Shared custody

In this case, parents were discussing in court how to organize shared custody organize shared custody shared on alternate weeks . In addition, it established a system known as “bird's nest custody” “nesting house” in the family home and the and are the each week depending on who has custody. It also established alimony and the division of expenses , and assigned the pet to the father. to the father.

The father appealed, and the Provincial Court maintained the "nesting house", but setting a limit , maximum 3 years. However, the father took the matter to the Supreme Court (SC), insisting that that system should not be maintained .

The SC analyzes the situation and first clarifies that the home continues to be "family" , even though the mother moved in with her parents in 2019, because the residence continued to be the center of life for the father and the children for years, with different forms of cohabitation and stays.

But the key point is different, the SC concludes that the "nesting home" does not benefit the child in this case. Why? Mainly for two very practical reasons, there is no agreement between the parents (which makes it very likely that conflicts will arise regarding the organization and maintenance of the home) and they do not have real economic capacity to sustain the system, which in practice forces to fit a complicated logistics and, usually, to have housing alternatives. The court focuses on the incomes and on the expense burden that the father already assumes (mortgage, loans, utilities, taxes, etc.), and considers that the imposed model is not viable .

In the end, the Supreme Court revokes the "nest home" and decides that the use of the family home be temporarily attributed to the temporary guardian In disputes regarding the family home after the family crisis or during and after the processing of a family process, our professionals will provide you with the appropriate legal assistance and will take the necessary actions as appropriate