## Facts

- Margarita Alvarado Sazo (mother) filed a custody action against Pedro Joaquín Carracedo Rosende (father) concerning their son, Alexis Angelino Carracedo Alvarado, who was about 11 years old.
- Alexis had been in Carracedo Rosende’s exclusive care from a young age and had been living with him for years.
- The trial court awarded custody to Alvarado Sazo, relying on the Chilean Civil Code rule that, after parental separation, presumed the mother should have custody.
- The court of appeals affirmed the custody award to Alvarado Sazo.
- Carracedo Rosende appealed to the Supreme Court of Chile, arguing the lower courts committed serious errors and abuses of discretion by applying the maternal presumption without a fact-based evaluation of Alexis’s welfare.
- Carracedo Rosende argued that the lower courts failed to account for evidence bearing on the child’s well-being, including alleged mental-health issues and a history of domestic abuse by Alvarado Sazo, as well as the child’s preference regarding where he should live.
- Carracedo Rosende also argued the custody award, based on an automatic presumption, conflicted with Chile’s obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the requirement that the child’s best interests be a primary consideration and that the child be heard.

## Issues

1. May a court award custody primarily by applying a statutory presumption favoring the mother after separation, without a fact-specific determination of the child’s best interests?
2. Does a custody decision that gives insufficient consideration to evidence affecting the child’s welfare, including the child’s expressed wishes, amount to serious legal error in light of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Chile found serious error in the lower courts’ custody rulings to the extent they treated the Civil Code’s maternal preference as controlling.
- The Court held that custody must be determined by the child’s best interests, and not by a mechanical application of a parent-based presumption.
- The Court indicated that the child’s wishes and evidence bearing on safety and well-being must be taken into account in the custody determination.
- The Court set aside the lower courts’ outcome to require a best-interests custody determination consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

## Legal Principles

- In custody disputes, the child’s best interests must guide the result as a primary consideration.
- A statutory maternal preference in post-separation custody is not absolute; it cannot displace a case-specific evaluation of the child’s welfare.
- Courts must evaluate evidence relevant to parental fitness and the child’s safety, including allegations of violence and mental-health concerns, rather than treating a presumption as dispositive.
- A child capable of forming views has a right to be heard in matters affecting the child, and the court must give the child’s views weight consistent with the child’s age and maturity.
- International obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child inform the interpretation and application of domestic custody rules, especially where a code-based preference would otherwise control the outcome.

## Conclusion

In *In re the Minor Alexis Angelino Carracedo Alvarado*, the Chilean Supreme Court rejected an automatic reliance on the Civil Code’s maternal custody preference and required that custody be determined through a child-centered best-interests analysis that accounts for the child’s views and other welfare evidence, consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.


In re the Minor Alexis Angelino Carracedo Alvarado, Case No. 1620-01 (2001)