Violation of Family Support Obligations and Plurality of Offences: Clarification from the Supreme Court No. 12439/2025

With ruling No. 12439/2025, the Court of Cassation returns to address the crime under Article 570-bis of the Italian Criminal Code, introduced in 2018 to define conduct related to the failure to pay family support after separation or divorce. The Panel addressed a recurring question: if the omission concerns multiple cohabiting family members (e.g., ex-spouse and two children), are we dealing with a single offence or multiple offences? The answer directly impacts the penalty, statute of limitations, and defence strategy.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

Article 570-bis punishes anyone who, in violation of a court order, “fails to comply with the obligations to pay” sums intended for the maintenance of a spouse or children. The provision falls under the chapter on crimes against the family but refers, in terms of sanctioning discipline, to Article 570 of the Criminal Code. The text does not specify whether, in the presence of multiple entitled parties, the conduct should be considered unitary.

In the past, jurisprudence had wavered: some rulings (see Cass. 13418/2016) favoured unity, others plurality (Cass. 29926/2022). The judgment under review definitively resolves the conflict, also referring to Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code (formal concurrence) and the provisions on the continuation of the offence.

The Principle Affirmed by the Supreme Court

The conduct of violating family support obligations in cases of separation or dissolution of marriage, criminalized by Article 570-bis of the Criminal Code, does not constitute a single offence if committed to the detriment of multiple cohabiting individuals within the same family unit, but rather a plurality of offences in formal concurrence or, if the prerequisites are met, in continuation among them.

Comment: The Court refers to the personal nature of the maintenance obligation: each family member holds an autonomous right. Consequently, omission towards each person constitutes a distinct violation of the criminally protected interest. It follows that the judge must individually assess the damage suffered by each subject and apply the mechanism of formal concurrence (Art. 81, para. 1) or, if there is an identical criminal design, continuation (Art. 81, para. 2) with a possible increase in penalty.

Practical Implications for Parents and Defence Counsel

The principle has significant repercussions:

• Harsher Penalty: The plurality of offences can lead to a cumulation of penalties, with increases of up to three times the maximum provided.
• Differentiated Statute of Limitations: The prescription period must be calculated for each offence, preventing the extinction of the entire conduct.
• Compensation: Each family member may constitute themselves as a civil party for their own moral and material damages.
• Defence Strategy: Defence counsel must evaluate the possible recognition of continuation under Art. 81, para. 2, to contain the penalty.
• Revocation or Modification of Alimony: The possibility of requesting an adjustment of the alimony from the civil judge remains; however, non-compliance is not nullified by the mere pendency of such a request.

Conclusions

The Supreme Court ruling No. 12439/2025 reiterates the centrality of the right to family support, clarifying that each member of the unit deserves autonomous protection. For those facing economic difficulties, it is essential to act promptly to request a reduction in alimony, avoiding the criminal spiral. Lawyers and judges now have a solid orientation capable of ensuring uniform application and greater protection for vulnerable individuals.