The Supreme Court Ruling on Maintenance and Endofamilial Damage: A Case of Fundamental Importance

The ruling no. 9293 of the Supreme Court, published on April 4, 2023, concerns a highly relevant issue in family law: the settlement of maintenance and the compensation for endofamilial damage. This case provides a valuable opportunity to reflect on the rights of minors and the responsibilities of parents, highlighting the challenges related to the paternal figure and its role in the lives of children.

The Context of the Ruling

The case in question sees A.A. appealing against the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Naples, which had confirmed the provisions of the Court regarding the maintenance of the daughter C.C. and the recognition of endofamilial damage. The Court established that A.A. should pay a monthly contribution of 400 euros for the maintenance of the daughter and a compensation of 25,000 euros for the damage suffered by the minor due to his absence.

The ruling highlights how the absence of a father can generate significant non-economic damage, profoundly influencing the life of the minor.

The Main Legal Aspects

A key element of this ruling concerns the assessment of endofamilial damage. The Court recognized that the absence of the father has caused prejudice to the daughter, linked to the deprivation of affection and moral support. This aspect is connected to the principle of protection of the minor, enshrined in Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which mandates States to ensure the best interests of the child.

• The quantification of maintenance must take into account the superior needs of the minor.
• Compensation for endofamilial damage can be settled equitably, as established by Article 1226 of the Civil Code.
• Case law has reiterated that the father's role cannot be overlooked in the context of the minor's growth.

Conclusions

The Supreme Court ruling represents an important step forward in the protection of the rights of minors. It reaffirms that parents have the obligation to provide adequate economic and moral support to their children. At the same time, it highlights how the absence of one of the parents can result in non-economic damage, requiring appropriate compensation. In an ever-evolving legal context, it is crucial that rulings reflect the importance of the paternal figure and, more generally, parental responsibility in the lives of minors. With this ruling, the Supreme Court not only provides legal clarity but also promotes greater awareness of the rights of the young.