Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This research study conducts a critical analysis of the reasoning behind a judgment issued in a paternity and child support determination case at the Yantzaza Judicial Unit. The primary objective was to evaluate the quality of the judicial argumentation against the standards of sufficiency established by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador using methodological assessment tools and to identify a defect of insufficient reasoning. The technical breakdown reveals that this insufficiency was the main flaw regarding the determination of the child support amount and the limited interpretation of Article 29 of the Organic Code on Children and Adolescents concerning the presumption of paternity. The study concludes that the judgment is legally valid, as the best interests of the child and substantive justice prevail over formal drafting deficiencies. The research aims to determine whether the judge's decision was correct and to propose mechanisms for establishing a sound factual and legal basis, thereby guaranteeing the right to effective judicial protection.