Young adults and alimony in family courts
In family court practice, alimony for adult children who are still pursuing education or training can vary greatly. Some cases appear to reward sustained effort in education with higher monthly support, while others stress that once legal adulthood is reached, the duty to pay may adjust according to the parents’ finances and the children’s needs. A recent example from the Sixth Division of the Pontevedra County Court in Vigo shows a divorced father of two young adults being asked to increase his monthly support because the children are continuing their studies and facing higher living costs. One child attends school in Santiago de Compostela, while the other pays for an academy and a sports club. This demonstrates how courts consider ongoing educational expenditures as part of the support equation.
The first decision under review came from the 12th Court of First Instance in Vigo in July 2021. It granted a child support pension of 300 euros per month for each of the former spouses’ two adult children, payable by the father. The mother appealed, arguing that the youths’ needs were not adequately considered and that the father had already provided a higher amount since the separation, creating an expectation of continued support. The father did not oppose the appeal and remained in default during the proceedings. After the appeal, the Vigo Court agreed with the mother and, noting an annual net income of about 40,000 euros, decided that the father could afford a higher monthly contribution. The court increased the pension to 500 euros for each child, surpassing the initial figure by 200 euros, with both children presenting documented monthly expenses.
Accommodation and other expenses
One child studied in Santiago de Compostela, so the court considered expenses for housing, care outside the home, travel, clothing, entertainment, and other typical costs for someone of that age. The other child contributed 200 euros monthly for an academy, in addition to gym memberships and similar expenses. The court also noted that the father had previously received up to 1,000 euros per month for both children before the divorce and within the framework of the official separation. In terms of the children’s needs, the court valued education and related costs as part of the overall assessment and ultimately increased the initial pension.
File
Legal principle of family solidarity
For adult children who are economically dependent, the care pension falls under the duty of alimony among relatives, a doctrine often described as the principle of family solidarity rather than a duty tied to parental authority. The obligation to justify expenses remains with the parent claiming the contribution, ensuring the costs claimed are legitimate.
The case did not pivot on custody duties but on the status of young adults who are still economically dependent. The hearing referenced Article 142 of the Civil Code, describing a general duty to provide for relatives. The decision, which remains subject to possible appeal, reinforces the principle of family solidarity and notes that food includes all necessities for livelihood, shelter, clothing, and medical care. It also recognizes that education and training can fall within these grounds, unless the claimant is a minor or if education is not completed for reasons beyond the claimant’s control.
Legal considerations around inheritance from an extramarital affair
Hipólito, a pseudonym used to protect identity, died more than fifty years ago in 1967. In the mid-20th century, an extramarital relationship produced four children who are now in their seventies. A legal action began in 2016 and has reached a decision by the Vigo Court. These adult offspring challenged their eligibility to inherit from their father and two uncles. The judges found that the plaintiffs could not claim their father’s estate by prescription and that they lacked active legitimacy because they had not been recognized by their father in his time. However, they were deemed descendants of their uncle and therefore entitled to participate in an inheritance related to a farm and an old family home in Baiona.
The lawsuit targeted other heirs. The illegitimate children, born between 1948 and 1952 from the father’s relationship with their mother, were told they did not have the right to inherit from their father because they had not acquired heir status and because the case was time-barred after thirty years. They did, however, retain legitimacy through their uncle.
Legal confusion of inheritance of four children (already in their seventies) from an extramarital affair
Hipólito (a name used to shield identity) died over half a century ago. The eighties and nineties produced four children from an extramarital affair, now in their seventies, who pursued a legal path to claim their father’s estate. The 2016 case concluded with the court denying their right to inherit from their father for lack of recognition during his lifetime and due to prescription. Yet the plaintiffs were deemed descendants of their uncle and thus included in a related family property discussion in Baiona.
The illegitimate children of Hipólito, born 1948–1952, argued they did not inherit because they were not in a position to claim heir status at the time and because the matter had lapsed after 30 years. They maintain a basis for legitimacy through their uncle, balancing the inheritance dynamics within a longstanding family estate.