Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake

Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5, 2002, 10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents'
spines,
Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on
supporting
adult children until they find a job to their liking.


Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from having
children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in the
world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high
unemployment
rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of Naples,
where
the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who is
in
his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the
smartest
parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former
parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on supporting
his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a
well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations. The
parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict handed
down
earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this," he
told
Reuters.

(When this story came out, quite a few people asked why this hadn't already
happened in California!)
Well, it has. Only it has only happened to fathers!

~AZ~

Continental European laws and practices sometimes are radically
different from what happens in the U.S., the U.K., and other
English-speaking countries. The case reported below may be an example of
this.

Another example happened several years ago, when an Italian judge told a
divorced father that he MUST have contact with his children during
visitation periods. (How the latter ruling was enforced, I don't know.)
Still another example . . . in France, they used to have forced inheritance
laws (and they may still have such laws). These laws barred parents from
disinheriting their children. Wealthy French people used to invest in the
U.S. as a way of putting their assets beyond the reach of French inheritance
laws -- yet another example of the iron law of unintended consequences.

So far as the U.S. is concerned, the application of aberrant legal
principles is, as far as I can see, governed entirely by whether the target
is fathers. That's the explanation for the suspension of the general rules
about the age of majority, when it comes to forcing fathers to pay for their
adult children. It's also the explanation for the suspension of the general
U.S. rules about debtors' prison, when it comes to imprisoning fathers for
"child support" debts.



"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5, 2002, 10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents'
spines,
Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on
supporting
adult children until they find a job to their liking.


Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from having
children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in the
world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high
unemployment
rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of Naples,
where
the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who
is
in
his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the
smartest
parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former
parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on
supporting
his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a
well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations. The
parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict handed
down
earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this," he
told
Reuters.

(When this story came out, quite a few people asked why this hadn't
already
happened in California!)
Well, it has. Only it has only happened to fathers!

~AZ~

Continental European laws and practices sometimes are radically
different from what happens in the U.S., the U.K., and other
English-speaking countries. The case reported below may be an example of
this.

Another example happened several years ago, when an Italian judge told a
divorced father that he MUST have contact with his children during
visitation periods. (How the latter ruling was enforced, I don't know.)
Still another example . . . in France, they used to have forced inheritance
laws (and they may still have such laws). These laws barred parents from
disinheriting their children. Wealthy French people used to invest in the
U.S. as a way of putting their assets beyond the reach of French inheritance
laws -- yet another example of the iron law of unintended consequences.

So far as the U.S. is concerned, the application of aberrant legal
principles is, as far as I can see, governed entirely by whether the target
is fathers. That's the explanation for the suspension of the general rules
about the age of majority, when it comes to forcing fathers to pay for their
adult children. It's also the explanation for the suspension of the general
U.S. rules about debtors' prison, when it comes to imprisoning fathers for
"child support" debts.



"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5, 2002, 10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents'
spines,
Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on
supporting
adult children until they find a job to their liking.


Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from having
children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in the
world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high
unemployment
rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of Naples,
where
the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who
is
in
his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the
smartest
parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former
parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on
supporting
his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a
well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations. The
parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict handed
down
earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this," he
told
Reuters.

(When this story came out, quite a few people asked why this hadn't
already
happened in California!)
Well, it has. Only it has only happened to fathers!

~AZ~

Continental European laws and practices sometimes are radically
different from what happens in the U.S., the U.K., and other
English-speaking countries. The case reported below may be an example of
this.

Another example happened several years ago, when an Italian judge told a
divorced father that he MUST have contact with his children during
visitation periods. (How the latter ruling was enforced, I don't know.)
Still another example . . . in France, they used to have forced inheritance
laws (and they may still have such laws). These laws barred parents from
disinheriting their children. Wealthy French people used to invest in the
U.S. as a way of putting their assets beyond the reach of French inheritance
laws -- yet another example of the iron law of unintended consequences.

So far as the U.S. is concerned, the application of aberrant legal
principles is, as far as I can see, governed entirely by whether the target
is fathers. That's the explanation for the suspension of the general rules
about the age of majority, when it comes to forcing fathers to pay for their
adult children. It's also the explanation for the suspension of the general
U.S. rules about debtors' prison, when it comes to imprisoning fathers for
"child support" debts.



"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5, 2002, 10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents'
spines,
Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on
supporting
adult children until they find a job to their liking.


Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from having
children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in the
world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high
unemployment
rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of Naples,
where
the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who
is
in
his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the
smartest
parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former
parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on
supporting
his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a
well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations. The
parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict handed
down
earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this," he
told
Reuters.

(When this story came out, quite a few people asked why this hadn't
already
happened in California!)
Well, it has. Only it has only happened to fathers!

~AZ~

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Continental European laws and practices sometimes are radically
different from what happens in the U.S., the U.K., and other
English-speaking countries. The case reported below may be an example of
this.

Another example happened several years ago, when an Italian judge told
a
divorced father that he MUST have contact with his children during
visitation periods. (How the latter ruling was enforced, I don't know.)
Still another example . . . in France, they used to have forced
inheritance
laws (and they may still have such laws). These laws barred parents from
disinheriting their children. Wealthy French people used to invest in the
U.S. as a way of putting their assets beyond the reach of French
inheritance
laws -- yet another example of the iron law of unintended consequences.
---------------------
Luckily these wealthy families were able to get around the law some way.
When it comes to inheritances here it also takes some finageling to get
around the laws. Like if you are married but don't want your spouse to get
your money.
--------------------

So far as the U.S. is concerned, the application of aberrant legal
principles is, as far as I can see, governed entirely by whether the
target
is fathers. That's the explanation for the suspension of the general
rules
about the age of majority, when it comes to forcing fathers to pay for
their
adult children.
-------------------------------
That's what came to my mind when I saw this article. I think most Americans
would read it and be shocked or laugh at those strange Italians, forcing all
parents to pay support to their adult children! But what most don't realize
is that fathers are already put in a similar situation right here. Nobody
should be forced to pay for the choices of those over 18 years old, (unless
they're disabled then 21). Nobody should be forced to pay for college for
anybody else.

~AZ~

It's also the explanation for the suspension of the general
U.S. rules about debtors' prison, when it comes to imprisoning fathers for
"child support" debts.



"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5, 2002, 10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents'
spines,
Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on
supporting
adult children until they find a job to their liking.


Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from
having
children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in
the
world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high
unemployment
rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of
Naples,
where
the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who
is
in
his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the
smartest
parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former
parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on
supporting
his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a
well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations.
The
parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict
handed
down
earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this,"
he
told
Reuters.

(When this story came out, quite a few people asked why this hadn't
already
happened in California!)
Well, it has. Only it has only happened to fathers!

~AZ~

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Continental European laws and practices sometimes are radically
different from what happens in the U.S., the U.K., and other
English-speaking countries. The case reported below may be an example of
this.

Another example happened several years ago, when an Italian judge told
a
divorced father that he MUST have contact with his children during
visitation periods. (How the latter ruling was enforced, I don't know.)
Still another example . . . in France, they used to have forced
inheritance
laws (and they may still have such laws). These laws barred parents from
disinheriting their children. Wealthy French people used to invest in the
U.S. as a way of putting their assets beyond the reach of French
inheritance
laws -- yet another example of the iron law of unintended consequences.
---------------------
Luckily these wealthy families were able to get around the law some way.
When it comes to inheritances here it also takes some finageling to get
around the laws. Like if you are married but don't want your spouse to get
your money.
--------------------

So far as the U.S. is concerned, the application of aberrant legal
principles is, as far as I can see, governed entirely by whether the
target
is fathers. That's the explanation for the suspension of the general
rules
about the age of majority, when it comes to forcing fathers to pay for
their
adult children.
-------------------------------
That's what came to my mind when I saw this article. I think most Americans
would read it and be shocked or laugh at those strange Italians, forcing all
parents to pay support to their adult children! But what most don't realize
is that fathers are already put in a similar situation right here. Nobody
should be forced to pay for the choices of those over 18 years old, (unless
they're disabled then 21). Nobody should be forced to pay for college for
anybody else.

~AZ~

It's also the explanation for the suspension of the general
U.S. rules about debtors' prison, when it comes to imprisoning fathers for
"child support" debts.



"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5, 2002, 10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents'
spines,
Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on
supporting
adult children until they find a job to their liking.


Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from
having
children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in
the
world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high
unemployment
rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of
Naples,
where
the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who
is
in
his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the
smartest
parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former
parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on
supporting
his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a
well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations.
The
parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict
handed
down
earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this,"
he
told
Reuters.

(When this story came out, quite a few people asked why this hadn't
already
happened in California!)
Well, it has. Only it has only happened to fathers!

~AZ~

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Continental European laws and practices sometimes are radically
different from what happens in the U.S., the U.K., and other
English-speaking countries. The case reported below may be an example of
this.

Another example happened several years ago, when an Italian judge told
a
divorced father that he MUST have contact with his children during
visitation periods. (How the latter ruling was enforced, I don't know.)
Still another example . . . in France, they used to have forced
inheritance
laws (and they may still have such laws). These laws barred parents from
disinheriting their children. Wealthy French people used to invest in the
U.S. as a way of putting their assets beyond the reach of French
inheritance
laws -- yet another example of the iron law of unintended consequences.
---------------------
Luckily these wealthy families were able to get around the law some way.
When it comes to inheritances here it also takes some finageling to get
around the laws. Like if you are married but don't want your spouse to get
your money.
--------------------

So far as the U.S. is concerned, the application of aberrant legal
principles is, as far as I can see, governed entirely by whether the
target
is fathers. That's the explanation for the suspension of the general
rules
about the age of majority, when it comes to forcing fathers to pay for
their
adult children.
-------------------------------
That's what came to my mind when I saw this article. I think most Americans
would read it and be shocked or laugh at those strange Italians, forcing all
parents to pay support to their adult children! But what most don't realize
is that fathers are already put in a similar situation right here. Nobody
should be forced to pay for the choices of those over 18 years old, (unless
they're disabled then 21). Nobody should be forced to pay for college for
anybody else.

~AZ~

It's also the explanation for the suspension of the general
U.S. rules about debtors' prison, when it comes to imprisoning fathers for
"child support" debts.



"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Court Ruling Makes Parents Quake
Fri Apr 5, 2002, 10:40 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - In a ruling that has sent a shiver down many parents'
spines,
Italy's highest appeals court has decreed that fathers must carry on
supporting
adult children until they find a job to their liking.


Psychologists warned that the decision could discourage people from
having
children in a country whose birthrate is already one of the lowest in
the
world, while commentators said it could boost Italy's already high
unemployment
rate.

The case revolves around a wealthy family in the southern city of
Naples,
where
the father is still paying some $680 a month in maintenance to a son who
is
in
his 30s and has a university law degree.

The son also has a trust fund worth some $220,000, lives in one of the
smartest
parts of the city, and has turned down several job offers.

But the court ruled that the father, Giuseppe Andreoli, who is a former
parliamentarian and a respected Neapolitan medic, should carry on
supporting
his estranged son. "You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a
well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations.
The
parents have to pay for their upkeep," said the court in a verdict
handed
down
earlier this week.

Andreoli said on Friday he was shocked by the decision.

"I feel disgust for a country that I love. It wasn't always like this,"
he
told
Reuters.

(When this story came out, quite a few people asked why this hadn't
already
happened in California!)
Well, it has. Only it has only happened to fathers!

~AZ~