The lawyer of the woman who claims to be restored for having been exchanged for another baby when she was born in the old San Millán Hospital in Logroño, José Sáez Morga, has reported today that the Ministry of Health "reconsiders" compensating the mother and grandmother who took care of him with 1.3 million for each one.
Sáez Morga has offered a press conference in which, among other issues, he has reported this change of mind of the Government of La Rioja (now in the hands of the Popular Party) since, initially, Salud rejected this proposal due to "extemporaneity". compensation.
He has specified that this is not a decision made by the legal services of the Government of La Rioja, but rather a "reconsideration" by the current Executive.
The lawyer's appearance, in which this lawsuit has come to light, "from the beginning of the year 2023", has occurred due to his "disappointment" with the latest ruling of the Supreme Court (with respect to the woman who was a baby exchanged ), as well as his desire to clarify terms that had been used in the media.
Specifically, she has referred to the Supreme Court ruling that rejects the young woman's request to challenge the parentage of the other baby so that she can be heir.
The lawyer has rejected that this means an expulsion of the woman who has been raised in the family that belonged to the other, because what it is about is a "reestablishment of the legal situation to adjust it to biological reality" and a Expulsion can be interpreted as kicking him out of the house, he said.
Sáez Morga has indicated that he will not appeal the ruling in the Constitutional Court, and of course he has complied with it; But he wanted to show his disappointment because the Supreme Court "could have done more."
Thus, he has understood that it should have been adjusted "to the origin from which we started" and that it has been judged "with other parameters", specifically, he has explained that the situation has been judged as if it were "normal" and not with respect to what happened, that is, a baby exchange.
On the other hand, he wanted to explain that his client "until now has not shown interest in the economic inheritance", what she seeks by wanting to be an heir is a "reestablishment" of the legal situation.
La Vanguardia has been able to speak with the other party. That is, with the environment of the other exchanged baby, who is now, like the other affected person, 22 years old. “We totally agree with the Supreme Court's decision,” said her lawyer, Alicia Redondo.
"What the Supreme Court says in 22 pages," he adds, "is that the appellant cannot exercise this action because it does not correspond to her." He also assures that the Court does not understand why she does it and for what purpose. "We also do not know . What I can tell you is that this whole procedure is causing a lot of emotional impact and anxiety to my client, who has never filed a judicial procedure,” he adds.
There is still a separate piece in all this litigation. And the biological mother of her representative has recently demanded that the latter legally appear as her daughter, a request against which they have filed an appeal. “No matter how much one wants to adjust the biological reality to the legal reality, that is, to put in a registry who is biologically her mother, it can never be done against the will of the people,” argues Redondo.
This lawyer defends "that the mother's action is untimely": "The law makes it clear that this action must be exercised at a specific time and by certain people, and that has not been done."
He explains that one cannot even go into the substance of the matter because the action cannot be brought. "We are not going into assessing whether my client wants it or not, she has never initiated legal action in this regard," she clarifies.
The lawyer's client, José Sáez Morga (who we will call Carmen) was the first to discover, in 2017, that her father and mother were not the biological parents. Everything was uncovered by a claim for support filed by her grandmother - with whom this young woman has grown up: the different disabilities of her parents would have prevented them from raising her - against the person who until then was believed to be her parent.
Beyond his disability, this man had disowned his daughter - he claimed that she was not his, without knowing at the time that he was telling the truth - so he was forced to take a DNA test.
And with that genetic analysis the surprise came. Carmen's father was not her biological parent. But the thing didn't end there. The young woman then compared her DNA with what she believed was her mother and that sequence did not match either.
Carmen then stood in court and cried: “I want to know who I am.” The hospital documentation was reviewed and the error was discovered.
Carmen's biological parents are Pilar's parents and it could be ventured that those who were always believed to be Carmen's parents are, in reality, Pilar's biological parents.
In the first case there is no longer any doubt, as genetic tests confirm it. In Pilar's case, however, there is no document that proves that her biological parents are the ones who raised Carmen. This young woman would not have undergone any analysis to confirm it. And she is within her rights.
What he did present, through his lawyer, at the time was a property claim against the Ministry of Health for the error (the exchange) and the damages that arose from it. "We are waiting for the Government Council of La Rioja to rule on our compensation," concludes Redondo.
