Just to be clear this is the sentence that last year the Juvenile Court of Rome notified me: "[...] the Lady
appealed, asking, [...] that the child was born ... XXX a similar relationship with the applicant [ME], recognized by both, remains entrusted to the mother, with the option of attending for his father on schedule in the application itself, also requested that child support, already fixed by the judge in a civil airport in 2005 € 350.00 per month (€ 377.23 today with the revaluation ISTAT) was appropriate and carried 600.00 € to 500.00 € or at least.
It was asking the respondent was willing to share custody of a child, a way of attending with his father, as specified in the memory, however, take account of the distance between their residences (Torino for the apparently Latin for the child and mother) also requested confirmation of the amount of maintenance as established by the Civil Judge of Turin.
hearing the parties appeared gg/mm/08 which substantiate their claims, prosecutors lodged within the time granted memories and notes of reply, and obtain the opinion of the prosecution, the proceeding was brought in the Council Chamber for decision.
should be immediately noted that, in modification of the action of TM in Turin (also issued before the entry into force of Law No. 54/06), must be willing to share custody of the child X to stay with both parents at the prevailing the mother on the verge on the other hand parents are broadly in agreement (see statement in the establishment of durable and of additional submissions by the applicant) and that discipline, in addition to ensuring the exercise of equitable power with the same assumption of parental duties and obligations, it seems more appropriate to the child or via all'iknteresse have reason to oppose the application of Article. DC 155, as amended by Law No. 54/06, in which the choice propritaria this type of foster care.
That said, however, you must add the mode of association with the father already laid down in this decree TM Turin and in the light of the passage of time and age of the child and given the current number of residences of the parents in this regard, while noting the considerable distance between their homes and even taken his father's work commitments, it should not be let pass too long between visits to the other and that allow the child to maintain a positive and significant relationship with his father.
It is therefore appropriate, without prejudice to any other agreement between the parents, to allow the father to take her son with at least one weekend a month from Friday evening or Saturday morning until Sunday evening, during the Christmas period from 24/12 to 30/12 or from 31/12 to 6 / 1 in alternate years, a week for 20 consecutive days during Easter and summer holidays, in agreement with the mother to be fixed by May 31 of each year.
As the economic aspect, taking into account the different needs of the child in relation to current age (six years), it definitely an adjustment of what was held by the Civil Judge where the child was two years and this adjustment will also take into consideration the earning capacity of both parties (around € 1200.00 per month to the mother, the father about 2100 euro per month) and expenses Travel and accommodation that the father will face when they visit his son and ultimately seems set fair to be paid by the father is obliged to pay as its contribution to child support, a monthly allowance of € 450.00, including an obligation to contribute at a rate of 50% for the extraordinary medical, educational and recreational activities, previously agreed with the mother. PQM
Viewed Articles. 155 et seq. and 317 a DC
heard the PM, saying
definitely has custody of the parents shared in the form of the child X was born in Moncalieri (TO) dd / mm / aaaaa, subject to placement with her mother now lives in the home where ;
allows the father to keep her son, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, at least one weekend a month from Friday evening or Saturday morning until Sunday evening, during the Christmas period from 24/12 to 30/12 or by 31/12 to 6 / 1 in alternate years, a week to 20 days consecuitvi Easter and summer holidays, in agreement with the mother to be fixed by May 31 of each year;
obliges the father to pay for the maintenance son of the sum of € 450.00 per month, which may be adjusted according to the ISTAT index to be paid to the mother before the 5th of each month and costribuire to the extent of 50% to extraordinary expenses, medical, educational and recreational activities.
Decided in Rome on 17/04/2009. [...]"
Foster care is then shared! Reproduces Article 155 of CC:
"Even in case of separation of parents the minor child has the right to maintain a balanced and continuous with each of them to receive care, education and instruction on both and keep meaningful relationships with ancestors and relatives of each arm parental .
To achieve the goals indicated by the first paragraph, the judge who pronounced the separation of the spouses adopts measures concerning the offspring with exclusive reference to 'moral and material interest it. Currency primarily the possibility that minor children remain assigned to both parents, or determines to which of these children are entrusted determines the timing and manner of their presence at each parent , fixing also the extent and the manner in which each of them should contribute to the maintenance, care, education and upbringing of children. Notes, if not contrary to the children, the agreements reached between the parents. Adopt such other measures on the offspring.
The parental authority is exercised by both parents. The decisions of interest relating to education for children, education and health are taken by mutual agreement, taking into account the capacity, the natural inclination and aspirations of children. In case of disagreement, the decision is left to the judge. Limited to decisions on matters of routine administration, the court may determine that the parents exercise parental authority separately. "
I have highlighted in bold type those phrases that, compared to the decision issued by the TM of Rome seem in direct contradiction with Article 155 (Which should be the benchmark of judges).
fact, if custody is shared, as I asked and she denied, then the report should equal, or at least that it is as much as possible. After one year of the sentence but I have not the ability to make decisions about my child, how can I check if any of my proposal is actually implemented? So this is markedly shared false. As they say is a disguised as a shared exclusive!
Further evidence for this is that specified in the decision regarding the mode of presence of the father and son talk about in the first mode of attendance (And is in line with the law) and then instead says it will be appropriate that the father did not wait too long between visits and the other (but then fall within the exclusive?). Then is the time that the child may spend with his father but then, he called the child support, takes into account travel and living expenses that her father will face when his son will travel (but how the child should not , for his moral and material interests, he spent the time in to be decided "at each parent?" If it means at each parent in a hotel room with his father, then do not put anything on a discussion, but I think that is not the principle expressed in paragraph 1, or that has the right to maintain meaningful relationships with ancestors and relatives of each arm parental . I ask whoever reads me how to maintain relationships with all the relatives if the only one to attend on an ongoing basis the child appears to be the father.
Now that I was born the second son would really like that the whole family will attend regularly and maybe the only way to get something back is to go to trial. But I can never trust the same courts that have already decided a year ago with the sentence above? I do not give up and go forward, we'll see how it will end!
0 comments:
Post a Comment