Stop the maintenance of “big babies”: there is something new – RB
Hello, Welcome to the RockedBuzz News site! I will present you all the details of Stop child support “big babies”: there’s something new – RB here.
Stop maintenance of “big babies” children: there is something new – RB
Stop the maintenance of “big babies” children: there is something new – RB We have explained the details of the news, step by step, below. Stop the maintenance of “big babies”: there is something new – RB Keep reading our news. Here are all the details on the subject.
Stop supporting “big babies”: there is something new – RB
The fixed-term contract also marks the entry into the world of work. In a nutshell, this is the decision taken by the Court of Cassation through sentence number 40282 of 22 September 2021. An act that will go down in the history of jurisprudence due to the countless repercussions it will have on the life of many Italian citizens .
The choice of the Court mainly concerns the obligation on the part of families to economically support their adult children until the day they fail to obtain a stable and well-paid contract. The sentence of last September places a new limit on the possibility of children receiving the maintenance allowance from parents.
Children “big babies”, the sentence of the Court of Cassation
The judges drew a line that insiders have been waiting for for some time. From now on, in fact, if the pay is adequate and the horizon is not too narrow, the foot put into the productive world by the children will be enough to interrupt the obligation by the parent to pay the maintenance allowance. This is because a fair and lasting contract allows to consider who signs it as an autonomous subject economically.
As for the risk that the fixed-term contract will not be renewed, this is a danger not too different from the loss of work for other reasons which, as we know, does not revive the maintenance allowance paid by the parents. The Court of Cassation thus confirms the line of firmness in inviting children over the 18 years of age to disengage from the family or, more precisely, from the parents’ purse (which clearly does not apply to minors dependent on the family unit).
Children “big babies”, the case of the father and son employed by the Ministry
Moving along this line, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal of a father against the decision of the Court of Appeal to confirm the maintenance allowance in favor of his three children, all adults. The appellant contested, in particular, the payment in favor of the only boy who is no longer a student, but winner of a competition as a volunteer at the Ministry of Defense with a fixed-term contract and renewals of more than one year.
For the judges of legitimacy that was enough, against a salary of approximately 1000 $ per month , to allow the father to stop paying the allowance. In the opinion of the Court of Cassation, the territorial judges were wrong to confirm the maintenance, valuing only the temporary nature of the ‘working activity, also ignoring the salary.
Children “big babies”, entry into the world of work is for always
The sentence establishes this principle: the performance of a paid work activity , even if performed in the context of a fixed-term contract, can constitute “an element representative of the capacity of the interested party to procure an adequate source of income” independently . “For the purposes of interest here – reads the text issued by the Supreme Court – what counts is, in fact, the inclusion of the child in question in the world of work”.
Finally, the possible objection to the uncertainty of the renewals of forward contracts does not escape the judges. “In this perspective – clarify the stoppers – the possible termination of the employment relationship due to the expiry of the term and the non-renewal of the contract does not have, on closer inspection, a meaning other than loss of employment generated by an open-ended contract or by the negative performance of an activity undertaken by the child himself “. Events that, the Court concludes, “exclude the revival of the parent’s obligation to maintain”.