Universality and specificity of child support claims and extinctive prescription

The Supreme Court recently changed the ruling of the statute of limitations for child support claims. In terms of how much weight to place on the specificity of child support claims, the decision in this case can be viewed as a split between those who emphasize the specificity of child support obligations and those who emphasize their universality. The obligation to support arises naturally at birth, and a minor's right to be supported continues from birth to adulthood. Parental or simulated parenting responsibilities do not change after divorce. In light of the civil law system's mandatory kinship rules, the need for legal stability in the parenting relationship outweighs the noncustodial parent's need for relief from the fear of being sued for support. Denying the extinctive prescription of a child support claim arising out of a parenting relationship while the child is a minor is consistent with the policy objective of legal stability. The principle of welfare of child is not only a legal principle of legislation, but also a legal principle for interpretation. The right to support is a claim that arises at birth based on the parenting relationship and extinguishes upon reaching the age of majority. While a child is a minor, the child's claim for support arising out of the parenting relationship is not subject to the extinctive prescription until the parenting relationship is terminated upon reaching the age of majority.