Child support

CHILD SUPPORT

    The Supreme Court of Cassation held that the needs of persons entitled to maintenance, in accordance with their normal living conditions, take into account the age, education and other circumstances relevant to each particular case, and the capabilities of persons, who owe maintenance are determined by their income, their wealth and qualifications. Also, both parents owe maintenance to their underage children according to the capabilities of each of them individually, taking into account the care of the parent caring for the child. The decision to award alimony is unfair, both when the alimony does not meet the needs of the minor child to provide the living conditions necessary for his or her development, and when the capabilities and financial condition of each parent are not taken into account. On the other hand, the obligation to provide maintenance for an adult child is not absolute. It cannot be insisted on being awarded alimony in all cases, nor in large amounts, without taking into account the parents' capacities in view of the material and economic conditions of life in each case. The Court considers that parents' greater opportunities also lead to a higher maintenance award. Also, filing a claim for paternity or maternity litigation is not a reason to stay the case on the child support claim because the child's father is considered the spouse of the mother pending the entry into force of the claim decision. The Supreme Court further clarified that parents are required to support their children until they reach the age of majority. This stems from their primary obligation to care for their children and to prepare them for community service, despite the fact that, at the age of 16, children can initially work. The Supreme Court further held that a parental agreement was admissible, with each parent agreeing to support that child with him without paying for the other child living with the other parent. This does not affect the right of children to benefit from maintenance, but only concerns the fulfillment of the obligation / Art. 73 FAR /. In all cases, the court is obliged to evaluate the agreement with a view to ensuring that children are not deprived of full support and their interests are not harmed. The court also held that the inability to provide maintenance did not extinguish the right to maintenance at all and forever, but only for the duration of the maintenance. Moreover, persons who are able-bodied and unjustifiably unemployed are not exempted from the obligation to provide maintenance. Their capabilities are determined according to their qualifications and other relevant circumstances. When objecting that it is objectively impossible to support, persons are obliged to identify the causes beyond their will that led to this impossibility. In this sense, it is also considered that the reduction of income due to the intention not to provide maintenance or to take up a job which is not qualifying is not considered to be a reason for changing the amount of maintenance to be less than that initially established. The court adds that working-age parents who themselves are entitled to a stipend, a pension, or only maintenance paid by their parents are not exempted from the obligation to support their children.