Elche Court releases a disabled man from the obligation to support his 28-year-old daughter

The Elche-based Section IX of the Court has released a disabled man who receives a pension of 783 euros per month from the obligation to continue paying child support to his 28-year-old daughter. The daughter has held a stable job since 2020 and has a higher income than the man, earning a gross annual salary of 13,754.86 euros, which translates to 975 euros per month in 14 installments. At the conclusion of last year, the matter was brought before the judicial body in the second instance. This was due to the fact that the Orihuela court, which had previously heard the claim for modification of measures, had ruled in favour of the beneficiary, allowing them to continue receiving the child support specified in the child support agreement. The resolution does not include this figure. In any case, the sentence illuminates a question that any parent may contemplate at any point in their life: How long must I continue to feed my infant after they reach the age of self-support?

Obligation to offer assistance if they reside in the same residence

The Court asserts that the age of majority of children (e.g., 18 years old if they are not emancipated prior to that date) “does not absolve parents of the responsibility to provide support if they reside in the family home and lack their own income.” This rule is subject to a cap, “as long as they are not able to meet their own needs, irrespective of their age, and (there is) the potential for their parents to provide for them.”

However, when does the obligation expire? The ruling is a reference to Article 152.3 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that “alimony is no longer required for the recipient’s subsistence” when they are able to engage in a trade, vocation, or industry or have obtained a position that has enhanced their fortune. The court asserts that the child’s “real aptitude for exercising a trade, profession, or industry” is sufficient for this purpose, rather than “holding a continuous and effective job.” It is emphasised that this should not be interpreted as “mere subjective capacity, but as a concrete and effective possibility in relation to the circumstances.”

Measurement modification

In this instance, the initial request in the Orihuela court was a modification of the measures, which involved altering the ruling that had initiated them. Consequently, the father was responsible for substantiating the claim, a concept referred to as the burden of proof in judicial terminology. The son is not obligated to do so, and it is the parent who, to put it bluntly, is responsible for investigating his accounts. The court has determined that the daughter has been employed by a foundation on a permanent basis since July 2020. Prior to this date, she had only worked intermittently for periods of one to two months or even days. The ruling subsequently verifies the salaries of both parties, resulting in the daughter earning 192 euros per month more than her incapacitated and pensioned father. The ruling acknowledges that a previous request for modification of measures, which resulted in a new regulatory agreement, “does not take into account the daughter’s stable employment at that time.” It also mentions that the father resides in Tarifa (Cádiz) rather than with his daughter and that she is currently pursuing coursework from up to three distinct years of a university degree.

Recipient

“It is evident that the beneficiary of the alimony benefit has significantly increased her wealth, and as a result, her requirements are entirely met.” At the time of the measure’s adoption, it was not possible to evaluate these circumstances. Consequently, the alimony benefit must be discontinued. Nevertheless, the ruling is effective from the date of the second ruling, which dismissed the previous one, four years after the daughter had attained financial and job stability. The curious aspect is that it has to be taken to the extremity of appointing a judge to resolve these matters, despite the fact that other judicial bodies have issued similar rulings.

Author: Derek Appleton