Direct maintenance or a periodic allowance affect the daily lives of children and the relationship between parents after a separation. The question is not just who pays: it matters to understand how to make the contribution stable and proportionate, without turning every ordinary expense into an argument and without leaving important needs uncovered.
I will explain which criteria guide the choice, why joint custody does not automatically impose a fifty-fifty split of expenses, and which details must be clear in an agreement. We will also look at what distinguishes expenses already covered by the allowance from additional ones and when it is possible to request a change in the method or amount.
Maintenance serves the children, not to compensate the parents
The starting point is the material best interests of the children. Article 337-ter of the Italian Civil Code applies in proceedings concerning children of separated, divorced, unmarried, or otherwise no longer cohabiting parents. The judge regulates periods of residence, care, education, upbringing, and financial contribution by looking first and foremost at the needs of the children, not at the desire of either parent to manage every expense autonomously.
The rule establishes that, barring freely signed different agreements, each parent contributes in proportion to their income. When necessary to achieve this proportion, the judge orders a periodic allowance. The criteria indicated by the law are the current needs of the child, the standard of life had during cohabitation, the time spent with each parent, the economic resources of both, and the economic value of care and domestic work. These are criteria to be read together, as shown by the text of Article 337-ter of the Italian Civil Code.
Therefore, no automatic formula exists. Two parents may have very similar periods of residence, but different incomes, available housing, and care burdens. Similarly, a child may sleep frequently at both homes and still have ongoing costs concentrated at one parent's home, such as accommodation, utilities, food, school supplies, and daily organization.
What direct maintenance means
Direct maintenance consists of directly bearing specific expenses for the child. It can concern costs incurred during the time spent with each parent or precisely identified items: for example, tuition fees, a agreed activity, or a specific health insurance policy. However, it is not enough to say that each will pay what they deem necessary when the child is with them: such a generic formula leaves many costs unresolved that do not follow the days of residence.
This solution is more understandable when practical organization allows it: the times at the two homes are genuinely balanced, the parents have resources that are not too far apart, each can cope with daily needs, and shared expenses are distributed with clear criteria. Even in this case, it is necessary to establish who bears the items that cannot be divided day by day, such as certain school, healthcare, or housing costs.
The precision of the agreement is decisive. A well-defined direct maintenance indicates which expenses remain the responsibility of each, in what percentage shared ones are divided, what documents are needed for reimbursement, and within what timelines. If this regulation is missing, the risk is not only conflict between adults: the child may find themselves facing a concrete need without knowing who should provide for it.
When a periodic allowance is more suitable
The periodic allowance provides a stable sum for the ordinary needs of the child. As a rule, it is paid by the parent with greater economic capacity to the one who predominantly bears daily costs. It is not a reward for the parent who receives it and does not replace the duty of both to participate in care and important decisions.
This method can provide continuity when the child spends more time in one home, when a parent faces daily expenses more frequently, or when economic resources are not comparable. The periodicity avoids having to separately attribute the cost of meals, ordinary clothing, small school purchases, and other needs that repeat over time.
The allowance does not necessarily cover every possible disbursement. Alongside the monthly sum, the agreement or court order may provide for a separate distribution of certain additional expenses. For this reason, it is useful not to rigidly contrast direct maintenance and allowance: a balanced regulation can combine a periodic contribution for daily life and direct payments or reimbursements for well-identified individual items.
Joint custody does not make financial contributions equal
Joint custody and direct maintenance are not the same thing. Joint custody concerns parental responsibility and decisions of major interest for the children, which must be made by both. By itself, it establishes neither perfectly equal times in the two homes nor a fifty-fifty financial split.
The time spent with each parent is one of the criteria provided by Article 337-ter, but it is not the only one. If one parent has significantly greater economic availability, the proportion of the contribution can remain different even when the child visits both regularly. Care work also counts: transport, management of school communications, organization of medical visits, and presence in daily activities have an economic value that the law requires to be considered.
The choice must follow actual organization. A schedule providing for alternating overnight stays may seem egalitarian, but it does not tell by itself who maintains an equipped room, who advances recurring expenses, who bears a habitual commute, or who takes care of needs on school days. The maintenance method works if it corresponds to these facts, not if it limits itself to an abstract formula of equality.
Ordinary expenses, extra expenses, and agreements not to leave vague
Ordinary expenses are those predictable and recurring in the child's life. The guidelines of the Court of Milan indicate, by way of example, food, school canteens, a share of housing costs, ordinary clothing, recurring school stationery, and over-the-counter medicines among the items normally included in the periodic allowance. These are local operational indications, not a legislative list valid identically for every agreement or order, but they help to understand the function of the allowance. The reference is available in the guidelines on expenses for children of the Court of Milan.
An expense does not become extra just because it is high or unwelcome. One must look at its predictability, periodicity, economic relevance, and how much the parties or the judge have already contemplated. The same guidelines distinguish, for certain items, those requiring prior agreement from those that can be incurred and documented without waiting for it. The practical rule, however, remains the one written in the order or agreement applicable to the family.
The Court of Cassation has clarified, with reference to university and housing expenses of an adult child living away from home, that extraordinary nature requires a concrete assessment: unforeseen, significant, and not reasonably determinable burdens at the time the allowance was set are what matter. This criterion does not turn every study cost into an extra expense, but it also prevents ignoring a significant item just because a monthly allowance exists. The principle is reported in the civil review of the Court of Cassation, order no. 7169 of March 18, 2024.
How to choose between the two methods
The best choice is the one that makes resources available when the child needs them. If ordinary costs weigh mainly on one home and one parent, the periodic allowance offers a more linear basis. If instead the periods of residence, resources, and daily management are genuinely balanced, direct maintenance can be viable, provided it does not leave shared expenses without coverage.
A useful agreement does not limit itself to writing direct maintenance or allowance. It must distinguish ordinary needs from expenses to be divided separately, indicate the percentage owed by each, and clarify whether a parent directly pays a supplier or advances a cost and then requests reimbursement. Even a clause on the adjustment of the sum avoids subsequent doubts: Article 337-ter provides for automatic adjustment to ISTAT indices unless the parties or the judge establish a different parameter.
It is not advisable to modify the established system by yourself. If a court order provides for an allowance, the person who must pay it cannot unilaterally replace it with direct purchases for the child. And if an agreement provides for direct payments, the other parent cannot unilaterally demand a different monthly allowance. A change in economic conditions, periods of residence, or the child's needs requires a newly formalized agreement or a request for revision.
When a modification can be requested
The method and measure of the contribution can be revised. Article 337-quinquies of the Italian Civil Code grants parents the right to request at any time the revision of provisions on custody, parental responsibility, and financial contribution. This does not mean every minimal variation automatically entails a new amount: the request must be linked to concrete elements affecting the established balance.
A stable change in incomes, a new residence schedule, the start of a school path with unforeseen costs, relocation to another home, or the lapse of a direct payment previously borne by one parent can become relevant. The rule on revision is found in the same legislative intervention governing Articles 337-bis and following of the Italian Civil Code.
Before choosing a new formula, comparable data are needed. The already existing order or agreement, updated information on the resources of both, the recurring costs of the child, and the actual schedule of residencies are useful. These are not documents to be accumulated: each serves to understand whether the relationship between the child's needs, daily care, and the parents' economic possibilities has changed.
Frequently asked questions
Does joint custody eliminate the maintenance allowance?
No, not automatically. Joint custody mainly concerns the responsibility of both parents in important decisions for the child. Resources, periods of residence, concrete needs, and the value of care work also count for the financial contribution. The allowance may therefore remain necessary even if the child visits both homes regularly.
Can I stop paying the allowance if I directly buy what my child needs?
No, not on your own initiative. Direct purchases do not replace an allowance ordered by the court or provided in an agreement, unless the regulation is formally modified. Paying a specific expense can be useful, but by itself it does not cancel the periodic obligation nor clarify which ordinary expenses must still be borne.
Are school expenses always extra compared to the allowance?
No, it depends on the individual expense and applicable rules. Recurring material, canteens, and certain predictable outings may fall within ordinary maintenance; other items, such as a private school, a trip with overnight stays, or university accommodation, may require separate regulation. The agreement or order already in force remains the primary reference.
Does the maintenance allowance increase every year?
In the absence of a different provision, yes. Article 337-ter provides for automatic adjustment to ISTAT indices, unless the parties or the judge have chosen another parameter. Ordinary adjustment is different from a revision of the amount: for the latter, a concrete change in the child's needs, resources, or family organization must emerge.
Can we choose direct maintenance together?
Yes, if the agreement adequately protects the children. The law allows different agreements between parents, but they must be clear and not contrary to the minor's interest. It is important to indicate ordinary expenses, additional costs, percentages, direct payments, and reimbursements. A generic formula risks creating more conflicts than a well-defined periodic allowance.
A practical criterion to start
The choice between allowance and direct maintenance is not resolved by asking which system is more convenient for a parent. It is necessary to understand which system best protects the continuity of the child's life. If you need to define or modify these conditions, you can contact me: together with my staff, I can help you translate the family's concrete organization into understandable and verifiable rules.