Standards of Proof and Constitutional Protection of the Family: The Probative Accreditation Matrix Model for Family Relationships (MAP-RFH)
Abstract
The present article aims to propose an evidentiary test (composed of six modules) to establish non-marital family relationships, based on an epistemological methodology focused on facts (Gascón Abellán, Taruffo, and Ferrer Beltrán) translated into factual indicators (such as cohabitation, care, community of life and risks, patrimonial ties, publicity, and social recognition), as well as on socio-legal evidence (2010–2025). The results include a comparative analysis grounded in international law (the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights [IACtHR] and the European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]) and in the national courts of countries around the world (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Spain, South Africa, India, and Canada). The conclusions establish standards of sufficiency for the proposed model (plausibility and a convincing explanation), as well as refutability and bias control, which are intended to serve as guidance for the reasoning of judicial decisions with a human-rights-based approach.
Downloads
Métricas alternativas
References
Aitken, C. G. G., Taroni, F. y Bozza, S. (2022). Evidence, probability and relative plausibility: Assessing what’s reasonable in the law. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 26(4), 309-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221114508
Alexy, R. (2017). Teoría de la argumentación jurídica. Palestra.
Allen, R. J. y Pardo, M. S. (2019). Relative plausibility and its critics. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(1-2), 5-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718813781
Allen, R. J. y Pardo, M. S. (2023). Evidence, Probability, and Relative Plausibility: A Response to Aitken, Taroni & Bozza. International Journal of Evidence and Procedure, Northwestern Public Law Research Paper, (23-22). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4323217
Atienza, M. (2013). Curso de argumentación jurídica (2.ª ed.). Trotta.
Cahn, N., Huntington, C. y Scott, E. (2023). Family Law for the One-Hundred-Year Life. Yale Law Journal, 132(6), 1691-1768.
Dahlman, C., Stein, A. y Tuzet, G. (eds.). (2021). Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198859307.001.0001
Eurostat (2025). Fertility statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Fertility_statistics
Ferrer, J. (2021). Prueba sin convicción. Estándares de prueba y debido proceso. Marcial Pons.
García Amado, J. A. (2024). Ensayos de metodología jurídico-argumentativa: reglas, razones y razones de las reglas. Tirant lo Blanch.
Gascón, M. (2004). Los hechos en el derecho. Bases argumentales de la prueba (3.ª ed.). Marcial Pons.
Gouvernement du Québec (2025). Parental union. https://www.quebec.ca/en/family-and-support-for-individuals/marriage-civil-union-de-facto-union/parental-union
Hart, H. L. A. (1977). American Jurisprudence Through English Eyes: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream. Sibley Lecture Series. 33.
Joslin, C. G. y NeJaime, D. (2024). Multiparenthood. New York University Law Review, 99, 1242-1337.
Leckey, R. (2025). Parental union in Quebec: a model for recognizing cohabitants? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 39(1), ebaf014. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebaf014
Maldonado, S. (2024). De Facto Parents, Legal Parents, and Inchoate Rights. University of Chicago Law Review, 91(2), 557-566.
Öberg, M.-L. y Tryfonidou, A. (eds.). (2024). The Family in EU Law. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009498838
OECD (2023). Family Database. SF2.4: Share of births outside of marriage [actualización diciembre 2023].
OECD (2024). Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en
Our World in Data (2024). Share of children who were born outside of marriage [dataset]. [Última actualización: 30-12-2024].
Palazzo, N. (2021). Legal Recognition of Non-Conjugal Families: New Frontiers in Family Law in the US, Canada and Europe. Hart Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509939985
Scherpe, J. M. (2023). Is There a “European Family Law”? Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 54(1), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v54i1.8448
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (2020). Protocolo para juzgar con perspectiva de género.
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (2023). Manual de razonamiento probatorio (J. Ferrer Beltrán, coord.).
Taruffo, M. (2011). La prueba de los hechos. Trotta.
Tuzet, G. (2021). Filosofía de la prueba jurídica. Marcial Pons.
United Nations (2024). World Social Report 2024.
Walton, D. (2015). Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8
Fuentes normativas y jurisprudenciales
Código Civil, Brasil (Ley n.º 10.406 del 10 de enero de 2002).
Consejo de Europa/Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (2010). Kozak v. Poland (Appl. no. 13102/02). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-1059
Consejo de Europa/Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (2025). Case-Law Guide: Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life [actualizado al 28/02/2025]. ECHR-Knowledge Sharing.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia (2007). Sentencia C-075/07 (Uniones de hecho y efectos patrimoniales). https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2007/C-075-07.htm
Corte Constitucional de Colombia (2016). Sentencia SU214/16 (Uniones de hecho y efectos). https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2016/SU214-16.htm
Corte Costituzionale (2010). Sentenza n. 138/2010 (Unioni tra persone dello stesso sesso). https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/uploads/english/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/S2010138_en.pdf
Constitutional Court of South Africa (2002). Satchwell v. President of the Republic of South Africa [2002] ZACC 18. https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/3645
Constitutional Court of South Africa (2005). Volks NO v. Robinson [2005] ZACC 2. https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/3641
Constitutional Court of South Africa (2021). Bwanya v. Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others [2021] ZACC 51.
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (2016). Caso Duque vs. Colombia. Sentencia de 26 de febrero de 2016 (Fondo, reparaciones y costas). https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_310_esp.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (2017). Opinión Consultiva OC-24/17. Identidad de género, e igualdad y no discriminación a parejas del mismo sexo. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_24_esp.pdf
European Court of Human Rights (1994). Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands (Appl. no. 18535/91). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57904
European Court of Human Rights (2010). Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (Appl. no. 30141/04). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-99605
European Court of Human Rights (2015). Oliari and Others v. Italy (Appl. nos. 18766/11 y 36030/11). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156265
Parlamento italiano (2016). Legge 20 maggio 2016, n. 76 (Regolamentazione delle unioni civili tra persone dello stesso sesso e disciplina delle convivenze). Gazzetta Ufficiale. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2016/05/21/16G00082/sg
STF-Supremo Tribunal Federal (2011). ADI 4277/DF y ADPF 132/RJ (reconocimiento de união estável homoafetiva). https://portal.stf.jus.br/peticaoinicial/verPeticaoInicial.asp?base=ADI&numProcesso=4277
STJ-Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Brasil) (s. f.). Súmula 382 («A vida em comum sob o mesmo teto, more uxorio, não é indispensável à caracterização do concubinato»). https://ww2.stj.jus.br/docs_internet/revista/eletronica/stj-revista-sumulas-2013_35_capSumula382.pdf
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Segunda Sala. (2019, 9 de enero). Amparo en revisión 750/2018. Ponente: Javier Laynez Potisek.
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación de México (2021). Amparo en revisión 750/2018 (pensión de viudez-concubinato del mismo sexo).
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación de México (2022). Amparo directo en revisión 3878/2021 (temporalidad razonable del concubinato).
Supreme Court of Canada (1999). M. v. H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1702/index.do
Supreme Court of India (1978). Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (AIR 1978 SC 1557; [1978] 3 SCC 527). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/215649/
Supreme Court of India (2010). D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal ([2010] 10 SCC 469). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1521881/
Supreme Court of India (2013). Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma ([2013] 15 SCC 755). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192421140/
Tribunal Constitucional (España). (2013) STC 93/2013, de 23 de abril (parejas de hecho y pensión de viudedad-registro/autonomía). https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/Resolucion/Show/23406
Tribunal Constitucional (España). (2014). Sentencia 40/2014, de 11 de marzo (art. 174.3 LGSS-igualdad). https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/Resolucion/Show/23859
Copyright (c) 2025 Rogelio López Sánchez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain their copyrights and register under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which allows the use of the published material (adapt - remix, transform and build - and share - copy and redistribute - the material in any medium or format).
1. The journal allows authors to retain their copyrights of submitted articles without any restrictions.
2. Authors retain the right to share, distribute, copy, perform and publicly communicate the article published in Revista Oficial del Poder Judicial (e.g., place it in an institutional repository).
3. Authors retain the right to make a subsequent publication of their work, to use the article or any part of it (for example: a compilation of their work, notes for conferences, thesis, or for a book), as long as they indicate the source of publication (authors of the work, journal, volume, number and date).
