Practical Application of Article 169 Family Code and Order of Elements in AlimonyAplicación práctica del artículo 169 del Código de Familia y orden de presupuestos en alimentos

V.Consequently, regarding the practical application of article 169 of the Código de Familia, I deem it necessary to indicate that, in accordance with current legislation and binding case law —article 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional and 8.1 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial—, the requirements for child support (pensión alimentaria) are reviewed in every proceeding and in the following strict order:

FIRST: Kinship or legal bond (parentesco o vínculo), as applicable, since both matters are not the same. This requirement is based on article 169 of the Código de Familia, amended regarding subsection 2) through Ley n.°10166, La Gaceta n.°82 of May 5, 2022; article 248 of the cited Code, which corresponded to the former article 245 and is now 248 because the numbering was shifted by the law called "Creación del Sistema Nacional de Cuidados y Apoyos para Personas Adultas y Personas Adultas Mayores en Situación de Dependencia (SINCA)", n.°10192 published in La Gaceta n.°110 of June 14, 2022, Alcance n.°118. To that regulation is added article 69 and 92 second paragraph of the Código de Familia regarding support for conceived but unborn children. Furthermore, consideration must be given to what is provided for in articles 27 and 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Ley n.°7184 and the Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, such as, for example: Observación General n.°4. La salud y el desarrollo de los adolescentes en el contexto de la Convención de los Derechos del Niño; Observación General n.°5. Medidas generales de aplicación de la Convención de los Derechos del Niño; Observación General n.°7. Realización de los derechos del niño en la primera infancia; Observación General n.°9. Los derechos de los niños con discapacidad; Observación General n.°11. Los niños indígenas y sus derechos en virtud de la Convención; Observación General n.°14. El derecho del niño a que su interés superior sea una consideración primordial; Observación General n.°15. El derecho del niño al disfrute del más alto nivel posible de salud; Observación General n.°17. El derecho del niño al descanso, el esparcimiento, el juego, las actividades recreativas, la vida cultural y las artes; Observación General n.°20. Sobre la efectividad de los derechos del niño durante la adolescencia, among others. Likewise, it is necessary to add what is provided for in articles 29, 37 to 39 of the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia. As a complement, consideration must also be given to what is provided for in article 13 subsection a) and 16 subsection c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Ley n.°6968 (CEDAW), which includes the General Recommendations of the CEDAW Committee, such as, for example: Recomendaciones Generales n.°19 and n.°35 sobre Violencia contra la mujer; Recomendación General n.°21 sobre igualdad en el matrimonio y las relaciones familiares; Recomendación General n.º27 sobre las mujeres de edad y la protección de sus derechos humanos; Recomendación General n.°29 sobre las consecuencias económicas del matrimonio, las relaciones familiares y su disolución; Recomendación General n.º33, sobre el acceso de las mujeres a la justicia; Recomendación General n.°34, sobre los derechos de las mujeres rurales y, Recomendación General n.º39, sobre Mujeres y niñas indígenas, among others. Equally, consideration must also be given to what is provided for in the Inter-American Convention on Support Obligations, Ley n.°8053.

Now, the review of all these regulations also involves the following issues: 1.a The examination of the status of preferentially obligated person (persona obligada preferente) as provided for in articles 168, 169 and 173 subsection 1) of the Código de Familia, 23 of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, 38 of the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia. It should be noted that there are at least five rules that refer to preferential status regarding support debtors (personas deudoras alimentaras). Furthermore, said regulations also impose a review of the status of preferentially entitled person (persona beneficiaria preferente), as derived from constitutional case law, such as, for example, resolution n.°5720-00 of 14:58 on July 11, 2000, among others. 1.b. The analysis of what is provided for in article 40 of the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, as well as numeral 10 of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias. Therefore, it must be taken into account that whoever files a claim for support (demanda de alimentos) would not necessarily be obligated to pay support —solidarity— as is the case of uncles and aunts, who are not obligated to pay support with respect to nieces and nephews, as derived from article 169 and 173 subsection 5) of the Código de Familia. Similarly, grandparents are not obligated to pay support with respect to adult grandchildren who do not have a disability that prevents them from attending to their own interests, article 169 subsection c) of the Código de Familia. Another example is an administrative or judicial custodian (persona depositaria) of a minor, since whoever will be the custodian does not necessarily owe support under article 169 of the Código de Familia. As can be seen, there are many scenarios in which the person who brings the claim for the benefit of another person is not obligated to pay support. In summary, the practical application of the cited articles 40 and 10 is not a minor issue considering that it is not possible to admit evidence on the economic capacity of persons who are not obligated to pay support. Thus, investigating their finances without being obligated to pay support constitutes an arbitrary interference in their life, and that practice is expressly prohibited at least in articles 12.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; V of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; article 11.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Convention on the Rights of the Child, in articles 3.1, 4, 16); General Comment of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, n.°14; article 5 and 16 of the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons and article 22 of the UN Convention on Disability and the recommendations of the Committee of said Convention, among other rules. 1.c. Review of the joinder of parties (integración de la litis). That is, the necessary passive joinder of parties (litisconsorcio pasiva necesaria). Article 35, 169 of the Código de Familia and, 106 of the Código Procesal Civil Ley n.°7130, as well as article 2 second paragraph of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias SECOND: Determine whether the party claiming support or the person benefiting from it due to the claim made by another person is or is not subject to any ground for exclusion (causal de exclusión). This is supported by article 173 subsections 2) to 7) of the Código de Familia; constitutional resolutions n.°3685-09 10:30 hours of March 6, 2009 and n.°14026-11 14:50 of October 19, 2011; article 523 of the Civil Code, amended through Ley n.°9777, La Gaceta n.°239 of December 16, 2019, Alcance n.°280; article 572 subsection c) of the Civil Code and, articles 48, 57, 58, 66, 140, 143, 158, 159, 160, 233 and 248 of the Código de Familia. All this, with the following observations: Article 233 of the Código de Familia was incorporated through Ley n.°10192 and that Law, as already indicated, shifted the numbering by incorporating articles 231, 232 and 233 into the Código de Familia. Therefore, it must be determined if, in a specific case, there is a final judgment handed down in a proceeding for “lifting of the care obligation” (levantamiento de obligación de cuido). For greater clarity, this is a new proceeding created through the addition of article 233 to the Código de Familia according to article 32 of the law Creación del Sistema Nacional de Cuidados y Apoyos para Personas Adultas y Personas Adultas Mayores en Situación de Dependencia (Sinca), N° 10192 of April 28, 2022. Then, if such a judgment exists, the scope it has in the specific case must be determined. Furthermore, based on article 8 of the Código de Familia and 106 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, these types of matters fall under the jurisdiction of family courts and, what is resolved there, could or could not affect a support proceeding by analogical application of the last paragraph of article 173 of the Código de Familia. Similarly, consideration must be given to the amendment introduced to articles 56, 60, 141, the heading of chapter II of title III and articles 151 and 152 of the Código de Familia, through Ley n.°9781, La Gaceta n.°238 of December 13, 2019, Alcance n.°279. Furthermore, article 158 of the Código de Familia has been amended through Ley n.°9406, November 30, 2016, La Gaceta n.°10, Alcance n.°9; Ley n.°9095, La Gaceta n.°28 of February 8, 2013, Alcance 27 a; Ley n.°10263, La Gaceta n.°99 of May 30, 2022, Alcance n.°109. In addition to this, it must be considered that there is also the amendment introduced to article 57 of the Penal Code through Ley n.°8875, La Gaceta n.°202 of October 19, 2010, regarding disqualification from exercising "parental authority, guardianship, curatorship or judicial administration of property" (patria potestad, tutela, curatela o administración judicial de bienes) as stated in the rule and that article 159 of the Código de Familia has been amended according to Ley n.°9379, La Gaceta n.°166 of August 30, 2016, Alcance n.°153. As a complement, it cannot be overlooked that, against subsection 173 subsection 4) regarding adultery as a ground for exclusion from the right to support, there is a pending action for unconstitutionality under case file number 22-009920-0007-CO and, published for the first time in the Boletín Judicial n.°103, June 3, 2022. That edict, in relevant part, states: “(…) This notice only affects pending judicial proceedings in which the application of the challenged provision is discussed and it is warned that the only thing that cannot be done in said proceedings is to issue a judgment or, the act in which the challenged provision would have to be applied in the sense in which it has been challenged. Likewise, the only thing the action suspends in the administrative venue is the issuance of the final resolution in proceedings aimed at exhausting that venue, which are those that begin with and following an appeal for reconsideration or appeal for reversal filed against the final act, unless, of course, it involves rules that must be applied during the proceedings, in which case the suspension operates immediately (…).” To all this, it is also necessary to add what is provided for in article 42 of the Political Constitution, article 164 of the Código Procesal Civil Ley n.°7130 and articles 148, 408, 412, 416 and 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, it is pertinent to indicate that distinguishing between exoneration (exoneración) and exclusion (exclusión) is not a trivial matter, since exoneration operates with respect to the support debtor and exclusion with respect to the creditor. Additionally, the evidentiary burdens are different in an exoneration proceeding versus an exclusion proceeding. Lastly, when analyzing situations of exclusion, it is necessary to determine if there has been condonation or forgiveness (disculpa o perdón) with respect to a potential situation determined as a ground excluding support. On this topic, without prejudice to a better opinion, the provisions of articles 52 and 63 of the Código de Familia govern, as well as numeral 524 of the Civil Code, article 5 paragraphs 2 to 3 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial and article 12 of the Civil Code.

THIRD: The needs of the person who will benefit from the support payment — article 160 bis and 164 of the Código de Familia, as well as article 2 subsections h), i), j) of the Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal de las Personas con Discapacidad, Ley de Integral de la Persona Adulta Mayor, article 231 to 233 of the Código de Familia —Ley n.°10192— and the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, among other provisions—, as well as any other regulation that protects the rights of a specific population, and FOURTH: The possibilities of the person sued for support, which involves determining whether or not they are subject to any ground for exoneration —article 27 of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, article 173 subsection 1), 160 bis, 164 and 35 of the Código de Familia of the Código de Familia, the latter article amended through Ley n.°9765, La Gaceta n.°239, December 16, 2019, Alcance n.°280. Furthermore, article 2 subsections h), i), j) of the Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal de las Personas con Discapacidad also applies, among others. To this is added what is provided for in article 38 of the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia. As a complement, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in decision n.º 2010-9775, 4:31 hours of June 1, 2010, held: “(…) it must be clear that the provisional amount of child support should not be quantified solely in relation to the economic income of the support debtor, but rather a balancing test must be established in which both the conditions of the person who is charged with the support obligation and those of the beneficiaries must be taken into account.” Logically, the proportionality of the support payment referred to by the Constitutional Court does not only apply to a provisional support payment but also to that which is established in a judgment. Added to this, regarding economic possibilities in support proceedings, the cited Court referred to the former article 151 —today article 165 of the Código de Familia as follows: “In accordance with article 151 of the Código de Familia, the support payment must maintain a relationship between the economic possibilities of the person who gives it and the needs of the person who receives it, according to the particular circumstances of each case. Such provision finds its rationale in that a generalization cannot be made of all the needs that support recipients may have, since everyone's circumstances are different, some will need special food, others will require particular medications, and some education provided by tutors or qualified teachers, etc., and on the other hand, a common parameter also cannot be established to measure the economic possibilities of all persons obligated to pay support, since some will have a better economic situation than others. Thus, in this regard, without distorting the principle that all men are equal before the law, the judge can be allowed to weigh all the circumstances of the specific case and make the determination in accordance with them, since a multiplicity of personal circumstances, all different, may arise. The principle of equality operates, as set forth above, insofar as persons find themselves in equal or reasonably similar situations, which is not the case regarding the needs and economic possibilities of human beings and their support and personal development needs, for which reason, it is not feasible to accept the petitioner's argument that numeral 151 of the Código de Familia violates the principle of equality by establishing the need to consider the particular conditions of each person when setting the amount of the support payment.” Resolution n.°1725-94, 15:21 of April 12, 1994.[...].

Furthermore, said regulation also requires reviewing the status of preferred beneficiary, as is evident from constitutional jurisprudence, such as, for example, ruling no. 5720-00 of 14:58 on July 11, 2000, among others. <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold;\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">1.b. </span>Analysis of the provisions in Article 40 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code (Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia), as well as numeral 10 of the Alimony Law (Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias). Therefore, it must be considered that a person filing a support claim would not necessarily be obligated to pay support—solidarity—as is the case with uncles and aunts, who are not obligated to pay support for nieces and nephews, as is evident from Article 169 and Article 173, subsection 5) of the Family Code (Código de Familia). Likewise, grandparents are not obligated to pay support for grandchildren of legal age who do not have a disability that prevents them from managing their own interests, Article 169, subsection c) of the Family Code. Another example is an administrative or judicial custodian of a minor, since the person who will be the custodian does not necessarily owe support according to Article 169 of the Family Code. As can be observed, there are many scenarios in which the person filing the claim for the benefit of another is not obligated to pay support. In summary, the practical application of the cited Articles 40 and 10 is not a minor issue, considering that it is not possible to present evidence on the economic capacity of persons not obligated to pay support. Thus, investigating their finances without being obligated to pay support constitutes an arbitrary interference in their lives, and this practice is expressly prohibited at least in Article 12.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article V of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 11.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 3.1, 4, 16); General Comment No. 14 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; Articles 5 and 16 of the Inter-American Convention on the Protection of the Human Rights of Older Persons; and Article 22 of the UN Convention on Disability and the recommendations of the Committee of said Convention, among other norms. <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold;\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">1.c. </span>Review of the joinder of parties in the litigation (integración de la litis). That is, necessary passive joinder (litisconsorcio pasiva necesaria). Article 35, 169 of the Family Code and 106 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), Law No. 7130, as well as Article 2, second paragraph of the Alimony Law.&nbsp;<span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold;\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">SECOND: </span>Determine whether the party claiming support, or the person who benefits from it due to the claim made by another person, is or is not subject to any ground for exclusion. This finds support in Article 173, subsections 2) through 7) of the Family Code; constitutional rulings No. 3685-09 at 10:30 on March 6, 2009, and No. 14026-11 at 14:50 on October 19, 2011; Article 523 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), amended by Law No. 9777, La Gaceta No. 239 of December 16, 2019, Supplement (Alcance) No. 280; Article 572, subsection c) of the Civil Code; and Articles 48, 57, 58, 66, 140, 143, 158, 159, 160, 233, and 248 of the Family Code. All of this, with the following observations: Article 233 of the Family Code was incorporated through Law No. <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">10192 and said</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">Law, as already indicated,</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">shifted the numbering</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">by incorporating Articles 231, 232, and 233 into the Family Code</span>. Thus, it must be determined whether, in a specific case, a final judgment exists that was issued in a "lifting of care obligation (levantamiento de obligación de cuido)" proceeding. For greater clarity, this is a new proceeding created by the addition of Article 233 to the Family Code, according to Article <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">32 of the Law for the</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">Creation of the National System of Care and Support for Adults and Older Adults in Situations of Dependency (Sinca)</span>, No. 10192 of April 28, 2022. Therefore, if <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">that ruling exists, the scope it has in the specific case must be determined. Additionally, based on</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">Article 8 of the Family Code and 106 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial),</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the family courts and, whatever is resolved there,</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">may or may not affect a support proceeding through the analogous application of the</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">last paragraph of Article</span> <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">173 of the Family Code.</span> Similarly, the amendment introduced to Articles 56, 60, 141, the heading of Chapter II of Title III, and Articles 151 and 152 of the Family Code, through Law No. 9781, La Gaceta No. 238 of December 13, 2019, Supplement (Alcance) No. 279, must be considered. Furthermore, Article 158 of the Family Code has been amended through Law No. 9406, November 30, 2016, La Gaceta No. 10, Supplement (Alcance) No. 9; Law No. 9095, La Gaceta No. 28 of February 8, 2013, Supplement (Alcance) 27 a; Law No. 10263, La Gaceta No. 99 of May 30, 2022, Supplement (Alcance) No. 109. Added to this, it must also be considered that there is an amendment introduced to Article 57 of the Penal Code through Law No. 8875, La Gaceta No. 202 of October 19, 2010, regarding the disqualification from exercising "parental authority (patria potestad), guardianship (tutela), conservatorship (curatela), or judicial administration of assets," as the norm indicates, and that Article 159 of the Family Code has been amended according to Law No. 9379, La Gaceta No. 166 of August 30, 2016, Supplement (Alcance) No. 153. As a complement, it cannot be overlooked that, against subsection 173, subsection 4) regarding adultery as a ground for exclusion from the right to support, there is a pending unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) under case file number 22-009920-0007-CO, first published in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) No. 103, June 3, 2022. That notice, in what is relevant, states<span data-mce-style=\"font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">: </span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">“</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">(</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">…</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">)</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">This notice only affects pending judicial proceedings in which the application of the challenged matter is discussed, and it is warned that the only thing that cannot be done in said proceedings is to issue a judgment or the act in which the challenged matter must be applied in the sense in which it has been. Likewise, the only thing the action suspends in administrative channels is the issuance of the final resolution in the procedures aimed at exhausting that channel, which are those initiated with and following the appeal for reconsideration or reversal (recurso de alzada o de reposición) filed against the final act, except, of course, when dealing with norms that must be applied during the process, in which case the suspension takes effect immediately (</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">…</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">).</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">”</span> To all this, the provisions of Article 42 of the Political Constitution, Article 164 of the Civil Procedure Code, Law No. 7130, and Articles 148, 408, 412, 416, and 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) are also added. Furthermore, it is appropriate to note that distinguishing between exoneration (exoneración) and exclusion (exclusión) is not an inconsequential issue, since exoneration operates with respect to the person who owes support, and exclusion operates with relation to the person who is owed support. Additionally, the burdens of proof are different in a proceeding for exoneration and one for exclusion. <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">Finally, </span>when analyzing situations of exclusion, it is necessary to determine whether there has been an excuse or forgiveness regarding a potential situation determined as a ground for excluding support. On this subject, unless a better criterion exists, the provisions of Articles 52 and 63 of the Family Code govern, as well as numeral 524 of the Civil Code, Article 5, paragraphs 2 through 3 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, and Article 12 of the Civil Code.&nbsp;<span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold;\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">THIRD: </span>The needs of the person who will benefit from the payment of support—Article 160 bis and 164 of the Family Code, as well as Article 2, subsections h), i), j) of the Law for the Promotion of Personal Autonomy of Persons with Disabilities (Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal de las Personas con Discapacidad), the Comprehensive Law for the Older Adult (Ley Integral de la Persona Adulta Mayor), Article 231 through 233 of the Family Code—Law No. <span data-mce-style=\"color: #202124;\" style=\"color: rgb(32, 33, 36);\">10192— </span>and the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, among other provisions—as well as any other regulation that protects the rights of a specific population, and&nbsp;<span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold;\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">FOURTH: </span>The means of the person sued for support, which requires determining whether or not they are subject to any ground for exoneration—Article 27 of the Alimony Law, Article 173, subsection 1), 160 bis, 164, and 35 of the Family Code, the latter article modified through Law No. 9765, La Gaceta No. 239, December 16, 2019, Supplement (Alcance) No. 280. Additionally, Article 2, subsections h), i), j) of the Law for the Promotion of Personal Autonomy of Persons with Disabilities also applies, among others. To this is added the provisions of Article 38 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code. As a complement, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, in vote (voto) No. 2010-9775, at 4:31 on June 1, 2010, ruled: <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">“</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">(</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">…</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">) it must be clear that the</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">provisional amount of the alimony (pensión alimentaria) must not be quantified </span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">solely in relation</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">to the economic income of the support debtor, but rather a judgment of</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">balancing must be established <span data-mce-type=\"bookmark\" id=\"mce_5_start\" data-mce-style=\"overflow:hidden;line-height:0px\" style=\"overflow: hidden; line-height: 0px;\"></span>in which the conditions of both the person who has the</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">support obligation and the beneficiaries must be considered.</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">”</span> Logically, the proportionality of the support payment to which the Constitutional Court referred does not govern solely with respect to a provisional alimony payment, but also for one fixed in a judgment. Added to this, regarding the economic means in support proceedings, the cited Court referred to the former Article 151—today Article 165 of the Family Code—as follows: <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">“</span><span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">In accordance with</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">Article 151 of the Family Code, the support provision must maintain a ratio</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">between the economic means of the one who gives it and the needs of the one who receives it, according to</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">the particular circumstances of each case. Such provision finds its rationale in that</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">a generalization cannot be made of all the needs that the</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">support recipients may have, since everyone's circumstances are different; some will need</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">special nutrition, others will require specific medications, and some will need education</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">overseen by qualified tutors or teachers, etc., and on the other hand, a common</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">parameter cannot be established to measure the economic means of all those obligated to pay</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">support, since some will have a better economic</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">situation than others. In such a way that, in this</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">regard, without undermining the principle that all people are equal before the law,</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">the judge can be allowed to weigh all the circumstances of the specific case and make the determination</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">in accordance with them, since a multiplicity of personal circumstances may arise, all</span> <span data-mce-style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\" style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">different.</span> The principle of equality operates, as set forth above, insofar as persons find themselves in equal or reasonably similar situations, which is not the case in relation to the economic needs and possibilities of human beings and their dietary and personal development needs, for which reason it is not feasible to accept the argument of the claimant, that numeral 151 of the Family Code (Código de Familia) violates the principle of equality by establishing the need to consider the particular conditions of each case when setting the amount of the child support obligation (cuota alimentaria)." Resolution No. 1725-94, 15:21 of April 12, 1994.[...]."

V.Consequently, regarding the practical application of Article 169 of the Family Code (Código de Familia), I consider it necessary to indicate that in accordance with current legislation and binding jurisprudence —Article 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) and 8.1 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial)—, the requirements for child support (pensión alimentaria) are reviewed in every proceeding and in the **following strict order**: **FIRST:** Kinship or legal bond as the case may be, since both matters are not the same. This requirement is based on Article 169 of the Family Code, amended with respect to subsection 2) by Law No. 10166, La Gaceta No. 82 of May 5, 2022; Article 248 of the cited Code, which corresponded to the former Article 245 and is now 248 because the numbering was shifted by the law entitled "Creation of the National System of Care and Support for Adults and Older Adults in Situations of Dependency (SINCA)," No. 10192 published in La Gaceta No. 110 of June 14, 2022, Alcance No. 118. Added to that regulation are Articles 69 and 92, second paragraph of the Family Code, regarding support for conceived but unborn children. Additionally, the provisions of Articles 27 and 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Law No. 7184, and the Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child must be considered, such as, for example: General Comment No. 4. Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; General Comment No. 5. General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; General Comment No. 7. Implementing child rights in early childhood; General Comment No. 9. The rights of children with disabilities; General Comment No. 11. Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention; General Comment No. 14. The right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration; General Comment No. 15. The right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health; General Comment No. 17. The right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts; General Comment No. 20. On the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence, among others. Similarly, the provisions of Articles 29, 37 to 39 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code (Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia) must be included. As a complement, the provisions of Article 13, subsection a) and Article 16, subsection c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Law No. 6968 (CEDAW), must also be considered, which includes the General Recommendations of the CEDAW Committee, such as, for example: General Recommendations No. 19 and No. 35 on Violence against women; General Recommendation No. 21 on equality in marriage and family relations; General Recommendation No. 27 on older women and protection of their human rights; General Recommendation No. 29 on the economic consequences of marriage, family relations and their dissolution; General Recommendation No. 33 on women’s access to justice; General Recommendation No. 34 on the rights of rural women; and, General Recommendation No. 39 on Indigenous women and girls, among others. Likewise, the provisions of the Inter-American Convention on Support Obligations (Convención Interamericana sobre Obligaciones Alimentarias), Law No. 8053, must also be considered. Now, the review of all this legal framework also involves the following topics: **1.a** The examination of the status of preferred obligated person as provided in Articles 168, 169 and 173, subsection 1) of the Family Code, 23 of the Child Support Law (Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias), 38 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code. It must be noted that there are at least five provisions referring to the preferred status of food debtors. Furthermore, said legal framework also requires reviewing the status of preferred beneficiary, as derived from constitutional jurisprudence, such as, for example, resolution No. 5720-00 of 14:58 of July 11, 2000, among others. **1.b.** The analysis of the provisions of Article 40 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code, as well as numeral 10 of the Child Support Law. Therefore, it must be taken into account that whoever files a child support claim would not necessarily be obliged to pay support —solidarity— as is the case of uncles and aunts, who are not obliged to pay support with respect to nieces and nephews, as derived from Articles 169 and 173, subsection 5) of the Family Code. Similarly, grandparents are not obliged to pay support with respect to grandchildren of legal age who do not have a disability that prevents them from attending to their own interests, Article 169, subsection c) of the Family Code. Another example is a person acting as administrative or judicial custodian of a minor (persona menor de edad), since the custodian is not necessarily required to provide support according to Article 169 of the Family Code. As can be observed, there are many situations in which the person filing the claim for the benefit of another person is not obliged to pay support. In summary, the practical application of the cited Articles 40 and 10 is not a minor matter if one considers that it is not possible to admit evidence on the economic capacity of persons who are not obliged to pay support. Thus, investigating their finances without being obliged to pay support constitutes an arbitrary interference in private life, and this practice is expressly prohibited in at least Articles 12.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; V of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 11.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in Articles 3.1, 4, 16; General Comment of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, No. 14; Articles 5 and 16 of the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons and Article 22 of the UN Convention on Disability and the recommendations of the Committee of said Convention, among other provisions. **1.c.** Review of the joinder of parties (integración de la litis). That is, the necessary passive joinder (litisconsorcio pasiva necesaria). Article 35, 169 of the Family Code, and 106 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) Law No. 7130, as well as Article 2, second paragraph of the Child Support Law. **SECOND:** Determine whether the party claiming support or whether the person who benefits from it through a claim made by another person, is or is not subject to any ground for exclusion. This finds support in Article 173, subsections 2) to 7) of the Family Code; constitutional resolutions No. 3685-09 at 10:30 hours of March 6, 2009, and No. 14026-11 at 14:50 of October 19, 2011; Article 523 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), amended by Law No. 9777, La Gaceta No. 239 of December 16, 2019, Alcance No. 280; Article 572, subsection c) of the Civil Code, and Articles 48, 57, 58, 66, 140, 143, 158, 159, 160, 233 and 248 of the Family Code. All of this, with the following observations: Article 233 of the Family Code was incorporated by Law No. 10192 and said Law, as already indicated, shifted the numbering by incorporating Articles 231, 232 and 233 into the Family Code. Therefore, it must be determined if in a specific case, there is a final judgment (sentencia firme) issued in a proceeding for “release from the care obligation (levantamiento de obligación de cuido).” For greater clarity, this is a new process created by the addition of Article 233 to the Family Code pursuant to Article 32 of the Law for the Creation of the National System of Care and Support for Adults and Older Adults in Situations of Dependency (Sinca), No. 10192 of April 28, 2022. Thus, if that ruling exists, the scope it has in the specific case must be determined. Furthermore, based on Article 8 of the Family Code and 106 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, such matters are the competence of the family courts, and what is resolved there may or may not have an impact on a child support proceeding by analogous application of the last paragraph of Article 173 of the Family Code. Similarly, consideration must be given to the reform introduced to Articles 56, 60, 141, the epigraph of Chapter II of Title III and Articles 151 and 152 of the Family Code, by Law No. 9781, La Gaceta No. 238 of December 13, 2019, Alcance No. 279. Moreover, Article 158 of the Family Code has been amended by Law No. 9406, November 30, 2016, La Gaceta No. 10, Alcance No. 9; Law No. 9095, La Gaceta No. 28 of February 8, 2013, Alcance 27 a; Law No. 10263, La Gaceta No. 99 of May 30, 2022, Alcance No. 109. Added to this, it must be considered that there is also the reform introduced to Article 57 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) by Law No. 8875, La Gaceta No. 202 of October 19, 2010, regarding disqualification from exercising “parental authority (patria potestad), guardianship (tutela), conservatorship (curatela) or judicial administration of property” as the provision states, and that Article 159 of the Family Code has been amended by Law No. 9379, La Gaceta No. 166 of August 30, 2016, Alcance No. 153. As a complement, it cannot be overlooked that, against subsection 173, paragraph 4) regarding adultery as a ground for exclusion from the right to support, there is a pending unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) filed under case number 22-009920-0007-CO and published for the first time in Judicial Bulletin No. 103, June 3, 2022. That edict, in its relevant part, states: *“(…) **This notice only affects pending judicial proceedings in which the application of the challenged provision is discussed, and it is warned that the only thing that cannot be done in said proceedings is to issue a judgment or the act in which the questioned provision is to be applied in the sense in which it has been.** ”*

Likewise, the only thing that the action suspends in the administrative channel is the issuance of the final resolution in the procedures aimed at exhausting that channel, which are those that begin with and upon the appeal or motion for reversal filed against the final act, except, of course, when it concerns rules that must be applied during the proceeding, in which case the suspension operates immediately (…)." Added to all this is what is provided in Article 42 of the Political Constitution, Article 164 of the Civil Procedure Code Law No. 7130, and Articles 148, 408, 412, 416, and 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that distinguishing between exoneration (exoneración) and exclusion (exclusión) is not a trivial matter, since exoneration operates with respect to the person obligated to pay support and exclusion operates with respect to the person entitled to receive support. Additionally, the evidentiary burdens are different in an exoneration proceeding than in an exclusion proceeding. Lastly, when analyzing situations of exclusion, it is necessary to determine whether there has been an excuse or pardon regarding a potential situation identified as a cause for exclusion from support. On this matter, subject to a better opinion, the provisions of Articles 52 and 63 of the Family Code, as well as numeral 524 of the Civil Code, Article 5 paragraphs 2 to 3 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, and Article 12 of the Civil Code, apply. **THIRD:** The needs of the person who will benefit from the support payment—Article 160 bis and 164 of the Family Code, as well as Article 2 subsections h), i), j) of the Law for the Promotion of Personal Autonomy of Persons with Disabilities, the Comprehensive Law for the Older Adult, Articles 231 to 233 of the Family Code—Law No. 10192—and the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, among other provisions—as well as any other regulation that protects the rights of a specific population and, **FOURTH:** The financial capacity (posibilidades) of the person sued for support, which entails determining whether or not they fall under any ground for exoneration—Article 27 of the Alimony Law, Article 173 subsection 1), 160 bis, 164, and 35 of the Family Code of the Family Code, this last article amended by Law No. 9765, La Gaceta No. 239, December 16, 2019, Scope No. 280. Furthermore, Article 2 subsections h), i), j) of the Law for the Promotion of Personal Autonomy of Persons with Disabilities also applies, among others. Added to this is the provision in Article 38 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code. As a complement, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in vote No. 2010-9775, at 4:31 a.m. on June 1, 2010, ordered: "(…) it must be clear that the provisional amount of the support payment (pensión alimentaria) must not be quantified solely in relation to the economic income of the support debtor, but rather a judgment of balancing (ponderación) must be established in which both the conditions of the person obligated to provide support and those of the beneficiaries must be taken into account." Logically, the proportionality of the support payment amount to which the Constitutional Court referred does not apply solely to a provisional support payment but also to one that is set by judgment. In addition to this, regarding economic capacity in support proceedings, the aforementioned Court referred to the former Article 151—now Article 165 of the Family Code—as follows: "In accordance with Article 151 of the Family Code, the support provision must maintain a relationship between the economic capacity (posibilidades económicas) of the person who gives it and the needs of the person who receives it, according to the particular circumstances of each case. This provision finds its rationale in that a generalization cannot be made of all the needs that support recipients may have, since everyone's circumstances are different; some will need special food, others will require particular medications, and some education by qualified tutors or teachers, etc., and on the other hand, a common parameter cannot be established to measure the economic capacity of all those obligated to pay support, since some will have a better economic situation than others. So that in this regard, without distorting the principle that all people are equal before the law, the judge can be allowed to weigh all the circumstances of the specific case and make the determination according to them, because a multiplicity of personal circumstances can arise, all different. The principle of equality operates, as set forth above, insofar as people find themselves in equal or reasonably similar situations, which does not occur in relation to the economic needs and capacities of human beings and their support and personal development needs, for which reason it is not feasible to uphold the petitioner's argument that numeral 151 of the Family Code violates the principle of equality by establishing the need to consider the particular conditions of each case when setting the support payment amount." Resolution No. 1725-94, at 3:21 p.m. on April 12, 1994.[...]."

"V. En consecuencia, en cuanto a la aplicación práctica del artículo 169 del Código de Familia, estimo necesario indicar que de conformidad con la legislación vigente y jurisprudencia vinculante -artículo 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y 8.1 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial-, los presupuestos de la pensión alimentaria se revisan en todo proceso y en el siguiente orden estricto: PRIMERO: Parentesco o vínculo según sea el caso, pues ambos temas no son lo mismo. Este requisito tiene fundamento en el artículo 169 del Código de Familia, reformado en cuanto al inciso 2) mediante Ley n.°10166, La Gaceta n.°82 de 5 de mayo de 2022; artículo 248 del citado Código, que correspondía al anterior artículo 245 y ahora es el 248 debido a que la numeración fue corrida por la ley denominada "Creación del Sistema Nacional de Cuidados y Apoyos para Personas Adultas y Personas Adultas Mayores en Situación de Dependencia (SINCA)", n°10192 publicada en La Gaceta n.°110 de 14 de junio de 2022, Alcance n°118. A esa regulación se suma el artículo 69 y 92 párrafo segundo del Código de Familia en cuanto a los alimentos para concebidos no nacidos. Además, debe considerarse lo contemplado en los artículos 27 y 32 de la Convención de los Derechos del Niño Ley n.°7184 y las Observaciones del Comité de los Derechos del Niño, como, por ejemplo: Observación General n.°4. La salud y el desarrollo de los adolescentes en el contexto de la Convención de los Derechos del Niño; Observación General n.°5. Medidas generales de aplicación de la Convención de los Derechos del Niño; Observación General n.°7. Realización de los derechos del niño en la primera infancia; Observación General n.°9. Los derechos de los niños con discapacidad; Observación General n.°11. Los niños indígenas y sus derechos en virtud de la Convención; Observación General n.°14. El derecho del niño a que su interés superior sea una consideración primordial; Observación General n.°15. El derecho del niño al disfrute del más alto nivel posible de salud; Observación General n.°17. El derecho del niño al descanso, el esparcimiento, el juego, las actividades recreativas, la vida cultural y las artes; Observación General n.°20. Sobre la efectividad de los derechos del niño durante la adolescencia, entre otras. De igual forma, debe sumarse lo previsto en los artículos 29, 37 al 39 del Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia. Como complemento, también debe considerarse lo previsto en el artículo 13 inciso a) y 16 inciso c) de la Convención sobre la Eliminación de Todas las Formas de Discriminación contra La Mujer, Ley n.°6968 (CEDAW), lo que incluye las Recomendaciones Generales del Comité de la CEDAW, como, por ejemplo: Recomendaciones Generales n.°19 y n.°35 sobre Violencia contra la mujer; Recomendación General n.°21 sobre igualdad en el matrimonio y las relaciones familiares; Recomendación General n.º27 sobre las mujeres de edad y la protección de sus derechos humanos; Recomendación General n.°29 sobre las consecuencias económicas del matrimonio, las relaciones familiares y su disolución; Recomendación General n.º33, sobre el acceso de las mujeres a la justicia; Recomendación General n.°34, sobre los derechos de las mujeres rurales y, Recomendación General n.º39, sobre Mujeres y niñas indígenas, entre otras. Igualmente, se debe considerar también lo previsto en la Convención Interamericana sobre Obligaciones Alimentarias, Ley n.°8053. Ahora bien, la revisión de toda esta normativa también involucra los siguientes temas: 1.a El examen del carácter de persona obligada preferente tal como disponen los artículos 168, 169 y 173 inciso 1) del Código de Familia, 23 de la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, 38 del Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia. Debe observarse que se trata de al menos cinco normas que se refieren al carácter preferente en cuanto personas deudoras alimentaras. Además, dicha normativa impone revisar también el carácter de persona beneficiaria preferente, tal como se desprende de la jurisprudencia constitucional como, por ejemplo, resolución n.°5720-00 de las 14:58 de 11 de julio de 2000, entre otras. 1.b. El análisis de lo previsto en el artículo 40 del Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, así como el numeral 10 de la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias. Entonces, se debe tener en cuenta que quien planteada una demanda de alimentos no necesariamente estaría obligado al pago de alimentos -solidaridad- como es el caso de tíos y tías, quienes no están obligados al pago de alimentos con respecto a sobrinos y sobrinas, tal como se desprende del artículo 169 y 173 inciso 5) del Código de Familia. De igual forma, no están obligados al pago de alimentos abuelos y abuelas respecto a nietos y nietas mayores de edad que no tengan una discapacidad que les impida atender sus propios intereses, artículo 169 inciso c) del Código de Familia. Otro ejemplo lo constituye una persona depositaria administrativa o judicial de una persona menor de edad, puesto que, no necesariamente quien será depositario (a) debe alimentos conforma al artículo 169 del Código de Familia. Como puede observarse, son muchos los supuestos en los que, quien formula la demanda en beneficio de otra persona, no está obligada al pago de alimentos. En síntesis, la aplicación práctica de los artículos 40 y 10 citados, no es un tema menor si se considera que no es posible evacuar prueba sobre capacidad económica de personas que no están obligadas al pago de alimentos. Así, investigar sus finanzas sin ser obligadas al pago de alimentos, constituye una injerencia arbitraria en la vida y, esa práctica se encuentra expresamente prohibida al menos en los artículos 12.1 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos; V de la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 17 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos; artículo 11,2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, en los artículos 3.1, 4, 16); Observación General del Comité de los Derechos del Niño, n.°14; artículo 5 y 16 Convención Interamericana sobre la Protección de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas Mayores y artículo 22 de la Convención de la ONU sobre Discapacidad y las recomendaciones del Comité de dicha Convención, entre otras normas. 1.c. Revisión de la integración de la litis. Es decir, la litisconsorcio pasiva necesaria. Artículo 35, 169 del Código de Familia y, 106 del Código Procesal Civil Ley n.°7130, así como artículo 2 párrafo segundo de la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias SEGUNDO: Determinar si la parte que reclama alimentos o si a quien se beneficia de ellos por el reclamo hecho por otra persona, se encuentra o no en alguna causal de exclusión. Esto encuentra sustento en artículo 173 inciso 2) al 7) del Código de Familia; resoluciones constitucionales n.°3685-09 10:30 horas de 6 de marzo de 2009 y n.°14026-11 14:50 de 19 de octubre de 2011; artículo 523 del Código Civil, reformado mediante Ley n°9777, La Gaceta n°239 de 16 de diciembre 2019, Alcance n°280; artículo 572 inciso c) del Código Civil y, artículos 48, 57, 58, 66, 140, 143, 158, 159, 160, 233 y 248 del Código de Familia. Todo esto, con las siguientes observaciones: El artículo 233 del Código de Familia fue incorporado mediante Ley n°10192 y dicha Ley como ya se indicó, corrió la numeración al incorporar los artículos 231, 232 y 233 al Código de Familia. Entonces, debe determinarse si en un caso concreto, existe sentencia firme dictada en un proceso de “levantamiento de obligación de cuido”. Para mayor claridad, se trata de un nuevo creado mediante adición del artículo 233 al Código de Familia según el artículo 32 de la ley Creación del Sistema Nacional de Cuidados y Apoyos para Personas Adultas y Personas Adultas Mayores en Situación de Dependencia (Sinca), N° 10192 del 28 de abril de 2022. Entonces, si existe ese fallo, se debe determinar el alcance que tiene en el caso concreto. Además, con fundamento en el artículo 8 del Código de Familia y 106 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, ese tipo de asuntos son competencia de los juzgados de familia y, lo que ahí sea resuelto, podría incidir o no en un proceso alimentario por aplicación analógica del párrafo último del artículo 173 del Código de Familia. De igual forma, se debe considerar la reforma introducida a los artículos 56, 60, 141, el epígrafe del capítulo II del título III y los artículos 151 y 152 del Código de Familia, mediante Ley n.°9781, La Gaceta n.°238 de 13 de diciembre de 2019, Alcance n.°279. Además, el artículo 158 del Código de Familia, ha sido reformado mediante Ley n.°9406, 30 de noviembre de 2016, La Gaceta n.°10, Alcance n.°9; Ley n.°9095, La Gaceta n.°28 de 8 de febrero de 2013, Alcance 27 a; Ley n.°10263, La Gaceta n.°99 de 30 de mayo de 2022, Alcance n.°109. Sumado a esto, debe considerarse que también existe la reforma introducida al artículo 57 del Código Penal mediante Ley n.°8875, La Gaceta n.°202 de 19 de octubre de 2010, sobre la inhabilitación para ejercer “patria potestad, tutela, curatela o administración judicial de bienes” según indica la norma y que, el artículo 159 del Código de Familia ha sido reformado según Ley n.°9379, La Gaceta n.°166 de 30 de agosto de 2016, Alcance n.°153. Como complemento, no puede dejarse de lado que, contra el inciso 173 inciso 4) en cuanto al adulterio como causal de exclusión del derecho alimentario, existe acción de inconstitucionalidad cursada expediente número 22-009920-0007-CO y, publicada por primera vez en el Boletín Judicial n.°103, 3 de junio de 2022. Ese edicto, en lo que interesa dice: “(…) Este aviso sólo afecta los procesos judiciales pendientes en los cuales se discuta la aplicación de lo impugnado y se advierte que lo único que no puede hacerse en dichos procesos, es dictar sentencia o bien, el acto en que haya de aplicarse lo cuestionado en el sentido en que lo ha sido. Igualmente, lo único que la acción suspende en vía administrativa es el dictado de la resolución final en los procedimientos tendentes a agotar esa vía, que son los que se inician con y a partir del recurso de alzada o de reposición interpuestos contra el acto final, salvo, claro está, que se trate de normas que deben aplicarse durante la tramitación, en cuyo caso la suspensión opera inmediatamente (…).” A todo esto, se suma también lo previsto en el artículo 42 de la Constitución Política, el artículo 164 del Código Procesal Civil Ley n°7130 y los artículos 148, 408, 412, 416 y 418 del Código Procesal Penal. Además, resulta oportuno indicar que, distinguir entre exoneración y exclusión no es un tema intrascendente, puesto que la exoneración opera con respecto a la persona deudora de alimentos y, la exclusión, con relación a la persona acreedora. Adicionalmente, las cargas probatorias son distintas en un proceso de exoneración y en uno de exclusión. Por último, cuando se analizan situaciones de exclusión, es necesario determinar si ha existido disculpa o perdón con respecto a una eventual situación determinada como causal excluyente de alimentos. Sobre este tema, salvo mejor criterio, rige lo previsto en los artículos 52 y 63 del Código de Familia, así como el numeral 524 del Código Civil, el artículo 5 párrafos 2 al 3 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial y, artículo 12 del Código Civil. TERCERO: Las necesidades de la persona que se beneficiará con el pago de alimentos - artículo 160 bis y 164 del Código de Familia, así como artículo 2 incisos h), i), j) de la Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal de las Personas con Discapacidad, Ley de Integral de la Persona Adulta Mayor, artículo 231 al 233 del Código de Familia -Ley n°10192- y Convención Interamericana sobre Protección de los Derechos Humanos de la Persona Adulta Mayor, entre otras disposiciones-, así como cualquier otra normativa que tutele derechos de una población específica y, CUARTO: Las posibilidades de la persona demandada por alimentos, lo que supone determinar si se encuentra o no en alguna causal de exoneración -artículo 27 de la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, artículo 173 inciso 1), 160 bis, 164 y 35 del Código de Familia del Código de Familia, este último artículo modificado mediante Ley n.°9765, La Gaceta n.°239, 16 de diciembre de 2019, Alcance n.°280. Además, aplica también el artículo 2 incisos h), i), j) de la Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal de las Personas con Discapacidad, entre otras. A esto se suma lo previsto en el artículo 38 del Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia. Como complemento, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en el voto n.º 2010-9775, 4:31 horas de 1º de junio de 2010, dispuso: “(…) debe quedar claro que el monto provisional de la pensión alimentaria no debe cuantificarse únicamente en relación con los ingresos económicos del deudor alimentario, sino que debe establecerse un juicio de ponderación en que se han de tomar en cuenta tanto las condiciones de quien tiene a cargo la obligación alimentaria como de los beneficiarios.” Lógicamente, la proporcionalidad de la cuota alimentaria a la que se refirió el Tribunal Constitucional, no rige únicamente respecto a una pensión alimentaria provisional sino también para aquella que sea fijada en sentencia. Sumado a esto, en torno a las posibilidades económicas en los procesos alimentarios, el citado Tribunal se refirió al otrora artículo 151 -hoy artículo 165 del Código de Familia así: “De conformidad con el artículo 151 del Código de Familia, la prestación alimentaria debe guardar una relación entre las posibilidades económicas de quien la da y las necesidades de quien la recibe, según las circunstancias particulares de cada caso. Tal disposición encuentra su razón de ser en que no puede hacerse una generalización de todas las necesidades que puedan tener los alimentarios, ya que las circunstancias de todos son diferentes, algunos necesitarán alimentación especial, otros requerirán medicamentos particulares, y algunos educación a cargo de tutores o maestros calificados, etc, y por otra parte, tampoco puede establecerse un parámetro común para medir las posibilidades económicas de todos los obligados a pagar pensión, ya que unos tendrán mejor situación económica que otros. De modo tal que a este respecto, sin desvirtuar el principio de que todos los hombres son iguales ante la ley, se puede permitir al juzgador ponderar todas las circunstancias del caso concreto y hacer la fijación acorde con ellas, pues pueden darse multiplicidad de circunstancias personales, todas diferentes. El principio de igualdad opera, según quedó expuesto supra, en tanto las personas se encuentren en situaciones iguales o razonablemente semejantes, cosa que no ocurre en relación a las necesidades y posibilidades económicas de los seres humanos y sus necesidades alimentarias y de formación personal, por lo cuál, no resulta dable acoger el argumento del accionante, respecto a que el numeral 151 del Código de Familia, quebranta el principio de igualdad, al establecer la necesidad de considerar las condiciones particulares de cada cuál al fijar el monto de la cuota alimentaria.” Resolución n.°1725-94, 15:21 de 12 de abril de 1994.[...]."