Failing to pay child maintenance can have civil and, under certain conditions, criminal consequences. If you are the parent awaiting the sums, you might wonder when the breach becomes a crime and whether it is necessary to file a formal complaint. If, on the other hand, you are required to pay the allowance, it is essential to understand whether a loss of income, a partial payment, or expenses incurred directly for your child can avoid liability.
In this guide, I explain what Article 570-bis of the Italian Criminal Code punishes, how it differs from the distinct hypothesis where a child lacks the essential means of subsistence, and which facts affect the assessment. We will also see why it is unwise to unilaterally reduce the allowance and what initiatives can be considered when economic conditions truly change.
When Failure to Pay Falls Under Article 570-bis
Article 570-bis protects the economic obligations established upon separation, divorce, declaration of nullity of marriage, or the regulation of relations with children. The provision was introduced into the criminal code by Legislative Decree No. 21 of March 1, 2018, which transferred prior provisions from special laws into the code. The text of the measure can be consulted in the Legislative Decree No. 21 of 2018 on Normattiva.
The starting point is normally an economic obligation determined by an order: for example, the periodic allowance due for the child's maintenance or a specific contribution to expenses provided for by the conditions governing the family. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the failure to comply with a previously defined obligation from a general disagreement between parents regarding an expense not yet approved, documented, or distributed according to the applicable title.
There is no legal threshold of three months below which the omission is automatically irrelevant. The current wording does not provide for such a grace period. The Supreme Court of Cassation has also brought the failure to pay the economic obligation established in civil proceedings within the scope of the offense, without requiring the state of need necessary for the different hypothesis under Article 570, second paragraph. This distinction emerges from Supreme Court Judgment No. 26184 of 2025.
This does not mean that any delay automatically produces a conviction. The obligation, the breach, and the intentionality of the conduct must be established. The duration, the amount of the omitted sums, any partial payments, and the documentable reasons for the delay help reconstruct the fact, but they do not introduce a deductible that the law does not provide.
Protection Also Applies to Children of Unmarried Parents
The civil status of the parents does not reduce the child's protection. Although the text of Article 570-bis refers to the spouse and shared custody, the provision is also applied to the violation of economic obligations toward children born out of wedlock. The Italian Constitutional Court ruled out that the introduction of the rule left these children without criminal protection, valuing continuity with the previous discipline in Judgment No. 189 of 2019.
Nor does reaching the age of majority alone authorize the obligated parent to interrupt payments. If the court order continues to provide for the contribution for an adult child who is not financially self-sufficient, the obligation must be respected until a modification intervenes in the prescribed forms. The child's age may justify a new civil assessment, not a unilateral decision to stop paying.
A similar reasoning applies to payment made directly to the child rather than to the parent indicated in the order. The substantial destination of the money does not render the established procedures irrelevant. If the title provides that the allowance be paid to the other parent, unilaterally changing the recipient may leave the obligation formally unfulfilled, unless the new method has been validly recognized.
The Difference Between Article 570-bis and Lack of Means of Subsistence
Maintenance and means of subsistence do not coincide. Maintenance includes the contribution intended for the child's needs as established in the order: housing, food, education, health, and personal development. The means of subsistence referred to in Article 570, second paragraph, no. 2, instead concern what is necessary to satisfy the essential needs of daily life.
For Article 570-bis, the violation of the established economic obligation is central; it is not strictly necessary to demonstrate that the child was left without necessities. If, however, the omission effectively deprives a minor child of the means of subsistence, the act assumes a different criminal qualification. More recent jurisprudence considers Article 570, second paragraph, no. 2, a special provision compared to Article 570-bis when this additional element also occurs.
The fact that the other parent or grandparents advanced money to protect the minor does not automatically erase the omission. Support received from third parties may prevent even more severe material consequences, but it does not transfer the original obligation without formalities. A different situation arises when a third party genuinely assumes and fulfills the debt through a legally recognizable agreement: a general willingness to help is not enough.
Economic Difficulties and Intentionality of Non-Compliance
A general economic difficulty does not exclude the crime. To be relevant, the impossibility to pay must be concrete, serious, and insurmountable with reasonably available resources. The judge considers income, assets, working capacity, indispensable expenses, duration of the crisis, and choices made by the obligor. Claiming to have other debts or to be temporarily without liquidity, without further elements, does not demonstrate the impossibility to comply.
The decisive distinction is between not being able to pay and choosing not to pay. An sudden and documented loss of every source of income, accompanied by the absence of usable assets and consistent initiatives to find resources, differs from the decision to allocate money to postponable expenses, new purchases, or obligations lacking the same legal relevance.
The Supreme Court of Cassation has clarified, for example, that the voluntary payment of an obligation toward another family member does not justify the failure to pay due maintenance. The obligation established in favor of children cannot be freely demoted compared to other economic choices, as shown by Supreme Court Judgment No. 534 of 2026.
Partial payment must also be read in its context. Paying a share may demonstrate that the obligor has not completely abandoned their duty, but it does not allow them to set a new amount on their own. What counts is the difference compared to the due sum, the continuity of payments, the reasons for the reduction, and the actual economic capacity during the contested period.
Why the Allowance Cannot Be Reduced Unilaterally
The court order remains effective until it is modified. Job loss, illness, the birth of other children, or a stable change in income may justify a request for review, but they do not automatically suspend the amount already due. If conditions have changed, the correct path is to ask the competent judge to adjust the contribution.
It is not prudent either to offset the allowance with a claim of your own. The obligated parent cannot withhold maintenance arguing, for example, that the other owes them sums related to the home, a loan, or different expenses. The two relationships must be addressed separately, barring a modification or agreement that produces legal effects on the title.
The same applies to expenses incurred directly: purchasing clothing, paying for a vacation, or paying tuition does not necessarily mean having fulfilled the monthly allowance. Alternative benefits count only if they correspond to the due modalities or have been validly agreed upon. It is therefore useful to use traceable payments and clear reasons, avoiding cash handovers that are difficult to prove.
Criminal Proceedings, Late Payment, and Recovery of Sums
The crime provided for by Article 570-bis is prosecuted ex officio. This means that once information regarding the possible crime is acquired, the proceedings do not depend on the filing or permanence of a formal complaint. The Constitutional Court confirmed this regime by declaring the issues raised on the point unfounded with Judgment No. 96 of June 5, 2026.
Consequently, withdrawing the complaint or reconciliation does not automatically stop the proceedings. Even the payment of arrears, while an important and evaluable behavior, does not alone eliminate an already consummated act. It can affect the overall reconstruction, the consequences of the conduct, and economic relations, but it does not equate to an automatic cancellation of liability.
Article 570-bis recalls the penalties provided for by Article 570 of the criminal code, which include imprisonment of up to one year and a fine. The penalty concretely applicable depends on the qualification of the act, the ascertained circumstances, and the general rules of criminal trial. Furthermore, a criminal conviction does not replace civil recovery: independent enforcement initiatives may be necessary to obtain the back payments.
If you are awaiting payment, keep the order establishing the obligation, bank statements, sent requests, and documents of relevant expenses. If you are obliged to pay and cannot manage the amount, do not let the arrears grow without taking action: pay what is truly possible in a traceable manner and promptly consider the civil request for modification, without assuming that it cancels installments that have already matured.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a single unpaid installment enough to commit the crime?
There is no minimum number of installments provided by Article 570-bis. Even a single omission can be examined, but liability is not automatic: the obligation, non-payment, and intentionality must be proven. The duration of the delay, the amount, and any immediate remedy affect the concrete assessment.
If my child is not in a state of need, is non-payment criminally irrelevant?
No, the state of need is not necessary for the offense under Article 570-bis, which is based on the violation of the established economic obligation. If the omission also results in a lack of essential means for a minor child, the different and more specific provision of Article 570, second paragraph, no. 2, may come into play.
Can I reduce the allowance if my income has decreased?
You cannot unilaterally modify the amount. A stable decrease in income can support a review request, but the already established allowance remains due until the order changes. In the meantime, traceable payments—even partial ones—are relevant, without however assuming they automatically eliminate non-compliance.
Does the payment of arrears close the criminal proceedings?
Not automatically. The balance removes the corresponding civil debt and is an evaluable behavior, but it does not necessarily cancel the crime already committed. Since proceedings are brought ex officio, not even the loss of the beneficiary's punitive will alone determines the arrest of the proceedings.
Can I file a complaint even if the children were born out of wedlock?
Yes, protection also covers these children. The Constitutional Court has clarified that Article 570-bis continues to cover the violation of economic obligations established toward them. However, a determined obligation and concrete facts proving non-compliance are still necessary; to orient yourself on criminal and civil initiatives, you can contact us.