Some time ago, I handled a case in which the opposing party—the father, using the fictitious name Matteo—did everything he could to avoid his payment obligations. This was despite the fact that, under the law, parents are required to contribute to the costs of raising and caring for their minor children in proportion to their means.
Mr. Matteo argued that he had no financial capacity to pay child support for his minor child. Naturally, I vigorously and thoroughly defended the mother’s position. The man tried to convince the court of first instance that he had no income, or at best minimal income. However, he did not submit any documents showing that he had made every effort to generate income. He also failed to demonstrate that, despite sufficient attempts, he was unable to find work. Instead, he submitted information regarding his recurring monthly expenses. Although Mr. Matteo claimed he had been unemployed for years, he stated that he had high costs for Aqualectra (electricity), gasoline, groceries, clothing, and personal care.
During the oral hearing, the judge posed critical questions after my plea—and rightly so. We are talking about a man in the prime of his life, with a high level of education (higher professional education), multiple degrees, and an impressive résumé. During questioning, the man admitted that in his last job he earned a monthly salary of 4,000 guilders. The judge used this admission to conclude in her decision that, given his education and work experience, Matteo was capable of generating the same income again in the short term. The court granted my client’s request for child support and ruled that Matteo must pay 550 guilders monthly in advance to cover the costs of raising and caring for his minor child. So, even though we were dealing with a man who claimed to have no income, the court determined that this did not relieve him of his obligation to contribute to the child’s expenses.
Apparently, Mr. Matteo could not accept this ruling and decided to appeal to the Court of Appeal. This time, we received a massive file filled with numerous job applications that he claimed to have sent. His appeal requested that the child support he was ordered to pay be reduced to zero, and that the mother return all amounts she had received since the first-instance ruling. Again, Matteo argued—this time in appeal—that he did not have the financial capacity to pay the awarded contribution for the child’s upbringing and care. He also claimed that the mother had insufficiently substantiated the child’s expenses.
Using a statement from his parents, the man claimed—without showing any emotion—that they had given him a loan with which he had paid the child support in recent months. He also went to great lengths to convince the Court of Appeal that he was unable to contribute even a single cent. I watched with disbelief the summary of his monthly expenses that Matteo submitted. Although he claimed to have no income, he simultaneously provided a breakdown of costs showing that he had to pay an astronomical monthly electricity bill, as if the air conditioners at his home were running day and night. His listed gasoline costs were higher than those of an average family with three children. Moreover, he claimed to have substantial personal care expenses, including haircuts.
The mother’s relief was immense when the Court of Appeal’s ruling was announced. Like the first-instance judge, the court found it implausible that Mr. Matteo had no income at all. Even the statement from his parents, indicating that they contributed monthly to financially support their “beloved son,” did not change the outcome. The Court of Appeal held that his significant recurring monthly living expenses did not indicate a lack of income. The court also noted that it would have been reasonable for Matteo to tighten his belt to reduce his living costs, partly to avoid unnecessarily burdening his parents, whose financial situation he had not claimed to be particularly wealthy. His spending, however, did not reflect this.
Fortunately, it is not very common for a parent to refuse to contribute to the costs of raising and caring for children, as in the example above. Most parents agree that children should not suffer due to the divorce. Disagreements about the exact amount to be paid may continue. In such cases, mediation is one option to reach a peaceful agreement if direct negotiation between the parents does not succeed.