The Supreme Court ruling of February 20, 2018, considered an appeal for cassation (i.e. for the Supreme Court to interpret the relevant law), considering that the ruling issued by the Provincial Court of Valencia to attribute to the mother the use of what was family housing until the common son reaches legal age does not conform to the interpretation that must be made of article 96 of the Civil Code in relation to the provisions of article 2 of the Organic Law on the Legal Protection of Minors.
The Supreme Court questions whether the attribution of the use of the house that was the family dwelling was appropriate, during the time of the contested ruling, taking into account that the child was born in 2010 and will not reach the age of majority until 2028. In the words of the jurisprudence of the same Chamber, what is appropriate is to agree on a temporary attribution, aimed at facilitating the transition and adaptation to the new circumstances of shared custody, as did the ruling of first instance and the appellant requests.
The Supreme Court considers that in the present case, the legitimate interest of the father, coowner of the house, should be able to make use of it and, in view of the proven circumstances, should be prioritized, as stated in Article 2 of the Organic Law of Protection. Juridical of the Minor, the measures that, responding to this interest, also respect the other legitimate interest.
Understanding in that sense that the mother had enough income to pay or rent another house that would allow her to make the system of shared custody work and which had been established in the child’s interest.
