Are unemployed children entitled to support?

When dealing with over 18 children in Book I Title IV, the Italian legislator states in art. 155 quinquies of the Italian Civil Code that: “The judge, after examining the circumstances, can provide unemployed over 18 children with a periodic cheque. This cheque is deposited directly to them, unless the judge makes a different decision. As for over 18 children who are severely disabled according to article 3, paragraph 3 of the law n.104 of 5th February 1992, the same dispositions as those concerning under age children are applicable”.

This provision came from an important reform introduced in 2006 that encompassed part of the jurisprudence and doctrine of those years. Consequently, it is now believed that over 18 children also need to be included among those entitled to this cheque. 

The criterion adopted by the Supreme Court is economic independence: only this element influences the above-mentioned right.

The persistence of the obligation is determined by the child’s objective and subjective possibilities to become self-sufficient, thus considering their suitability, ability and job opportunities.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Italian Cassation justifies or encourages children who do not want to work. The cheque cannot be given de iure, i.e. just because you are a child and you are unemployed. The youngster has to get a job that is coherent with their educational route and social level.

The concept of non-economic independence is strictly connected to the idea that over 18 children are not guilty of not achieving it. However, the abuse of this right is not allowed, especially if the youngster is lazy and unjustifiably refuses job proposals.

The judges of Piazza Cavour made a further step in this case in the recent sentence n.18076 of 20/8/2014. Starting from the concept of innocent economic independence, they pointed out that the parents must demonstrate that they did everything they could to help their child become self-sufficient. However, the validity of the above-mentioned burden of proof “(…) is proportional to the advancing age, up to the point that the youngster's educational route is over and they have been in society for a long time. Indeed, the child’s right can be justified only within the limits of an education project and an educational route, taking their skills, aspirations and talent into account.”

In the case in which the subject’s personality is formed, the parents' duty is perfected and the persistence in the enjoyment of the right is over. The risk is to demotivate the youngsters who do not want to get a job because they receive a periodic cheque.

The sentence in question highlights not only the relationship between re-education purpose, support and innocent non-economic independence, but it also concentrates on the necessity to avoid the persistence of this right because it can be a social safety net, considering the increase of youth unemployment.