The daughter refuses two jobs, the Supreme Court: stop the father’s check

The case of the daughter of a divorced couple from Gorizia. The Supreme Court rejected her complaint to get back the monthly allowance of 300 euros from her father: for the “stoats” the lack of economic independence is “solely her fault”

GORIZIA. Twice the 22-year-old daughter of a divorced couple from Gorizia, a girl with only a high school diploma and no lover of studies as well as no professional aspirations, said “no” to a fixed-term employment contract.

The first, as a secretary in her father’s law firm, turned her down saying she wanted to be a waitress. At the steady job as a waitress that she so wanted, the girl still said no.

Now the Supreme Court has rejected his claim to get back the monthly allowance of 300 euros from his father: for the “stoats” the lack of economic independence is “solely his fault”.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the appeal of the young woman – who pointed out her “young age” and her “professional career still in progress” – is “manifestly unfounded”.

For the supreme judges, in an exhaustive manner the Court of Gorizia and then the Court of Appeal of Trieste in 2020 “explained the reasons for the revocation of the allowance” remarking how “the failure to achieve the economic independence of the girl should be attributed exclusively at her fault, for having unjustifiably refused multiple job offers, despite lacking any evidence of her particular inclinations or aptitudes or her very specific professional aspirations that had determined her to make, and to follow consistently, a different and consistent choice alternative planning “.

What made her father go into a rage, after the double no to stable jobs, was the young woman’s intention to enroll in a graphology course, an idea abandoned as soon as she found a two-year course for opticians in Bologna with a very low frequency of one day a week as it is reserved for workers.

Course in which the girl had finally registered in the appeal case, given the ugly ones, after the Court – to which she, her brother and the divorced mother had turned to raise the contribution for the children – had instead made completely cease his right to receive his father’s allowance.

“It must be excluded that the maintenance allowance pursues an unconditional welfare function of adult unemployed children, of unlimited content and duration, owing to the relative obligation of payment – underlines the Supreme Court – to cease in the event that the failure to achieve economic independence is it can be traced back to the lack of an effective commitment to a training project aimed at the acquisition of professional skills or depends exclusively on contingent or structural objective factors linked to the trend of employment or the labor market “.

On the other hand, the right of the girl’s eighteen-year-old brother to receive his 300 euros a month from his father who wanted to take it away from him too “for the poor academic performance for which he had retired from the fourth year for not being rejected, for his repeated absences, disciplinary notes, his inappropriate and unjustified behavior “.

The Supreme Court shared the decision of the Court of Appeal which established that “the moral conduct” of the boy could not be taken into account, as his father “censor” insisted, and that the check belongs to him by right as in the end it was admitted to the last year of high school and therefore there is the “possibility that he will complete his studies”.

And then it is not his fault that he is not yet independent given that “he has just come of age” and “there is no proof that the job offered to him by his father and refused conforms to his aptitudes and aspirations”.