[ad_1]
For the High Court, the support of the children must be guaranteed by both parents, because the division of the obligations of each child entails a risk for the minors.
For the Supreme Court, the division of expenses of each child means putting them in danger. iStock
This is the case of a woman who challenged a decision of the Family Court of the Superior Court of Bogotá in which the alimony quota awarded to the father of her children had been reduced. For women, the fees originally fixed were not sufficient because their children were already of school age and needed more fees.
The father of the children objected to the demands of his ex-wife, arguing that the fees claimed were exaggerated and that he did not have such a high salary to cover such expenses . After several years of judicial battles, the case reached the Superior Court of Bogotá, which ordered that the father take charge of all the expenses of his son and that the mother responds financially for his daughter
: Tips for setting the quota of food for children)
After a dispute by the father of the children, the case came to the Supreme Court of Justice who insisted stating that "had been put in maintaining the obligation of the children, as he left the maintenance obligation of every minor in charge of one of the two parents, the mother or the father, when the same thing by constitutional mandate and legal must be guaranteed by both "
At that time, the Court indicated that certain parameters for the examination of the food quota should be taken into account, such as, a informal copy of the conciliation or ac private cord in which the tax has been indicated and a recognition of the alteration of the economic capacity of the father or the changing economic needs of the child.
(Also read: How to hear about my child's food allowance?)
Similarly, for the High Court, revisions to the food quota only seek "to establish the means to guarantee the children adequate food, understood as all that is necessary for them to develop well ". Another important point affecting the Supreme Court's judgment concerns the parental authority of minors. The Constitutional Court emphasized that parental authority is "designed for the protection, welfare and integral formation of the unemancipated minor, which does not derive from marriage as it arises through the ministry of the law independently. of the marital bond and ultimately serves the best interests of the child. "
Thus, it is the responsibility of the parents, with the economic support of the miners. In the event that one of the two is absent, the obligation exerts the same. other, because parental authority belongs only to the father and the mother, that is to say that it does not go beyond the family. and that she practices with respect to all children, including adopted children. "
Source link
