Child maintenance allowances: new developments in the Court of Cassation’s rulings

by Laura Catania

The Determination of child support payments

The determination of child support is based on balancing the child's healthy growth on one hand and parents' responsibility to contribute according to their respective economic possibilities on the other hand.

Article 30 of the Italian Constitution, together with Articles 147, 315-bis, 316-bis and 337-ter of the Civil Code, establishes the obligation of both parents to maintain, educate, and instruct their children, even in cases of separation or dissolution of the marital relationship.

Recent case law of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation – specifically Orders nos. 25403, 25421, and 25534 of 2025 – has clarified the criteria that must guide judges in determining child support contributions. The Court offers a systematic interpretation based on the principles of two-dimensionality, proportionality and actuality of the child’s needs.

 

The “two-dimensionality” of the maintenance obligation

The 2025 rulings reaffirm that the maintenance obligation is of a two-dimensional nature.

On the one hand, there is the parent-child relationship, governed by the principle of equality under Article 315-bis of the Civil Code, according to which all children, regardless of their parents' marital status, have equal rights to maintenance, education, instruction and moral assistance in accordance with their abilities, inclinations and aspirations.

On the other hand, the relationship between the parents is regulated by the principle of proportionality set out in Article 316-bis of the Civil Code, which requires each parent to fulfil the maintenance obligation in proportion to their assets and earning capacity, including potential income.

The operation of these two principles excludes any automatic formula in the determination of child support. The amount cannot be established through a mere arithmetic proportion of the parents’ incomes but instead requires a comprehensive assessment that must also consider:

  • Non-income resources, such as real estate properties, savings, investments, or other assets;
  • Potential earning capacity, meaning each parent’s concrete ability to generate income based on their education, experience, and age;
  • Domestic contribution provided by the custodial parent, who contributes to maintenance through direct care, daily assistance, and household management.

Hence the Supreme Court reaffirms a realistic view of the parents’ ability to contribute, requiring judges to consider not only formal financial data but the entirety of each parent’s resources, opportunities, and family roles. Only in this way can child support be determined in a proportionate, fair, and child-centred manner.

 

The principle of proportionality

Article 337-ter of the Civil Code sets forth the parameters to be applied in determining maintenance contributions. In Order No. 25421/2025, the Supreme Court clearly reiterated these parameters, emphasizing the importance of interpreting them in light of the principle of proportionality. 

In particular, by determining child support, the judge is required to take into consideration:

  • The standard of living enjoyed during family cohabitation, since children should not suffer a deterioration of lifestyle due to their parents’ separation and should maintain the same standard of living, they had when the family unit was intact;
  • The time spent with each parent, as the amount may be reduced in proportion to the time the child spends with the non-custodial parent, who directly contributes to the child’s maintenance during those periods. However, according to settled case law, this does not mean that the payment can be suspended during such periods. For example, if during the summer holidays a child stays with the father for an entire month, he cannot suspend payment of the allowance to the mother, since monthly child support is not a mere reimbursement of expenses incurred during that specific month but rather the instalment of an annual sum determined based on the child’s overall needs. Consequently, even when the child is with the non-custodial parent, that parent remains obliged to pay the contribution but may request a temporary reduction corresponding to the period of cohabitation.
  • The parents’ overall financial resources, since ability to pay is not measured exclusively by declared income but also by any other economic resource and by the ability to perform a professional or domestic activity (Cass. civ. no. 25403/2025).

 

The principle of the child’s current needs

When determining child support, the judge must also apply the principle of the child’s current needs. According to the Supreme Court (Order no. 25421/2025), the assessment of the child’s requirements must reflect the situation existing at the time of the decision, avoiding long-term projections or speculative assumptions. Prognostic evaluations are admissible only in relation to predictable and ordinary events, such as continued education or school expenses.

Furthermore, the Court has affirmed that the increase in a child’s needs as they grow constitutes a well-known fact that does not require specific proof and justifies a revision of the allowance even in the absence of any improvement in the obligor’s financial situation (Cass. civ. no. 25534/2025).

 

Conclusions

The 2025 Supreme Court’s rulings articulate a comprehensive and substantive approach to the maintenance obligation, founded on three interpretative pillars:

  1. Two-dimensionality of the relationship, ensuring both the best interests of the child and equity between parents;
  2. Proportionality, based not on mathematical automatism but on a realistic assessment of income, resources and earning potential;
  3. Centrality of the child’s current needs, requiring continuous adjustment of the contribution to the child’s developmental stage.

Child support is therefore a dynamic obligation, subject to changes over time in response to changes in the financial situation of parents and the evolving needs of the child. This dynamic nature manifests itself in the possibility of judicial review and adjustment whenever significant changes occur in the family context.

In this way, child support functions as a flexible and adaptive instrument, capable of ensuring the effective and ongoing protection of the child’s best interests.