Revocation of maintenance allowance for an adult child
A new case for the revocation of the adult child maintenance allowance was dealt with in order no. 29264 of 2022 of the Court of Cassation. The pronouncement is part of the case law aimed at enhancing the general principle of self-responsibility of the now adult child. In fact, the parent's obligation to maintain, educate and educate their children does not automatically cease with the coming of age, but continues after the age of majority only for the time necessary to complete the chosen educational path and for the further period of time that can be considered suitable to obtain a job.
Therefore, according to established jurisprudence, the assumptions on which the exclusion of the right to maintenance is based are: the age of the child, intended to detect in a relationship of inverse proportionality (the progressively higher age of the child is usually accompanied by loss of the right to obtain maintenance); the effective achievement of a level of professional and technical competence and its commitment to finding employment in the labor market. Both assumptions must be subject to verification by the judge of the merits and whose proof is burdened by the parent who opposes the application
In this framework, however, according to the Court, the child of divorced parents, who is well over the age of majority, and has not found stable employment or who, in any case, remunerates him to such an extent as to make him economically self-sufficient, cannot satisfy the need for a dignified life through the parent's maintenance obligation. In fact, this measure would risk becoming an economic aid destined to go on forever. The son, on the contrary, has to cope with her condition through also resorting to the various auxiliary tools that are aimed at ensuring income support. There is always the possibility of requesting the fulfillment of the maintenance obligation, from different conditions than those of the maintenance allowance and aimed at the payment of the means to satisfy the essential needs necessary for the person to lead a dignified life (see Cass. Section 1 n. 38366-21, as well as, in the same direction, Court of Cassation Section 1 n. 10455-22).
Lawyer Armando Cecatiello familiarist Milan Lugano