Politics Events Country 2026-02-07T16:30:50+00:00

Argentine Mother Accuses Father of Halting Alimony Due to Child's Vacation

A woman from Argentina stated that her child's father refused to pay alimony for February, as the child will go on vacation with him for a month. Society is divided: some support the mother, while others believe the father is right since the child is with him. Lawyers clarified that by law, alimony must be paid regardless of who the child is with.


Argentine Mother Accuses Father of Halting Alimony Due to Child's Vacation

A woman publicly denounced that the father of one of her children informed her that he will not deposit February's alimony payment, arguing that the child will be on vacation with him "for the whole month". According to what Argentine News Agency learned, the conflict escalated when the man told her: "Look, Mica, when I get back from my vacation, I'll see how much money I have left and I'll see how much I pass on to you, I'll give you something." The woman, visibly indignant, detailed that she receives 350,000 pesos monthly, a figure she considers insufficient given fixed expenses that, according to her, amount to 3 million pesos. "I have to be at home, stressed, worried, thinking about how to pay for everything... This guy goes away for a whole month, he has a house, a car, a motorcycle, a quad, he has everything," she stated in her video. What does the law say? Beyond the viral outrage, Argentine law is clear on this type of unilateral proposal. Permanent obligation: The Civil and Commercial Code establishes that alimony must be paid monthly and in advance. The obligation does not cease even if the personal care varies temporarily. Fixed expenses: The alimony payment covers items that do not disappear because the child is absent from the maternal home for a month, such as rent (housing), services, social work, and education. Legal conclusion: The father cannot stop paying for February. If he considers that his direct expenses during the vacation warrant compensation, he must request a judicial review, but never suspend the payment on his own decision. The divide on social networks The case divided opinions on social media X, where comments in favor of and against the protagonist accumulated. In favor of the mother: Users like @EcoDelDestino recalled that "the payment covers housing and services" that continue to be paid. Others defended the father's position ("If he's with him... how can he give him money?") or criticized the woman's claimed expense amount ("3 million a month? Something's wrong with your calculations").

Latest news

See all news