Child maintenance does not stem from a fixed formula. When parents live apart, it is normal to wonder what amount is correct, whether the time spent with each parent changes the calculation, and which costs must be paid separately. This doubt becomes more concrete when facing a school tuition fee, a sports activity, a medical treatment, or an expense incurred without prior agreement.
I want to help you distinguish what goes into the monthly allowance from what can remain outside of it. We will see which criteria guide the quantification, why two families with similar incomes can have different amounts, and how to reduce conflicts over extraordinary expenses. The starting point is simple: maintenance serves the actual needs of the child and engages both parents in proportion to their resources.
How the monthly allowance is determined
Maintenance is a proportionate contribution, not an automatic percentage of salary. Article 337-ter of the Civil Code provides that each parent contributes in proportion to their income and that, when necessary, a periodic allowance is established. The judge considers the current needs of the child, the standard of life enjoyed during cohabitation, the times spent with each parent, the economic resources of both, and the value of care and domestic work performed by each. These criteria result from the text of Article 337-ter of the Civil Code.
Income alone is not enough. A payslip or tax return is important, but must be placed within the child's concrete life: age, school, housing, health needs, transport, activities already part of their daily routine, and the presence of other children or family obligations can have an impact. Savings, real estate, and other effectively available resources also count, without confusing a financial asset with immediately spendable money.
Joint custody does not necessarily eliminate the allowance. The fact that both parents participate in decisions and spend time with the child does not require that each bears only the expenses of the days the child is with them. If economic conditions, daily organization, or care responsibilities differ, a periodic allowance can serve precisely to maintain a proportionate participation of both.
The facts that truly change the calculation
The needs of the child change with growth
The amount must look at present needs. The expenses of a small child do not match those of a teenager or a young adult attending university. Growth may require an adjustment of the allowance even if the parents' salary has not changed: the needs of care, education, and assistance are not considered absorbed, without limits, solely by the provision of extraordinary expenses. This is a criterion recalled by the Court of Cassation in its 2022 annual civil review.
Care time has economic value. Whoever accompanies the child to school, follows therapies, organizes activities, remains available during illnesses or holidays, and manages daily life performs activities that the judge can consider in the quantification. This does not mean assigning a price to every gesture of care; it means recognizing that maintenance does not consist solely of bank transfers and receipts.
Housing and daily expenses have an impact, but do not decide alone
The child's housing is a relevant part of their maintenance. If the child lives predominantly in one home, the ordinary costs of that dwelling affect the family's economic balance. However, it is incorrect to mechanically add rent, utilities, and other expenses to derive the allowance: it is necessary to distinguish the share attributable to the child, the parents' resources, and the expenses already borne directly by each.
A clear agreement can be different from a single payment. Parents can provide for a monthly allowance and, at the same time, directly assign some recurring items to one of them, such as tuition or a transport service. To work, this choice must precisely indicate which cost remains the responsibility of the direct payer and which cost is already included in the allowance. Otherwise, the same expense risks being requested twice.
There are no national tables fixing the amount
Tables can guide, but do not replace legal criteria. In Italy, there is no binding national table that transforms income, number of children, and age into a mandatory allowance. Calculation models, local practices, and protocols can help organize data and build clearer agreements, but they do not eliminate the assessment of the child's real needs and the contribution of both parents.
Local guidelines apply in their context. Some courts publish indications to distinguish expenses included in the allowance from extra-allowance ones and to regulate consent, documentation, and reimbursement. The guidelines of the Court of Milan on extra-allowance expenses, for example, offer a practical list of items and methods. However, they do not become an identical rule for every family or every judicial office: what is established by the agreement or the applicable measure comes first.
The useful criterion is transparency. If you want to compare different proposals, it is more useful to compare actual income, recurring child costs, permanence times, and directly sustained expenses than to search for an abstract "right" figure. An understandable calculation also allows you to understand whether a request concerns a greater stable need, to be reflected in the allowance, or an exceptional cost to be shared separately.
Ordinary and extraordinary expenses
Ordinary expenses are normally covered by the monthly allowance. These are the predictable and recurring costs of the child's life: food, ordinary clothing, share of household expenses, recurring school supplies, and small habitual purchases. A single item can change its qualification based on the agreement and the concrete characteristics of the family. For this reason, it is not enough to call an expense "extraordinary" to obtain its reimbursement.
An extra-allowance expense requires a concrete assessment. The Court of Cassation has clarified that significant burdens that were neither current nor reasonably determinable when the allowance was set can be extraordinary in nature. In a decision concerning university and out-of-town accommodation expenses, the Court linked the distinction to predictability, the relevance of the amount, and the criteria of Article 337-ter. The principle is illustrated in the Court of Cassation review of March 2024.
Not every occasional expense is automatically reimbursable. A cost incurred only once may be modest, already provided for in the allowance, or inconsistent with the child's needs. Conversely, a periodic expense can remain outside the allowance if it has economic relevance and was not considered in its determination. Private school, specialized medical care, orthodontic appliances, demanding sports activities, or university accommodation must therefore be read in context: usefulness for the child, necessity, cost, existing agreements, and the economic possibilities of the parents.
Consent, expense proofs, and reimbursement
The first practical rule is to read the measure or agreement already in force. It may contain a list of expenses, a percentage breakdown, a deadline to respond to the request, or the obligation of prior agreement for certain decisions. That discipline should not be replaced by informal habits or ambiguous messages. If an expense has been expressly regulated, its management starts from what the parents have already signed or from what the judge has ordered.
Prior consent is particularly important for programmable and onerous choices. A private school, a multi-year course, therapy carried out privately when alternatives exist, or a costly activity also affect parental responsibility and require serious communication: expected cost, duration, reason for the choice, and available documents. For an urgent medical expense, on the other hand, the protection of the child's health cannot wait for an economic negotiation.
The absence of agreement does not resolve the dispute on its own. The Court of Cassation has stated that, in the absence of prior consultation, the judge must verify whether the expense corresponds to the child's interest and whether it is useful and sustainable with respect to the economic conditions of the parents. The principle, referred to extraordinary expenses, is reported in the Court of Cassation review of February 2021. Therefore, whoever advances an expense must be able to prove what they paid and why; whoever contests should not limit themselves to a generic refusal.
Evidence must show both the payment and its meaning. Invoice, receipt, medical prescription, school communication, estimate, and messages of request or dissent can clarify whether the cost was necessary, agreed upon, and correctly documented. Preserving these elements does not turn every disbursement into a credit, but prevents the comparison from being left to conflicting memories. It is prudent to use written communications that make the date, subject, and response recognizable.
When to request a modification of the allowance
A stable variation may require a review of the allowance. The loss or significant increase in resources, a different placement of the child, new lasting school or health needs, the change in permanence times, and the growth of ordinary costs can make the original amount inadequate. The point is not to establish who is "right" in the abstract, but to understand whether the balance on which the allowance was fixed still exists.
It is not safe to modify payments unilaterally. Reducing the allowance because the child spends more days with a parent, or increasing it spontaneously to replace an extra expense, can create uncertainty and contested arrears. If parents reach a new understanding, it is appropriate to make it precise and formalize it in the proper forms; if there is no agreement and a judicial provision already exists, the modification must be requested from the judge.
A well-defined request avoids unnecessary conflicts. It is useful to distinguish the change concerning the monthly contribution from that concerning a single expense. In the first case, data on new needs and resources are needed; in the second, nature, necessity, cost, and breakdown must be clarified. If you need to set up or review an agreement, you can contact me to examine which path is consistent with the existing provision and the concrete situation.
Frequently asked questions
Can I calculate child maintenance by applying a percentage to income?
No, there is no fixed legal percentage. Income is one of the data to consider, together with the child's current needs, permanence times, the resources of the other parent, and care work. An indicative calculation can help comparison, but does not replace these criteria or automatically make an amount correct.
Does joint custody mean I do not have to pay any allowance?
No, these are two different issues. Joint custody concerns the responsibility of both parents in important decisions for the child. The allowance instead serves to make economic contribution proportionate when resources, care times, or directly sustained expenses are not equivalent.
Are medical expenses always extraordinary?
Not always. Over-the-counter drugs and predictable health costs can fall into ordinary expenses, while specialist visits, prescribed treatments, non-programmable treatments, or significant disbursements can be regulated separately. It is also necessary to verify whether the agreement or provision distinguishes between urgent care, documented expenses, and care to be agreed upon in advance.
Can I ask for the reimbursement of an expense without having notified the other parent?
The request is not automatically excluded, but must be proven. If there is no rule imposing prior consent, the child's interest, the usefulness of the expense, its sustainability, and documentation become central. For programmable and relevant costs, a written request before the expense reduces the risk of subsequent dispute.
Can I stop paying the allowance if my income changes?
No, it is not prudent to suspend or reduce payment on your own. A serious economic change can justify a review, but until a new effective agreement or a modification of the provision, the risk of disputes for unpaid sums remains. The request must clearly indicate what change has occurred and how it affects maintenance.
A criterion to address the comparison
A useful agreement separates what is monthly from what is exceptional. Defining amount, payment date, potential adjustment, costs already included, expenses to be agreed upon, reimbursement percentages, and document sending methods makes daily management more readable. It does not resolve every divergence, but prevents an expense necessary for the child from immediately turning into a conflict over its qualification or payment.