News Supreme Court rulings April 2013

Gay parents harmful to the child? In the absence of evidence, it is a bias
The Civil Cassation in its judgment of 11.01.2013 no. 601, ruled that it must be proven that entrusting, to a same-sex couple, a child may be detrimental to the child’s development.
The Supreme Court upheld the sole custody of a child to the mother, who is cohabiting and in a relationship with another woman, thus rejecting the misgivings expressed by the father, who believed it was detrimental to the child’s balanced development to live in a family composed of two women in a same-sex relationship.
According to the Justices of legitimacy ruled that since there is no scientific certainty or data of experience, it will have to be proven in the concrete case that it is detrimental to the child’s balanced development to live in a family centered on a same-sex couple.

One spouse’s extramarital web-based affair is not worth the marriage charge

The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 8929/2013, clarified that the constant telematic and/or telephone contacts between the wife and her lover do not constitute a breach of the duties of marital fidelity, even in the event that these are accompanied by the lack of sexual relations between the spouses.
According to the Supreme Court, it is possible to charge the separation to the other spouse only if the violation of marital obligations involves an offense to the dignity and honor of the other spouse and there are cases where there are well-founded suspicions of infidelity.
The Justices of legitimacy, specify, in fact, that those behaviors that take the form of the complete absence of carnal relations jointly with the evidence that the relationship was not brought to the attention of external parties are not punishable with the charge.

Listless son? Then the withdrawal of maintenance allowance is lawful
In the judgment n. 7970 of April 2, 2013, the Supreme Court declared that. an adult child’s unreasonable refusal to work, even if not in accordance with his or her aspirations, constitutes valid grounds for revocation of the allowance.
Adds the Supreme Court, following the child’s coming of age, the allowance continues to be disbursed, by the obligated parent, only in those cases in which the child’s non-employment depends on a cause not attributable to him or her and not, as in the case submitted to the Supreme Court, on the child’s inertia or unwarranted refusal.
However, clarify the Courts of legitimacy, such a situation does not operate ipso jure but must be proven in the course of regular proceedings or, again, that the extinction of the obligation to make periodic payment of the allowance derives, moreover, from express agreement between the child and the former spouses.