- The attainment of majority by a child does not constitute grounds for the termination of the child support obligation,
- The child support obligation continues until the child reaches, or should reach with the use of his/her abilities, the ability to support himself/herself.
The maintenance obligation of parents to their children is not limited by any time limit. The prerequisite for its revocation, contrary to a common but mistaken belief, is not the attainment of majority by the child. Nor does the parents' child support obligation to their children cease when the child reaches a certain educational level. It depends solely on whether the child is able to support himself.
According to the position of the Supreme Court, the parents„ alimony obligation to the child is a particularization of the general obligation to ”care for the child's physical and spiritual development" and to properly prepare the child, according to his talents, for professional work, arising from Article 96 of the Family and Guardianship Code). This obligation is not limited by any rigid deadline, and in particular - by the date when the alimony recipient reaches the age of majority. It is also not tied to the degree of education in the sense that it does not cease when the alimony recipient reaches a certain degree of primary or secondary education. The only authoritative circumstance on which the continuance or termination of this obligation depends is whether the child can support himself or herself, it being understood that this cannot be expected of a minor child. For this reason, with regard to children who have reached the age of majority, consideration should be given to whether they show a desire to continue their education and whether their personal abilities and character traits allow them to actually continue their education. A contrary position would lead to hindering, or at least significantly hindering, the child's further development, and this by depriving him of the material means necessary to continue his education after reaching the age of majority, and would therefore be in conflict with the aforementioned fundamental parental duty. (Supreme Court ruling of November 14, 1997, III CKN 217/97).
According to Article 133 § 3 of the Family and Guardianship Code, parents may evade maintenance payments to a child of full age if they are combined with undue hardship for them or if the child does not make efforts to obtain the ability to support himself independently. The assessment of whether a child is capable of self-support boils down to an evaluation of the child's earning capacity and assets, and whether their full use will allow the child to earn enough income to meet his or her living needs independently.
Notwithstanding the above, however, as the case law points out, a child who has obtained a high school education and is theoretically capable of working cannot be expected to abandon further efforts and aspirations to acquire or upgrade his existing qualifications in favor of taking up employment in a learned profession. According to the Supreme Court, the continuation of education and the adult child's efforts to acquire or improve qualifications appropriate to his talents, which will enable him to earn higher wages in the future, may justify his refusal to take up employment or his failure to take advantage of his earning opportunities, including those related to his hitherto acquired profession (Supreme Court judgment of November 10, 1998, III CKN 565/98). Thus, the circumstances raised will not provide a basis for the court to declare that our alimony obligation to the child has ended.
A child who has entered higher education is entitled to a maintenance claim practically until the completion of his studies. If, however, the child, after beginning his studies, neglects the obligations associated with them, which has a direct bearing on the grades he receives, failure in examinations, or even leads to his removal from the list of students, it will be difficult to consider such a circumstance as justifying the continued imposition of a maintenance obligation on the parents. Referring once again to the position of the Supreme Court, it should be pointed out that studies cannot be just an excuse to give up gainful employment. It should be examined in each case whether an adult child takes his studies seriously. The ultimate verification of whether a child's efforts and talents are sufficient is precisely the results achieved in the course of study. Negligence in studies and the possible lack of positive results justify the termination of the obligation of alimony on the part of the obligor, if this is due to the culpable negligence of the child.
The child's failure to take up employment or continue his education can sometimes be dictated by his health problems and poor health. The resulting lack of earning capacity on the part of the eligible child then, of course, argues in favor of the parents continuing to be the ones to bear the child's living expenses.
It is also worth noting that, in accordance with the view well-established in the doctrine, in the demand to determine the termination of the alimony obligation, as it were, automatically also included a demand for its reduction. Consequently, the court, ex officio, after the conclusion of the proceedings in the case and if there are grounds for this, may also decide to reduce the alimony obligation, even though our request was „only” to determine its termination.
