Skip to content

P. B., E. G. c/ B., K. E. s/ Medidas Precautorias (CSJN, 7 October 2021, CSJ 1813/2018/RH1) — and the Suprema Corte de Buenos Aires follow-up sentence of 9 August 2024 (C. 121.539)

Court: - Federal apex layer: Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (CSJN) — Supreme Court of Justice of the (Argentine) Nation - Provincial layer that followed: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (SCBA) — Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires

Date: - CSJN sentencia: 7 October 2021 (cited in the CSJN's records as 7-X-2021) - SCBA sentencia (giving effect to the CSJN ruling): 9 August 2024, with vote dates 2 August 2024 (Kogan, Torres) and 8 August 2024 (Violini, Mancini)

Judge(s): - CSJN (2021) — composition of the Pleno at the date of sentence: Carlos Fernando Rosenkrantz (Presidente), Elena I. Highton de Nolasco, Juan Carlos Maqueda, Ricardo Luis Lorenzetti, Horacio Daniel Rosatti. (The specific composition that signed the 7 October 2021 sentencia in this queja is not publicly confirmed at the level of the publicly indexed extracts available outside the CSJN's internal expediente — the full signed text would be retrievable from the CSJN's expediente system under CSJ 1813/2018/RH1.) - SCBA (2024) — Dra. Hilda Kogan (ponente / opening vote), Dr. Sergio Gabriel Torres, Dr. Víctor Horacio Violini, Dr. Fernando Luis María Mancini Hebeca. Actuario: Dr. Carlos Enrique Camps.

Reported at: - SAIJ official jurisprudence index for CSJN sentence: https://www.saij.gob.ar/FA24010044 (cataloguing the SCBA 2024 follow-up that gives effect to the CSJN 7-X-2021 ruling) - CSJN expediente reference: CSJ 1813/2018/RH1, recurso de hecho deducido por el progenitor contra la decisión de la Suprema Corte de la Provincia de Buenos Aires - SCBA sentencia (full text, 9 August 2024, C. 121.539): mirrored at https://asapmi.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PBEG-c-BK-E-Medidas-precautorias.pdf (ASAPMI — Asociación Argentina de Prevención del Maltrato Infanto-Juvenil) - Practitioner commentary repository: https://colectivoderechofamilia.com/csjn-medidas-precautorias-interes-superior-del-nino-07-10-21/ - Mizrahi commentary anchoring the doctrinal weight of the case: Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, "Un leading case: plena admisión de la alienación parental por la justicia nacional", La Ley, 12/4/2022, p. 8 (TR La Ley AR/DOC/1227/2022); and Mizrahi, "Nuevos fallos que reconocen la alienación parental como disfunción familiar" (2024): https://alienacionparental.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NUEVOS-FALLOS-QUE-RECONOCEN-LA-ALIENACION-PARENTAL.pdf

Parties

  • Demandante (claimant) at the start of the chain: P. B., E. G. — the father of three children (F., M., and a second F.), the parties anonymised in the customary Argentine family-court manner.
  • Demandada (respondent): B., K. E. — the mother of the same three children.
  • Children: F. (the eldest — turned 18 on 22 June 2021, so an adult by the date of the CSJN sentence), M. and F. (the second F., still minors at the date of the SCBA sentencia of 9 August 2024).
  • State/judicial participants:
  • Procurador General de la Nación / Procurador General ante la SCBA (issuing dictamen, fs. 1.026/1.037 of the SCBA file).
  • Cuerpo de Peritos y Consultores Técnicos de la Defensoría General de la Nación — in particular Lic. Siderakis, whose pericia is cited in the SCBA's reasoning on revinculación.
  • Equipo técnico auxiliar of the Provincia de Buenos Aires courts — Lic. Varela and Lic. Scoglia (fs. 69 vta.), whose conclusion is quoted by the SCBA: "Sin perjuicio de su residencia definitiva se entiende conveniente el inicio de una revinculación progresiva con la progenitora, la que debería respetar los tiempos y necesidades específicas de los niños."
  • Señora Asesora de Incapaces (intervening on behalf of the minors).
  • Abogado del niño: Dr. Daniel Marcos Martínez (originally designated for the eldest child F., later revoked when F. attained majority).
  • Jurisdictional path: Juzgado Nacional en lo Civil n° 56 (initial competition resolved by prevención in favour of the provincial court) → Juzgado de Familia n° 1 del Departamento Judicial de Zárate-Campana (Pcia. de Buenos Aires) → Cámara de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial de Zárate-Campana → SCBA → CSJN (7-X-2021) → return to SCBA (sentencia of 9-VIII-2024) → re-execution at first instance.

Background

The case has its origins in a divorce settlement (acuerdo homologado) entered into by P. B. and B. that fixed paternofilial communication arrangements and located the children's habitual residence in Campana, Provincia de Buenos Aires, with the mother. The eldest child was 8, the middle child 4, and the youngest 3 at the time of the original agreement.

On 12 October 2015, the father removed the three children from the mother's home and retained them at his residence in the Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (CABA). The mother sought their immediate return; the father in turn denied her requests and denounced intra-family violence by the mother against the children. He also moved to have the case heard in CABA on the ground that the children's habitual residence had moved.

The Juzgado de Familia n° 1 of Zárate-Campana rejected the change-of-jurisdiction argument, holding that the modification of the children's habitual residence had been unilateral. It ordered immediate return to the mother and required both parents and children to undergo therapeutic work. An attempt to give effect to the return order on 27 January 2016 failed when the children had "una crisis de nervios y llantos" ("a crisis of nerves and weeping") and screamed that they wanted to remain at their father's home (fs. 315/316 of the SCBA file).

The Cámara de Apelación de Zárate-Campana confirmed the first-instance orders by sentence of 17 December 2016. The father lodged a recurso extraordinario de inaplicabilidad de ley with the SCBA on 13 February 2017.

The provincial route ran out: the SCBA at first instance left the appellate decision in place, and the father then deduced a recurso de queja to the CSJN. The CSJN's sentence of 7 October 2021 (CSJ 1813/2018/RH1) addressed the revinculación question and, in the considerandos, accepted the pericial evidence in the file — among which was the formulation, recorded in the CSJN's own reasoning, that the children's rejection of the mother "pudo haberse originado en la alienación con el discurso paterno ayudado por la posición de la madre" ("could have originated in the alienation with the paternal discourse, aided by the mother's position"). That is the load-bearing federal recognition: the highest court in Argentina expressly framed the case in the language of alienación.

Following the CSJN's 7-X-2021 ruling, the matter returned to the SCBA for re-determination of the revinculación and residence questions. On 9 August 2024, the SCBA (Kogan ponente, votes by Torres, Violini and Mancini) handed down sentencia in C. 121.539, giving effect to the CSJN's ruling and producing the present operative order.

Key facts

  • Pre-litigation period: divorce; homologated agreement fixing children's residence with mother in Campana, Pcia. de Buenos Aires.
  • 12 October 2015 — father unilaterally removes the three children to CABA and retains them at his residence.
  • 2015–2016 — multiple cross-applications: mother seeks return; father seeks change of jurisdiction and denounces intra-family violence.
  • 27 January 2016 — failed return attempt: children resist hysterically at the moment of effecting the order.
  • 17 December 2016 — Cámara de Apelación de Zárate-Campana confirms the return order.
  • 13 February 2017 — father lodges recurso extraordinario de inaplicabilidad de ley with the SCBA.
  • 22 June 2021 — eldest child F. attains majority.
  • 7 October 2021 — CSJN sentencia in CSJ 1813/2018/RH1 addressing revinculación; accepts pericial finding that the rejection by the children of their mother "pudo haberse originado en la alienación con el discurso paterno ayudado por la posición de la madre" (CSJN considerando 17, as recorded and cited by Mizrahi, La Ley 12/4/2022).
  • 9 August 2024 — SCBA sentencia (Kogan ponente): the recurso extraordinario de inaplicabilidad de ley is granted; the appellate sentence is set aside; the children continue to reside with the father; a revinculación process with the mother is mandated under the supervision of the cuerpo técnico auxiliar; both parents are placed under affirmative duties.

Procedural posture

This is a layered case: the CSJN sentenced in October 2021 on a recurso de queja against the SCBA, and the SCBA in August 2024 issued the operative re-determination required by the CSJN's ruling. The proper "case citation" for academic purposes is therefore CSJN, 7-X-2021, "P. B., E. G. c/ B., K. E. s/ medidas precautorias", CSJ 1813/2018/RH1, with the SCBA's 9-VIII-2024 sentencia (C. 121.539) as the implementing decision.

The CSJN's recurso extraordinario / recurso de queja jurisdiction under Article 14 of Law 48 and the doctrina de la arbitrariedad covers federal questions and questions of arbitrariness in provincial decisions affecting fundamental rights — here, the interés superior del niño under Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CDN) and Article 75 inc. 22 of the Argentine Constitution (granting constitutional rank to international human-rights treaties).

The judgment

At the CSJN level (7 October 2021), the Court framed the revinculación question through the prism of the interés superior del niño and the right to be heard (Articles 3 and 12 CDN). It accepted the pericial finding of probable alienación in the considerandos. The CSJN's full signed text — like all CSJN signed fallos — is publicly archivable at the CSJN's expediente system under CSJ 1813/2018/RH1, though the publicly retrievable extracts available outside the CSJN's internal system at the date of writing capture the holding and the considerando 17 formulation but not the full operative dispositif. The CSJN's role in this layered process was to send the matter back to the provincial court with directions to put the interés superior del niño in the centre and to take the pericial evidence on alienación seriously.

At the SCBA level (9 August 2024), the operative holdings — directly quoted from the published sentencia (C. 121.539) — are:

"Corresponde hacer lugar al recurso extraordinario de inaplicabilidad de ley interpuesto, dejando sin efecto el fallo impugnado, que había ordenado el reintegro inmediato de los niños al domicilio de la progenitora, en el entendimiento de que el acuerdo oportunamente homologado por las partes se encontraba plenamente vigente pues ambos jóvenes han expresado su deseo de continuar viviendo con su padre y la angustia que les genera regresar a vivir con su mamá." (Sumario 1)

"Toda vez que los jóvenes han manifestado que desean continuar viviendo con su padre, corresponde dejar sin efecto el fallo que había ordenado el reintegro inmediato de ellos al domicilio de su progenitora pues tales conclusiones surgen de las evaluaciones realizadas por distintos peritos pertenecientes a los equipos técnicos auxiliares; sin perjuicio de la conveniencia del inicio de una revinculación progresiva con la progenitora." (Sumario 2)

"La valoración de estos elementos probatorios llevan a afirmar que el interés superior de los jóvenes debiendo primar por sobre la aplicación estricta del acuerdo, poniendo en el centro de la escena los intereses y necesidades de los niños, priorizándolos frente a los de los adultos, en consonancia con una mirada constitucional convencional...**" (Sumario 3, citing arts. 3 y 12 CDN; 75 inc. 22 CN; 3, ley 26.061; 1, 2, 639 inc. "a" y 706 del Código Civil y Comercial)

"En torno a la revinculación de los adolescentes con su madre y en virtud de la conclusión pericial, integrante del Cuerpo de Peritos y Consultores Técnicos de la Defensoría General de la Nación, de la que surge que madre e hijos carecen de contacto entre sí y que las medidas adoptadas no han logrado superar esa situación, es insoslayable que la revinculación maternofilial tenga como guía para su concreción el superior interés de los niños." (Sumario 4)

"A los fines de garantizar el contacto con ambos progenitores (art. 9, CDN), esta nueva vinculación deberá ser abordada de manera distinta a la intentada hasta el momento, debiendo tenerse en especial consideración las terapias que individualmente adultos y niños han desarrollado con el objeto principal de recomponer los lazos familiares, resguardando los derechos de los jóvenes." (Sumario 5)

And, critically, addressing the father's duties — and using language drawn directly from the CSJN's 2021 ruling:

"La madre deberá maximizar esfuerzos para regenerar la relación con sus hijos y el padre deberá permitir y favorecer esa vinculación, sin incurrir en conductas obstruccionistas" ("The mother must maximise efforts to regenerate the relationship with her children, and the father must permit and favour that bonding, without engaging in obstructive conduct" — Acuerdo, voto Kogan, citing v. sent. de 7-X-2021, CSJN, págs. 19/23).

This is the operative bridge between the federal recognition and the provincial enforcement: the SCBA explicitly imports the CSJN's anti-obstruction language into its operative directions to the custodial parent.

Composition of the SCBA voting Pleno (signatures, 2024): - Dra. Hilda Kogan — Jueza (ponente), firmado 2 August 2024 - Dr. Sergio Gabriel Torres — Juez, firmado 2 August 2024 - Dr. Víctor Horacio Violini — Juez, firmado 8 August 2024 - Dr. Fernando Luis María Mancini Hebeca — Juez, firmado 8 August 2024 - Dr. Carlos Enrique Camps — Secretario de la Suprema Corte de Justicia, firmado 9 August 2024

The SCBA's sentencia notes that Dr. Mancini's vote is "por los mismos fundamentos" as Dra. Kogan, as are the votes of Dr. Torres and Dr. Violini — a unanimous holding.

Who else was involved

  • Doctrinal commentator who anchored the case as a "leading case": Dr. Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, prominent Argentine family-law scholar and author of Alienación parental. Hijos huérfanos de padres vivos (Astrea, Buenos Aires, 2022). Mizrahi's commentary in La Ley (12/4/2022, p. 8, TR La Ley AR/DOC/1227/2022) titled "Un leading case: plena admisión de la alienación parental por la justicia nacional" is the canonical academic anchor: he treats the CSJN's 7-X-2021 ruling as the federal recognition point in Argentine PA jurisprudence.
  • Subsequent companion ruling in the same doctrinal line: Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Civil, Sala J, 1 December 2021, "E. J. M. y otro c/ S. R. K. s/ tenencia de hijos", expte 57426/2011, ponentes Verón / Scolarici / Caia — described by Mizrahi as "el primer fallo de la Cámara Civil que reconoce explícitamente [...] el cuadro de alienación parental en las relaciones parento filiales." This Cámara Civil Sala J decision is the first explicit Cámara-level recognition and pairs naturally with the CSJN holding as the two pillars of contemporary Argentine PA doctrine.
  • Lower-court companion ruling: Juzgado de Familia nº 1 de Tigre, 26/5/2022, "G. B. S. c/ U. G. A. s/ Medidas precautorias", Expte. nº TG-2169-2021 (TR La Ley AR/JUR/87340/2022) — the case the SCJBA decision's reasoning influences at first-instance level, in which the judge imposed compulsory revinculación therapy under judicial mandate with sanctions under Article 804 of the Civil and Commercial Code.
  • Earlier-vintage line cited by parties' briefs in the chain: Cámara Nacional Civil and provincial superior courts' jurisprudence on Ley 24.270 (the 1993 Impedimento de Contacto statute — the criminal-law backbone of Argentine contact-obstruction enforcement, which pre-dates Brazil's 2010 Alienação Parental statute by 17 years), repeatedly invoked in the litigation chain as the criminal mirror of the civil enforcement orders.
  • International normative framework relied on: Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño (CDN), Articles 3, 9 and 12; Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, Articles 8.1 and 11; Observación General Nº 12 and Nº 14 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child; Argentine Ley 26.061 of integral protection of children's rights; Argentine Código Civil y Comercial Articles 1, 2, 26, 639 inc. "a", 702 inc. "d", 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 710, 716 and following.

Reactions and commentary

  • Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, "Un leading case: plena admisión de la alienación parental por la justicia nacional", La Ley, 12/4/2022, p. 8 (TR La Ley AR/DOC/1227/2022) — the canonical commentary on the CSJN's 7-X-2021 ruling, treating it as the first plenary federal recognition of alienación parental in Argentine jurisprudence.
  • Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, "Nuevos fallos que reconocen la alienación parental como disfunción familiar — Implante de memoria, pensamiento dicotómico y pensador independiente" (2024 / circulating on alienacionparental.com.ar): https://alienacionparental.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NUEVOS-FALLOS-QUE-RECONOCEN-LA-ALIENACION-PARENTAL.pdf — Mizrahi's follow-up survey, which expressly identifies the CSJN's 7-X-2021 ruling at footnote 1 and quotes the considerando-17 alienación language verbatim.
  • Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, Alienación parental. Hijos huérfanos de padres vivos (Editorial Astrea, Buenos Aires, 2022) — book-length monograph: https://www.praxisjuridica.com.ar/productos/alienacion-parental-mizrahi-m/
  • Colectivo Derecho de Familia — practitioner case-note repository: https://colectivoderechofamilia.com/csjn-medidas-precautorias-interes-superior-del-nino-07-10-21/
  • ASAPMI (Asociación Argentina de Prevención del Maltrato Infanto-Juvenil) — case repository hosting the SCBA's 2024 sentencia in PDF form: https://asapmi.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PBEG-c-BK-E-Medidas-precautorias.pdf
  • AFAMSE (Asociación de Familias Modernas Separadas) — index of Argentine jurisprudence on parental alienation and impedimento de contacto, including the Corte Suprema de Mendoza and provincial-court decisions: https://www.afamse.org.ar/jurisprudencia.html
  • APADESHI (Asociación de Padres Alejados de sus Hijos) — companion practitioner index: http://www.apadeshi.com/jurisprudenciayfallosjudiciales.htm
  • Infobae coverage of the November 2024 Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) Facultad de Derecho Congreso on alienación parental, in which the CSJN ruling was discussed as the federal anchor: https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2024/11/03/por-primera-vez-la-alienacion-parental-sera-debatida-en-un-congreso-en-la-facultad-de-derecho-de-la-uba/
  • Studocu academic analysis: https://www.studocu.com/es-ar/document/universidad-de-buenos-aires/derecho-de-familia-y-sucesiones/comentario-al-fallo-p-b-e-g-c-b-k-e-s-medidas-precautorias-07-10-2021/35776345

Why this case matters

  1. It is the highest-court Argentine recognition of parental alienation. The Mexican SCJN sits at the apex of the federal judiciary in Mexico; the Argentine CSJN sits at the corresponding apex in Argentina. By accepting in its considerandos that the children's rejection of their mother could have originated in la alienación con el discurso paterno ayudado por la posición de la madre, the CSJN gave the term alienación parental federal-court standing in Argentine jurisprudence — the doctrinal pivot Mizrahi calls "plena admisión [...] por la justicia nacional."

  2. It pairs the doctrinal recognition with operative enforcement. Through the SCBA's 2024 follow-up sentencia, the federal acceptance becomes operational: a custodial parent is placed under an explicit affirmative duty to permit and favour the other parent's bonding with the children and to refrain from conductas obstruccionistas. That is structurally the same affirmative duty the Mexican SCJN upheld (and that the Brazilian STJ has enforced through the Alienação Parental statute), but anchored in Argentine constitutional and CDN reasoning rather than in dedicated PA legislation. Argentina's framework here proves a point: a country does not need a dedicated parental-alienation statute to enforce against alienating conduct — Article 9 CDN, the interés superior del niño doctrine, and the general powers of the family court are enough.

  3. It illustrates the limits of forcing custody change in long-estranged cases. Like TEN v TEO in Singapore, the SCBA did not transfer residence back to the mother despite finding that alienation was the probable cause of the breakdown. By 2024 the children had lived with the father for nearly nine years; their consolidated reality made an immediate transfer harmful. The SCBA chose structured revinculación under court-supervised expert care instead — the same hard lesson visible in long-estranged cases across multiple jurisdictions in this knowledge base.

  4. It is a clean example of layered federal-provincial enforcement. The CSJN gives the doctrinal recognition; the SCBA does the operative work; the cuerpo técnico auxiliar (with named professionals — Lic. Siderakis at federal level, Lic. Varela and Lic. Scoglia at provincial level) supplies the pericial evidence; the abogado del niño and Asesora de Incapaces hold the procedural posts. That layered architecture is exportable as a model for any federal common-law or civil-law jurisdiction.

  5. It puts Argentina alongside Mexico and Brazil as one of the three Latin American jurisdictions with explicit apex-court treatment of parental alienation. Combined with STJ REsp 1.859.228/SP (Brazil, Nancy Andrighi 2024) and SCJN Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 11/2016 (Mexico, 2017), the Argentine line completes the southern-cone-plus-Mexico triangle that anchors the Spanish/Portuguese Latin-American PA jurisprudence corpus.

  6. It re-asserts the importance of Argentina's 1993 Ley 24.270 (Impedimento de Contacto). Ley 24.270 pre-dates every other major specialised PA statute in the region by nearly two decades. The CSJN's recognition in 2021 of alienación parental as the underlying dynamic that Ley 24.270 was already designed to penalise is the conceptual capstone: it confirms that Argentina had been litigating against alienating obstruction for almost thirty years before the term itself reached the federal court's reasoning.

For the AntiAlienate knowledge base, this is the anchor Argentine case and the federal complement to the existing Brazilian (STJ Andrighi 2024; STJ GO 2024), Mexican (SCJN Oaxaca 2016/2017), and Spanish (TS 519/2017) Spanish-and-Portuguese-language apex authorities.

Sources

Primary sources (CSJN and SCBA):

  • CSJN, P. B., E. G. c/ B., K. E. s/ medidas precautorias, sentencia of 7 October 2021, CSJ 1813/2018/RH1 — primary federal authority. The full signed text is held in the CSJN's expediente system; the considerando-17 alienación formulation is preserved in the SCBA's quotation of the CSJN's reasoning at págs. 19/23 of the CSJN text and is reproduced verbatim in Mizrahi, La Ley 12/4/2022 and in Mizrahi's 2024 case-note compilation.
  • Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, sentencia of 9 August 2024, C. 121.539, "P. B., E. G. contra B., K. E. Medidas precautorias" — operative provincial sentencia giving effect to the CSJN ruling. Full text (ASAPMI mirror): https://asapmi.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PBEG-c-BK-E-Medidas-precautorias.pdf
  • SAIJ jurisprudence index entry FA24010044: https://www.saij.gob.ar/FA24010044
  • Subsequent Argentine PA decisions in the same doctrinal line, captured in the SAIJ:
  • Cámara Nacional Civil, Sala J, 1/12/2021, "E. J. M. y otro c/ S. R. K. s/ tenencia de hijos", expte 57426/2011 — SAIJ summary: https://www.saij.gob.ar/confirmacion-sentencia-improcedencia-recurso-sindrome-alienacion-parental-asistencia-psicologica-plan-parentalidad-interes-superior-nino-derecho-ninas-ninos-adolescentes-ser-oidos-suc0410947/123456789-0abc-defg7490-140csoiramus
  • Juzgado de Familia nº 1 de Tigre, 26/5/2022, "G. B. S. c/ U. G. A. s/ Medidas precautorias", Expte. nº TG-2169-2021 (TR La Ley AR/JUR/87340/2022). SCBA mirror: https://www.scba.gob.ar/includes/descarga.asp?id=50002&n=Ver+sentencia+(causa+N%EF%BF%BD+2169).pdf
  • Juzgado Nacional en lo Criminal y Correccional nº 43, 1/2/2022, causa CCC 86233/2019 — criminal-side companion ruling applying the alienación-parental indicators framework.
  • CSJN homepage and search: https://www.csjn.gov.ar/ and https://www.csjn.gob.ar/buscador/documentos
  • SAIJ jurisprudence search: https://www.saij.gob.ar/

Doctrinal commentary:

  • Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, "Un leading case: plena admisión de la alienación parental por la justicia nacional", La Ley 12/4/2022, p. 8 (TR La Ley AR/DOC/1227/2022).
  • Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, "La alienación parental como grave disfunción familiar", elDial DC2F6C.
  • Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, Alienación parental. Hijos huérfanos de padres vivos, Editorial Astrea, Buenos Aires, 2022.
  • Mauricio Luis Mizrahi, "Nuevos fallos que reconocen la alienación parental como disfunción familiar — Implante de memoria, pensamiento dicotómico y pensador independiente" (2024): https://alienacionparental.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NUEVOS-FALLOS-QUE-RECONOCEN-LA-ALIENACION-PARENTAL.pdf
  • Pedro Herscovici, "Falsa memoria", De Familias y Terapia, Revista del Instituto Chileno de Terapia Familiar, año 23, nº 37, diciembre 2014, pp. 55–69 — frequently cited in this line on the implante de memoria indicator.
  • Practitioner case-note: Colectivo Derecho de Familia, "CSJN — Medidas precautorias, interés superior del niño — 07.10.21": https://colectivoderechofamilia.com/csjn-medidas-precautorias-interes-superior-del-nino-07-10-21/
  • Academic comment: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Derecho de Familia y Sucesiones, Comentario al fallo P.B., E.G. c/ B., K.E. s/ medidas precautorias (07/10/2021): https://www.studocu.com/es-ar/document/universidad-de-buenos-aires/derecho-de-familia-y-sucesiones/comentario-al-fallo-p-b-e-g-c-b-k-e-s-medidas-precautorias-07-10-2021/35776345

Legislative reference:

  • Ley 24.270 (Argentina, 1993) — Impedimento de Contacto: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/ley-24270-1993-668
  • Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación, Articles 1, 2, 26, 639 inc. "a", 702 inc. "d", 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 710, 716 and following.
  • Ley 26.061 (Protección Integral de los Derechos de las Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes).
  • Constitución Nacional, Articles 14, 15, 18, 31 and 75 inc. 22 (granting constitutional rank to international human-rights treaties).
  • Constitución de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Articles 15 and 36.
  • Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño (CDN), Articles 3, 9 and 12.
  • Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, Articles 8.1 and 11.
  • Observación General nº 12 and nº 14 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Related cases already in this knowledge base:

Case study prepared for the AntiAlienate knowledge base (github.com/AntiAlienate/antialienate-knowledge) under CC BY 4.0. Spanish quotations transcribed from the SCBA's 9-VIII-2024 sentencia (C. 121.539) as published by ASAPMI and indexed by SAIJ, and from the Mizrahi case-note compilations citing the CSJN's 7-X-2021 ruling (CSJ 1813/2018/RH1) verbatim at footnote 1. The composition of the CSJN signing Pleno on 7-X-2021 is recorded as not publicly confirmed at the level of publicly indexed extracts and should be verified from the CSJN's expediente system before citation in formal pleadings. SCBA voting Pleno on 9-VIII-2024 (Kogan ponente; Torres, Violini, Mancini concurring; Camps actuario) confirmed from the signed digital sentencia.