The contribution of parents to the alimony of their children

"The obligation falls on both parents and maintenance cover the real needs of each entitled child"

The duty of each parent in the case of separation or separation for the dignified living of their minor child imposes the obligation on both parents to provide maintenance to their beneficiary child according to the financial capacity of each. Determining the child's needs is a matter of common sense, taking into account the living conditions, and maintenance should not depend on any bargaining between the parents. The various amounts mentioned in the maintenance application are not strictly required to be proven, they refer to the time of filling of the application and regardless of the issuance of any interim order or the time of adjudication of the application. The alimony order may state its payment from the day the application is filed.

The percentage of each parent's contribution to the amount the minor needs monthly for his living expenses is determined by their income status. There are always needs that, although they are covered by the parent with whom the child lives, it is not possible to separate them when they are common expenses of the family, such as rent, electricity, water, telephone and other related expenses, which do not exclusively concern the child.

The issue of child maintenance is regulated in Article 37 (1)(2)(3) of Law 216(I)/1990, making the parents jointly liable, each according to their abilities, to contribute to the maintenance of their children, both minors as well as adults who are in need of maintenance due to special circumstances, such as incapacity - disability, studies or service in the National Guard. Alimony is determined based on the needs of the beneficiary child as they arise from the circumstances of his life and the financial possibilities that exist for his alimony. Maintenance includes everything necessary for the maintenance and well-being of the child and, in addition, depending on the case, the expenses for his general education. In the event that the parent receives a 13th and/or 14th salary or the Court deems it reasonable, the maintenance order may include a corresponding additional 13th and/or 14th payment.

The Court of Appeal, in the unanimous decision it issued in Appeal No.20/2021, dated 29.01.2024, concerning a dispute between the parents regarding the amount of their contribution to the maintenance of their two minor children, considered the decision of the Family Court to be correct. The Court rightly clarified that the claims of the parties concerning the covering of the expenses of the two minors in periods of time prior to the filing of the initial application, cannot be the basis for ordering any such remedy. Furthermore, it emphasized as explained by the Family Court, the maintenance order for the purposes of retroactive awarding of amounts (in the event that the Court exercises its discretion in this direction) goes back to the time of filing of the initial application and in no case to an earlier date than that time.

The Court of Appeal also adopted the judgment of the Family Court not to approve any amount for a domestic worker as necessary for the expenses of the minors because the mother did not work in the afternoons and thus had time to care for her two minor children. In full harmony with the Family Court that referred to the authority of Nikolaou v. Makridis where it was held that a domestic helper is not, except in exceptional cases, a necessity. It was also mentioned, the fact that the mother is divorced with two minor children, does not make the employment of a domestic worker necessary. If the mother could not afford to hire a domestic helper, she would certainly end up with less expensive childcare solutions, the few afternoons when she was at work and the children at home.

It also indicated as correct the Family Court's wording of the general principle that receiving a 13th salary does not automatically mean that the father should be ordered to pay 13th maintenance, as the mother claimed. It emphasized that it does not rule out examining whether such an order might be justified. However, the Court of First Instance in the calculations took into account the father's 13th salary in determining his powers, as it increased his earning capacity, on the basis of which the amount of his contribution was also determined.

?