We successfully represented client in a case involving an unjustified request to issue an enforcement order for child support arrears

Successful representation in a case involving an unfounded request to issue an enforcement writ for child support arrears

We successfully represented our client in a case concerning an unjustified request to issue an enforcement order based on a previously valid child support arrangement.

The dispute arose from the execution of a divorce settlement agreement confirmed by the court in 2019. Under that agreement, the client had committed to paying €550 per month for child support. However, since the divorce, both parents had been equally sharing custody on a 50/50 basis.

Despite this arrangement, the client consistently fulfilled the child support obligation in good faith. In 2023, both parties acknowledged that assigning the full support obligation to one parent under a 50/50 custody model was incompatible with the actual circumstances and legal framework. As a result, they entered into a new settlement agreement, which:

🔹 Maintained the 50/50 custody arrangement;
🔹 Introduced a new child support structure, with both parents contributing proportionally, and the client covering a share of specific expenses, including formal education.

Nevertheless, in 2025, the former spouse applied to the court seeking to issue an enforcement writ for alleged arrears related to indexation of the original child support amount for the period before 2023, relying on the outdated 2019 agreement.

In representing our client, we argued:

1️⃣ Paying €550/month while the child spent 50% of the time with the father was not only sufficient but likely covered more than just the child’s needs.
2️⃣ Both parents are equally obliged to support their child. Therefore, the applicant would need to prove she spent €1,100 per month on the child (i.e., €550 from each parent).
3️⃣ The 2019 divorce settlement agreement was replaced by the 2023 settlement, making the original court decision no longer enforceable.

The first instance court rightfully dismissed the request to issue an enforcement writ based on an outdated ruling, highlighting that:

🔹 A valid 2023 settlement agreement had replaced the earlier child support terms that contradicted legal standards.
🔹 An enforcement order cannot be issued based on a judgment that is no longer enforceable due to a subsequent valid agreement.
🔹 The applicant provided no evidence that her contribution exceeded that of the client or that the indexation reflected an unmet need of the child.

The appellate court upheld this decision, once again stressing that:

🔹 Child support is a mutual obligation and must be assessed based on factual reality, not formal assumptions.
🔹 One parent’s financial efforts cannot be treated as arrears if the other parent made no actual contribution.
🔹 An enforcement order cannot be issued based on a decision that has been legally replaced, as per civil procedure and substantive law.

This case illustrates how a well-founded legal strategy, based on both factual and legal clarity, can effectively protect a client’s interests in complex family law disputes. The matter concluded in our client’s favor, with the court confirming that one cannot rely on voided terms to unjustly gain financial benefit.