Italy's 'big babies': court orders father to pay for upkeep of 28-year-old son


n Italiancourt has ordered a middle-aged father to keep supporting his 28-year-old son through university, after he turned to the law to try and force his offspring to get a job.
The case underlines the country’s problem with"bamboccioni" - spoilt “big babies” who refuse to leave home and instead sponge off their parents.
The father had gone to court to argue that he should no longer be obliged to support his son, challenging one of the conditions of his divorce settlement, which had ruled that he must pay for the young man’s tertiary education.

Italy’s ‘big babies’: court orders father to pay for upkeep of 28-year-old son

Can you imagine if courts would do that here? Now unless I am mistaken under obamacare children are covered to the age of 25?

SEC. 2714 **** [42 U.S.C. 300gg–14]. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make such coverage available for an adult child until the child turns 26 years of age. Nothing in this section shall require a health plan or a health insurance issuer described in the preceding sentence to make coverage available for a child of a child receiving dependent coverage. [As revised by section 2301(b) of HCERA]
‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to define the dependents to which coverage shall be made available under subsection (a).
‘‘© RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify the definition of ‘dependent’ as used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the tax treatment of the cost of coverage.

Currently under certain circumstances parents are required to pay for adult children who are incapacitated by physical or mental means. This does not include healthy adult children who refuse to get a job.

Parents can be compelled to pay for the tuition of adult children going to school. I remember such a case I witnessed years ago where the father and mother were in court and the mother was trying to get her ex-husband to pay for their son’s education. The judge ruled that it would be split up three ways with the father paying a third, the mother a third, and the adult child a third. I also had a co-worker who said he was still paying for child support although his children were in their twenties. What he did not realize was you had to file a petition to terminate child support the court will not automatically stop when the children reaches the age of majority.


What a worthless slob. I expect only one person to pay for my education after I am out of grade school and that is myself. That people think others should pay a grown adults education bill is just plain stupid. If you want a college education then that is your business.


> The son completed a degree in literature, taking several years longer than expected to finish the course, and has now enrolled on a post-graduate course in experimental cinema in Bologna.
It’s like he’s literally trying to fail in life.

> Around 65 per cent of Italians aged 18 to 34 still live with their parents, the highest percentage of young stay-at-homes anywhere in Europe, according to Istat, the national statistics agency.
> That compares with 34 per cent in France and Britain and 42 per cent in Germany.
I’ve just never understood this. Nothing could have kept me from leaving home and moving to a new region, first thing I could. How can you be over 20 and still want to live at home? I mean you can find dirt cheap(safe) housing in most areas that’s suitable for a single person. My first apartment was $280/month w/util in a college town(and this was only in 2003). I was making like $9.00 an hour and managed just fine. I did have to share a common room/kitchen with three other people, but it wasn’t bad at all.


A lot of it is cultural. For me it was financial. It made sense for me to continue living with my parents after highschool. Also for me culturally it is acceptable for kids to remain at home longer than what other cultural find “normal”. One of my uncles lived with his dad all his life because it made sense economically and both had not trouble with the other and another uncle live with my other grandparents until he was in his mid-30s. This things are culturally acceptable to us and is not viewed in a negative light.


I’m booting my kids out after the summer following high school. They can come back for the summers/breaks if they’re in college.


Extended families used to be the rule, where 3 or 4 generations lived in one home. But they all paid their way, whether it meant working on the family farm, or taking a job outside the home.


Its was not different with my family. You paid rent or a bill and helped out around the house as needed. There is nothing wrong with extended families. There is nothing negative about it.


The negative issue is when the “big babies” lay around and expect Daddy and Mommy to take care of them forever.
Edit: With “normal” extended families, the kids take care of the parents and grandparents when they are no longer able to.


The negative here is, first, it is an imperial judge ORDERING this condition - against the will of the head of the household.

Second, the “child” is NOT contributing. Nor was he ordered to. Far from being a valued member of the household, helping to keep things together…he is a burden. A burden that by judicial fiat the parents can no longer shed.

A totalitarian nation-state depends on the helplessness and indolence of its subjects - and here we see judge-ruler cultivating one such, and sending a message to all.


I was talking more about how extended families are not a negative. I was not talking about the situation on the OP. If you read my first post in the thread you will see my feelings on this situation.


I understand; but I’m saying it’s not a true equivalence and shouldn’t be held.

Extended families are not a bad thing. Can be a good thing.

COURTS ORDERING how families should function; and ordering that no-load spoiled, demanding adult children be supported in their indolence, is the opposite. As with other human relationships: Free choice is essential; all else, all that is ordered by rulers or outside forces, is oppression and tyranny.


My grandfather booted his own parents out of the house he grew up in. To this day, he sleeps on the bed he was born on (w/different mattress).

And indeed, it made sense: My grandfather was the succeeding-farmer, while his father was by that point retired. Might as well have the old folks move down the street, and let the son use the space to raise his own family…


So do away with the G.I. Bill?


Got something against people using what they have earned?


Since they don’t allow shiftless bums to access it (it’s a benefit that comes with the JOB), it’s a stupid analogy.