ascribing false paternity to her then-husband for decades.. The decision ratified the rulings of the Court of First Instance in the case analyzing the psychological and moral damages resulting from the false ruling regarding the paternity of twin children.
The Chamber’s ruling determined the civil liability of the defendant, who concealed for more than forty years the true biological parentage of two children born during the marriage. The court noted this Deception about parental identity has a direct impact on personal dignity and integrity.It concluded that the moral damage to the plaintiff was demonstrated by the impact on her when she learned the truth decades later.
The relationship began with marriage, and he had several children, including the twins who were registered as the husband’s children. The increasing distance between the spouses, eventual separation, and anxiety about fidelity preceded the knowledge of true filiation.
According to the decision, the plaintiff was subjected to a strong emotional impact when he confirmed that he was not the biological father of the twins after more than four decades. Scientific evidence was key After agreeing with the children on voluntary genetic evaluationwithin the framework of another reason for the challenge of filiation that was previously addressed and led to biological certainty.
The preliminary ruling obliged the accused to compensate for moral damage, and rejected the terms of psychological damage, damage to the project of life, and loss of opportunity. The judge explained that The pain caused by the heritage has transcended and affected the actor’s self-esteem, perception and relationships.. The P20 million amount was intended to generate compensation through the purchase of goods or services, such as the purchase of a new car.
The convicted woman’s defense appealed the ruling to the Chamber, arguing that the supposed “waiver” of the claim for damages, signed by the representative in the notary’s office, constituted a free and valid act, free of illegitimate grounds. He also denied that the origin of the dispute lay in the fact of birth itself, asserting that knowledge of actual paternity arose much later and depended on the voluntary decision to undergo genetic testing.
The court rejected those arguments. The decision stressed that the alleged conduct – concealing one’s true affiliation and maintaining the deception for four decades – falls within the scope of non-contractual civil liability. They stated that this behavior violates the fundamental duties of non-maleficence, good faith and protection of human dignity.
The Chamber rejected the validity of the signed agreement, which assumes that women are exempted from responsibility. The document, which was executed in the framework of the parentage challenge case, was deemed invalid because it amounted to a prior waiver of liability for non-contractual damages, which are prohibited by public order regulations.
In the filing, the defendant also attempted to relativize the plaintiff’s suffering, describing him as an absent father with his family and citing a lack of evidence of real damages. The judges ignored this account and relied on the only relevant witness who confirmed it The ex-husband did not doubt the true paternity of the children throughout their life..
The Chamber pointed out that the false situation in a family situation affects the identity and subjectivity of the parents, because filial relations concern not only the child, but also those who establish affection and ties believing that they have a genetic bond. Moral damage, according to the ruling, arises from the mere existence of continuous deception over a period of years.
Moreover, the judges ruled that the amount of compensation set in the lower court was excessive or arbitrary. They supported the criteria of the judge who assessed the seriousness of the omission, the time elapsed and the extent of the damage to the actor’s life. The amount was created as a way to restore as much of the violated personal well-being as possible.
The referee ordered that The woman pays the amount as moral compensation plus interest from the date of determining non-filiasisWhich happened in 2019 until the final payment. The costs of the appeal process fell once again to the accused, which resulted in the regulation of fees being postponed until the procedural moment.
In their ruling, the judges noted that the true identity of persons and good faith in family relations are protected under both the national constitution and currently applicable Argentine civil legislation.