Shared custody with equal parenting time raises a concrete question: if time is distributed close to 50/50, should child maintenance be eliminated? No, not necessarily. The division of overnight stays and care days is an important factor, but it does not determine on its own how the costs of raising a child should be borne.
I want to help you separate two levels that are often confused: the permanence calendar and the proportion in which parents contribute to expenses. I will explain when direct maintenance can work, why an equalization payment may remain useful, how to distinguish ordinary expenses from extra ones, and which circumstances make it appropriate to update an arrangement that no longer reflects daily life.
Equal time does not automatically mean zero maintenance
Joint legal custody and shared physical custody are not the same thing. Joint legal custody concerns the participation of both parents in decisions relevant to the child. Shared physical custody instead indicates a practical organization in which the child spends substantially equivalent time in both homes. Joint legal custody can exist even without a 50/50 schedule, and a shared schedule alone does not establish the absence of maintenance.
Article 337-ter of the Civil Code provides that each parent shall contribute to maintenance in proportion to their income and allows the court, when necessary, to set a periodic payment to achieve that proportion. In determining this, current needs of the child, previous living standards, permanence times, the economic resources of both, and the value of domestic and care duties become relevant. These criteria result in the Normattiva reference to Article 337-ter of the Civil Code.
There is no legal 50/50 formula. Dividing every monthly expense by two can be useful as a first comparison, but it does not equate to a legally complete calculation. The child's expenses do not all follow the weekly alternation: school, subscriptions, books, activities, seasonal clothing, and housing costs are often incurred at different times and by only one parent.
The actually respected calendar also matters. An agreement may provide for alternating weeks, but reality may differ due to school schedules, business trips, illnesses, afternoon activities, or the child's needs. If the deviation is continuous, it is not an organizational detail: it can change both the distribution of expenses and the burden of daily care.
What an equalization payment is and what it is for
Equalization payments serve the children, they do not compensate for the end of the relationship. This expression does not identify a distinct allowance provided under that name by the Civil Code. In practice, it indicates the periodic contribution that can rebalance maintenance when the mere direct payment of expenses does not ensure participation proportional to the economic capabilities of both parents.
The first data point consists of the child's concrete needs. These include food, clothing, the share of home, school, transportation, health, communication expenses, and activities that continuously form part of their life. There is no need to turn every purchase into a dispute; however, it is necessary to make fixed and recurring expenses visible which, without a precise rule, risk always burdening the same person.
Income is not the only element to compare. The proportion concerns effective economic resources and not just a month's net salary. Continuous income, asset availability, and concrete burdens that affect the capacity to contribute may be relevant. Article 316-bis of the Civil Code indeed refers to respective means and professional or domestic work capacities; the text is reported in the Normattiva reference to the rules on contribution to maintenance.
Care also has an economic value. Accompanying the child to school, coordinating visits and therapies, following school communications, organizing necessary materials, and handling unexpected events is not an item to be invoiced to the other parent. However, it is a contribution that the court may consider when assessing whether the economic contribution is balanced, especially when a significant share of these activities falls steadily on only one of the two.
Direct maintenance and monthly contribution: compatible models
Direct maintenance requires named rules. It means that each parent bears daily expenses during the periods when the child is with them and that recurring items are clearly attributed. It can be a suitable solution when times are truly equal, resources are similar, and fixed expenses are distributed in a readable way.
The formula "everyone pays when the child is with them" is not enough if it leaves annual or monthly expenses unanswered. It is different to establish that one person pays for the canteen and the other for the sports course, or that both deposit a share into an account dedicated to fixed items. In the absence of these clarifications, one may bear the expenses of the permanence days while the other advances almost everything that does not coincide with the calendar.
Allowance and direct maintenance can coexist. A parent can directly pay what the child needs during their own permanence times and, at the same time, pay a periodic contribution. This happens when resources or the allocation of costs remain unbalanced even after considering what each bears directly.
An intermediate solution also exists: a part of ordinary expenses is borne directly, some fixed items are assigned to one of the parents, and a monthly sum completes the rebalancing. The same expense must not be counted twice. If school tuition is already placed entirely at the expense of one parent, it must be considered in the overall picture before setting or modifying the allowance.
Ordinary and extraordinary expenses: the point that avoids many conflicts
An expense is not extraordinary just because it is paid separately. Ordinary expenses are those that are foreseeable and recurring in the child's life; normally they must be included in the allowance or in the agreed direct allocation. Food, school canteens, share of household expenses, ordinary clothing, recurring stationery, and over-the-counter medicines are examples indicated in the Milan Court guidelines on extra-allowance expenses.
Those guidelines are not a national rule nor do they replace what results from the provision or agreement applicable to your situation. However, they help understand a useful criterion: an extra expense can depend on its occasional nature, its economic significance, or the nature of the choice. For this reason, it is incorrect to automatically define as extraordinary any cost that does not recur every week.
Programmable choices require prior regulation. A private course, an expensive sports activity, a non-public school, a study trip, or non-urgent healthcare can pose the problem of prior consent. The situation of necessary and urgent expense, which cannot wait for discussion without affecting the child's health or well-being, is different.
A clear agreement should indicate which categories are already included in ordinary maintenance, which expenses must be divided and according to what percentage, how to communicate the request, and which decisions must be shared before disbursement. The percentage is not obligatorily 50 percent. It can be linked to the proportion of resources, provided the criterion is expressed in an understandable way.
Two homes and family home: effects not to be confused
The double home does not create an automatic reimbursement. In shared custody, both parents must be able to host the child in an adequate environment, but the costs of the respective homes do not automatically transform into a new allowance item. They can affect concretely available resources, together with income, rent, a mortgage, and other actual burdens.
The family home follows a distinct rule. Article 337-sexies of the Civil Code establishes that the right to inhabit the home is granted by giving priority to the interests of the children and that the assignment also affects the regulation of economic relations between the parents, taking into account possible ownership. The content of the provision is reported in the Normattiva reference to Article 337-sexies of the Civil Code.
The 50/50 calendar does not solve the housing issue on its own. It is necessary to distinguish the cost of organizing two homes, any economic advantage deriving from the enjoyment of the family home, and the contribution destined for the children's expenses. These are connected elements, but not overlapping: confusing them can lead to duplicating an expense or ignoring a resource that truly impacts the balance between parents.
When conditions can be modified
An initial agreement must not remain unalterable if the child's life changes. Article 337-quinquies of the Civil Code allows parents to request at any time the revision of provisions on custody, parental responsibility, and the methods or measure of the contribution. The text of the provision is reported in the Normattiva reference to the revision of provisions regarding children.
A relevant change may concern permanence times that have become stably different, a new health or school need, the loss or continuous increase of economic resources, or the emergence of fixed costs not considered at the beginning. An isolated variation during holidays or a single more difficult month does not necessarily prove that the regulation is now inadequate.
Messages do not automatically replace formalized rules. Practical understandings can be useful to face an unexpected event, but it is risky to treat them as if they had already stably modified an agreement or a ruling. If the new organization continues, it is important to also clarify who bears the expenses it entails, preventing the child from getting involved in reimbursement requests and continuous disputes.
For guidance, it can be useful to put in order the actually applied calendar, recurring expenses, those already planned for the year, and the economic information necessary to understand the proportion of the contribution. Comparable data are needed, not punitive accounting. The goal is to identify a regulation that allows the child to have continuity in both homes.
Frequently Asked Questions
With 50/50 times is child maintenance always zero?
No. Shared times are one of the relevant criteria, but they must be read together with the child's needs, the parents' economic resources, expenses borne directly, and the value of care. If direct maintenance does not achieve a proportionate contribution, a periodic equalization contribution may be provided.
How is the equalization payment calculated for children?
There is no fixed percentage. The child's ordinary needs, expenses already attributed to each parent, actual permanence times, available resources, and care duties are considered. The amount must rebalance a concrete difference: it does not derive solely from the comparison between two incomes nor from the simple 50/50 division of every expense.
Are extraordinary expenses always divided 50 percent?
No, the allocation can be different. Parents can provide percentages consistent with their respective resources or the court can establish them in the ruling. It is also important to clarify which expenses require prior agreement and which, because they are necessary or urgent, can be faced without waiting for the other parent's consent.
Who pays the costs of the double home in shared custody?
There is no automatic reimbursement of the second home. Each parent normally faces the costs of their own home, but such costs can affect the resources effectively available for maintenance. The possible assignment of the family home is a separate element, to be considered together with ownership title and overall economic balance.
Can I request a modification if the calendar is no longer respected?
Yes, if the change is stable and relevant. A different time organization can justify the revision of conditions when it truly modifies daily care, expenses, or the proportion of the contribution. It is necessary to distinguish a continuous change from episodic deviations, such as a vacation, a brief illness, or temporary impossibility.
A practical criterion to reduce uncertainty
A sustainable regulation must be understandable before conflict arises. Shared custody can offer the child significant presence from both parents, but it works economically only if the calendar, fixed expenses, extra expenses, and reimbursement methods are not left to generic formulas. When the initial balance no longer corresponds to reality, you can contact me to evaluate which regulation can more clearly protect the best interests of the children.