Family processes

A father filed a lawsuit to modify the divorce measures regarding his children. Specifically, he requested a reduction in the alimony he was paying, stating that his financial situation had worsened. The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled in his favor and decreased the alimony, based on the father's current financial situation. But the story did not end there. A few days later, that same CFI issued an order in a voluntary jurisdiction proceeding and made a very relevant decision, granting the father exclusive custody of the minor children and also imposing child support on the mother. The mother appealed the judgment that had reduced the father's alimony. In opposing the appeal, the father pointed out that the mother had not mentioned . Specifically, she requested reduce the child support that he was paying, stating that her financial situation had worsened. The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled in his favor and reduced the support, based on the father's current financial situation.

But the story did not end there. A few days later, that same CFI issued an order in a voluntary jurisdiction proceeding (VJP) and made a very relevant decision, granting the father the sole custody of the minor children and also imposed on the mother a child support in favor of the minors.

The mother appealed the judgment that had reduced the father's child support. In opposing the appeal, the father pointed out that the mother had not mentioned that car from EJV, which changed completely the family scenario (because it was no longer the children who lived with the mother, but with him).

The Provincial Court (AP) upheld the mother's appeal and reversed the reduction of the alimony . It stated, on one hand, that the father had not proven that his financial situation had worsened, and on the other hand, that it did not assess the change of custody because it did not know its extent or have specific data on the new living arrangements and their economic impact.

The father appealed to the Supreme Court (TS), arguing that the AP had ignored a key new circumstance , the car from EJV. The TS ruled in his favor and ordered the matter to be returned to the AP to pronounce on the children's maintenance taking into account that new fact presented in the appeal. For the SC, that order was not a minor detail, it was a decisive fact with direct consequences on what was being discussed. In addition, it rejects being "overlooked" due to lack of data , because in these family processes there is flexibility and evidence could have been agreed upon or requested from the parties to prove the new situation.