Supreme Court rejects request for minimum income for a separated father, as his children are not listed in his municipal registration.
The Supreme Court of Spain has issued a ruling that denies a father's claim for the Minimum Vital Income (IMV) in a case where he shares custody of his children but they primarily reside with the other parent.
The ruling aims to unify contradictory doctrines between the TSJ of Asturias and Andalusia, as both courts had issued conflicting rulings on the same matter. The high court has stated that the issue at hand is whether minor children residing in the other parent's dwelling can be considered part of the cohabitation unit for the purpose of receiving the IMV.
In cases of shared custody, the cohabitation unit where the minors are domiciled is considered for determining the amount of the benefit. However, the Supreme Court generally rules that for a father with shared custody to receive the IMV while cohabiting with minors who primarily live with the other parent, the economic situation and household composition must be evaluated carefully.
The key points influencing the ruling are that shared custody alone does not automatically guarantee inclusion of the children in the father’s household for IMV purposes. The children must effectively live with him or the father must demonstrate financial responsibility or dependance. If the children live mainly with the other parent and the father only has visitation or alternating custody, the household composition for IMV purposes will typically consider the children living in the other parent's household unless the father can prove the children live with him for a significant portion of time.
Eligibility for Minimum Vital Income focuses on the economic unit. Separate households are recognized only if there is a clear and stable separation of living conditions and expenses, which may exclude a shared custody parent if the children do not cohabit with him. Modifications like custody changes or financial support adjustments must be judicially authorized and supported with evidence of changed circumstances.
The father in this case had argued that his shared custody situation should be equated to cases with temporary reasons not interrupting cohabitation, as stated in article 6.2 of Royal Decree-Law 20/2020. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a father cannot receive the IMV if he has shared custody of his children and they live with the other parent.
The High Court of Justice (TSJ) of Andalusia had initially ruled that the man had the right to receive the minimum vital income, but the INSS appealed to the Supreme Court to unify doctrine. The legislator is aware of this situation and has included a specific rule in article 10.4 of Royal Decree-Law 20/2020.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case is significant as it establishes a clear precedent for future cases involving shared custody and the IMV. The father's vulnerable situation is not questioned, but rather his right to receive the benefit for the cohabitation unit of an adult with the two minor children for whom he has shared custody. The other parent cannot invoke the existence of a cohabitation unit with the same minors, who cannot form part of two different cohabitation units.
The father will not be obligated to repay the subsidy he received during the period of provisional enforcement of the appealed ruling. The ruling is a reminder that the IMV is intended to provide support to those who are most in need, and the court will carefully evaluate each case to ensure that the benefit is distributed fairly and equitably.
- The ruling from the Supreme Court of Spain sheds light on the finance sector, specifically, how the Minimum Vital Income (IMV) is determined in cases of shared custody in the banking-and-insurance industry.
- In the realm of average income distribution, the Supreme Court's ruling establishes that a father with shared custody cannot receive the IMV, even though the children primarily reside with the other parent, thereby setting a precedent for future industry standards.
