The Sixth Division of the Vigo-based Pontevedra County Court recently ruled in favor of terminating a divorced father’s obligation to continue paying child support. The decision centers on the father’s apparent indifference and lack of effort in seeking work, a situation that the judges deemed incompatible with continued alimony beyond a certain point in his thirties, despite his active job search attempts.
In confirming the decision originally issued by Redondela’s First Circuit Court and its accompanying order, the Vigo chamber stressed that the teen in question had reached the age of 28 without entering the labor market for an extended period. The mother had objected to the ruling, arguing that life involves not only schooling but work, and that her ex-husband should resume monthly payments to support their jointly owned child until the son could sign his first contract. She asserted that the child still required both parents to offer support and nurture.
The Need for Support
Having reviewed the matter at the lower court level, the judges upheld the objection to continuing alimony. Their reasoning rests on article 152.5 of the Civil Code, which links the obligation to provide support to the needs of the recipient and the recipient’s ability to seek employment. The panel found that the absence of genuine effort to secure work aligned with the statute’s expectation that support should adjust to realistic means and circumstances. In essence, the court viewed the applicant’s apparent disinterest in pursuing employment as inconsistent with the legal framework that governs alimony.
During the court’s examination, it was noted that the young man completed his studies in 2017, earning a credential in Video, Disc Jockey, and Sound Technician. In 2020, he completed a waiting-staff training program. Although he had registered as a job seeker in 2014, his file remained active through 2022, while long gaps in renewing claims suggested a prolonged period away from the labor market. The court described this pattern as indicative of weak engagement with job opportunities, rather than the relentless, tireless job search claimed in the appeal.
Jurists characterized the situation as a low-priority search for work, underscoring what they termed the youth’s carelessness in pursuing employment. They noted that the father’s argument about retroactive payment of the pension failed to satisfy the conditions required to sustain ongoing support. In short, the court found that the factual record did not support continued alimony given the demonstrated lack of active job-seeking effort and the child’s advancing age.
Overall, the decision reflects a careful balance between a parent’s duty to support a dependent child and the evolving realities of the labor market. The ruling emphasizes that the obligation to pay child support can be revisited or reduced when the recipient reaches a certain level of independence, enters the job market, or shows insufficient effort to secure employment. The outcome reiterates that financial support cannot be sustained indefinitely without corresponding efforts toward self-sufficiency, especially as the child grows older and gains capacity to contribute to their own economic stability. This case stands as a reminder that alimony arrangements are dynamic and subject to reassessment in light of the recipient’s employment prospects and demonstrated commitment to seeking work. [Cited from court records and official summaries]