Dismissal of appeal and confirmation of reversal of burden of proof in child support caseImprocedencia de excluir horas extras y confirmación de inversión de carga probatoria en pensión alimentaria

"II. ON THE MERITS: The right to support (derecho alimentario) has as its basic foundation solidarity between persons who share kinship or a bond. Its special nature makes this obligation pecuniary but non-patrimonial, solidary, of public order, conditional, peremptory, highly personal, usually non-waivable, priority, non-compensable, usually non-recoverable, unattachable, modifiable, usually reciprocal, of periodic or successive performance, susceptible to suspension, usually not subject to rendering of accounts, based on the guideline of responsibility in fulfilling family duties, non-negotiable, divisible, principal or subsidiary, partially alternative, insurable, susceptible to termination, cannot be given as collateral, extraterritorial, non-remissible, is a debt of value and not monetary, legally determined, not susceptible to confusion; enforceable through corporal sanction (apremio corporal), is a human right, usually not susceptible to remission, and does not admit subrogatory action, susceptible to being paid by judicial deposit and through payment by subrogation; its non-compliance constitutes a crime and affects institutes inherent to Family Law, such as the suspension of parental responsibility or as a ground for judicial separation in case of non-compliance, among others. It goes without saying that these characteristics are contained expressly and implicitly in the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias and the Código de Familia, which, in accordance with the principles of integration indicated by Article 2 of the cited Law, must form a whole for the finalist interpretation of the provisions. Based on the foregoing reasoning, the interpretation of the rules on support quotas must obligatorily be made based on their purpose, which is the satisfaction of the basic needs of each beneficiary, within which are found their daily sustenance, housing, clothing, medical assistance, education, recreation, and transportation, but all within the framework of the accustomed standard of living, as well as their real needs. For the establishment, increase, and reduction of which, the needs and the standard of living accustomed by each beneficiary for their normal physical and mental development, as well as the assets, rents, and income in general, as well as the economic possibilities, basic—not lavish—needs, and the capital belonging to or possessed by the person who must provide them must be taken into consideration.

III.Specifically, Article 160 bis of the Código de Familia states that the support provision comprises attention to the needs for the normal physical and mental development of the beneficiaries, their education, instruction, or job training. As a complement, numeral 164 of the same Code states that support (alimentos) should be understood as “that which provides sustenance, housing, clothing, medical assistance, education, recreation, transportation, and others, according to the economic possibilities and the capital belonging to or possessed by the person who must provide them. The needs and the standard of living accustomed by the beneficiary for their normal physical and mental development, as well as their assets, shall be taken into account.” To reinforce the foregoing, numeral 7 of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias establishes as a principle for its interpretation the interest of the beneficiaries, as well as the principles of a procedural nature established in Article 2, third paragraph, of that instrument. This latter point, since the rules of procedure have as their purpose to allow access to justice and, consequently, the materialization of the substantive right, as is evident from Article 3 of the Código Procesal Civil. Hence, Article 68 of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias establishes that, in matters not regulated in that Law, the summary process established in the Código Procesal Civil must be applied supplementarily.

IV.Based on the foregoing reasoning, it is evident that the legal nature of the obligation under study does not share the characteristics inherent to a civil debt, since it does not seek to enrich, punish, compensate, or indemnify, but to cover the expenses of the beneficiaries according to the parameters already stated. Consequently, in this type of proceeding, the reversal of the burden of proof applies, for it is up to the respondent to actually demonstrate what their income and expenses are, as well as the priority and periodicity of both. Otherwise, the plaintiff would be obligated to demonstrate the earnings of the counterparty and, as such aspects belong to the private sphere, the plaintiff usually has very little information about the economic possibilities of the respondent. Thus, the demonstration must be exhaustive, especially since not only the assets that belong to the obligated persons count, but also what they possess, hence the financial behavior of a person obligated to pay support is also relevant. In this way, the priority nature of said obligation imposes the need to consider the gross income of the obligated persons, discounting those elementary expenses to cover their basic needs and other expenses of legal origin, such as social charges. In this sense, it is not possible to ignore that the support obligation takes priority over any non-basic expenditure, which, in principle, can be said to be any expense that does not rationally satisfy the needs of the obligated person, which must be assessed in each specific case, taking as an example of such expenses, matters related to food, housing, etc. Consequently, it is possible to conclude that, in the analysis of said parameters, the characteristics, principles, and purpose of the support obligation are unavoidable. The opposite goes against the spirit of the law, which would render it inoperative. It must be clear that the priority of the support obligation is undisputed. For example, Article 171 of the Código de Familia, Article 62 of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, Article 172 of the Código de Trabajo, Article 44 of Law No. 9859 published in Alcance No. 150 to La Gaceta No. 147, June 20, 2020, and Article 155 of the Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, as well as Article 30, subsection a) of the Código de Trabajo, among other norms, regulate this matter. In the case of Article 171 of the Código de Familia, the norm says: “The support debt (deuda alimentaria) shall have priority over any other, without exception.”

V.As a complement, it is important to indicate that there are needs covered by the specific regulation that the Código Procesal Civil contemplates on presumptions, from Article 414 to 417. It is presumed, then, that each beneficiary eats, needs clothing, and also, potable water, as well as electric power for the bare minimum: eating, washing clothes, etc. All these needs are human presumptions derived from undeniable and fully demonstrated facts: the beneficiaries remain alive. As a complement, there are expenses whose proof is not necessary because, in Family Law, there is an express norm on the subject: what customarily does not generate a receipt need not be proven. This is evident from Article 221 of the Código de Familia. Therefore, in a support proceeding, it is not possible to demand that the party claiming support provide receipts for absolutely all expenses, because everything that is understood to be included in the cited Article 221 and that is derived from human presumptions likewise does not require proof, unless a specific expense is being alleged outside of what can be considered usual and indispensable for living. In addition to all this, when dealing with minors, Articles 1, 5, and 9 of the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia must be applied, such that it is necessary to make the decision that is most beneficial for the minor, and the decision must also be congruent with the specific needs that derive not only from being born and remaining alive but from their condition as a minor. For greater clarity, each beneficiary of support—and in this case, it is no exception—must satisfy the decent housing (vivienda digna) item, whether through the proportional payment of rent, mortgage, and/or maintenance of the property, as applicable; transportation for all types of activities; food in attention to the real nutritional needs of the beneficiary; proportional payment of public services; recreation; clothing; purchase of personal hygiene and household cleaning products; etc. That is, each beneficiary has needs as a person and as a person in the particular condition in which they find themselves.

VI.In the same sense, the setting of a support pension does not have the purpose of consolidating or causing overburdened maternities, since that is contrary to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, specifically, Article 5. Thus, it is not the mother's responsibility to solely satisfy the needs of each minor, nor is it possible to disregard the contribution the mother makes through domestic work (trabajo doméstico), which involves a set of indispensable activities. Therefore, for the purposes of Article 35 of the Código de Familia—reformed by Law No. 9765, La Gaceta No. 239 of December 16, 2019, Alcance No. 280—as well as, by application of numerals 5.a, 13.a, and 14.1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and, also by application of Law No. 9325 —Ley de Contabilización del Aporte del Trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica—, it must be understood that usually the mother, as part of her contribution to the support of each minor, provides care with everything that entails. In certain cases, it is possible that, in addition to such contribution, the mother may collaborate with the household economy with money, but, in any case, domestic work and the care of dependent persons in general cannot be disregarded as a contribution. Disregarding it, for example, in the case of minor sons and daughters, would imply generating and consolidating overburdened maternities, as well as making the social function of care invisible. In this regard, I refer to the UN Human Rights Council resolution on the “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development,” of October 10, 2023, resolution A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1, available at https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1 That resolution, among other things, states: “1. Recognizes the importance of respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights of paid and unpaid caregivers and of persons receiving care and support; 2. Expresses deep concern about the unequal organization and distribution of care and support work, and the impact this has on the rights of all women and girls in society and the economy. 3. Recognizes that, to achieve gender equality, it is essential to equitably distribute care and support work and the time dedicated to such work; 4. Urges States to: (a) Implement all necessary measures to recognize care work and redistribute it among persons, as well as among families, communities, the private sector, and States, in such a way as to promote gender equality and the enjoyment of human rights by all persons; (b) Increase investment in care and support policies and infrastructure in order to guarantee universal access to affordable and quality services for all persons, including childcare services and health and support services for persons with disabilities and older persons, and to guarantee universal access to parental, maternity, and paternity leave and social protection for all workers, both for workers in the informal sector and those working in atypical forms of employment; (c) Foster and support research and studies aimed at producing data disaggregated by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, marital status, disability, geographic location, and other relevant characteristics in the national context, as well as statistics on the extent and distribution of care work and the time dedicated to it, as well as on persons providing such care and those receiving it, through periodic time-use surveys and the establishment of satellite accounts to evaluate the contribution of that work to national income and quantify unpaid care work, in order to include it in the gross national product for the purposes of designing, financing, and evaluating policies in this area; (d) Adopt all necessary measures to permit the full, equal, genuine, and inclusive participation of women, persons with disabilities, and older persons, as well as children, in decision-making relating to care and support, both in private and public life, including social dialogue and collective bargaining for paid care workers; (e) Raise awareness about the negative impacts that stereotypes related to gender, disability, and age have on providing and receiving care and support, and establish programs and policies to eliminate these stereotypes.” It is for all that has been said that the contribution the mother makes to her solidary support duty through care cannot be disregarded, since even according to Law No. 9325 —Ley de contabilización del aporte del trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica— there is the “care economy (economía de cuidado)” and, it refers to “unpaid work performed in the home, related to maintaining the dwelling, caring for other persons in the household or the community, and maintaining the paid workforce.” This law warns that this category of work is of fundamental economic importance in a society. For greater understanding, this normative instrument indicates in Article 3 that “activities of unpaid domestic and care work are considered, among others, the following: a) The organization, distribution, and supervision of domestic tasks. b) The preparation of food. c) The cleaning and maintenance of the home and household goods. d) The cleaning and maintenance of clothing. e) The care, upbringing, and instruction of children (transportation to school and help with homework). f) The care of older and sick adults. g) Making purchases, payments, or procedures related to the household. h) The cleaning and maintenance of family-use assets. i) Community services and unpaid help to other households of relatives, friends, and neighbors. This classification does not exclude other activities that may be incorporated in due course.” It is for all that has been said that the contribution the plaintiff makes to her solidary support duty through care cannot be disregarded, since even according to Law number 9325 —Ley de contabilización del aporte del trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica— the mother participates in the “care economy” which refers to “unpaid work performed in the home, related to maintaining the dwelling, caring for other persons in the household or the community, and maintaining the paid workforce.” This law warns that this category of work is of fundamental economic importance in a society. For greater understanding, this normative instrument indicates in Article 3 that “activities of unpaid domestic and care work are considered, among others, the following: a) The organization, distribution, and supervision of domestic tasks. b) The preparation of food. c) The cleaning and maintenance of the home and household goods. d) The cleaning and maintenance of clothing. e) The care, upbringing, and instruction of children (transportation to school and help with homework). f) The care of older and sick adults. g) Making purchases, payments, or procedures related to the household. h) The cleaning and maintenance of family-use assets. i) Community services and unpaid help to other households of relatives, friends, and neighbors. This classification does not exclude other activities that may be incorporated in due course.” It is clear, then, that the contribution the mother makes cannot be made invisible, and less so in a support proceeding.

VII.In this case, it is established that the respondent's salary income is not what he claims when appealing, since habitually, his salary is considerably higher than the amount he affirms he receives. Indeed, upon studying the breakdown of salaries reported to social security—images 146 to 159 and 241 to 248—it is evident that from August of the year two thousand eighteen and to December of the year two thousand twenty-four, the respondent's income is notoriously higher than the amount he argues. Indeed, his salary usually oscillates between approximately eight hundred thousand colones and well over one million colones per month. Added to this, while the respondent, when answering the claim, denied receiving additional income from rent, it was demonstrated that deposits for that concept enter his bank account. Therefore, the respondent has two incomes and, of these, the salary does not regularly amount to the sum the respondent indicates, but rather, it is usual that his salary exceeds the amount the defendant indicates when appealing. Thus, it is not true that he works overtime occasionally, nor that it is paid to him irregularly. On the contrary, it is observed in the study of salaries that his income is permanently higher than the salary the appellant now indicates. The appellant is so clear on the regularity of his salary that he decided to take on various loans. Therefore, it is inconsistent to argue that he cannot pay the support pension because his income is uncertain, but he acquires debts that are deducted from his salary. Added to this, when answering the claim, the respondent alleged that his expenses amount to the sum of one hundred eighty-six thousand colones per month. That is the result of the sum of the expenses he alleged when answering, and, in overtime, the respondent earns much more than that amount. Furthermore, if his salary indeed supports the payment of debts, as has already been explained, the support obligation has a priority nature. Regarding the rest period the appellant claims, it is important to note that, as the history of his salary reflects, for a long time—years—he has decided to have additional income to his “normal” salary and, it is thus, that he has decided to acquire debts. On the other hand, it is evident that the mother of the minors never rests. For greater understanding, the plaintiff is permanently caring for a child with multiple illnesses and disabilities. Thus, it is established in the record that the parties' son has been diagnosed with severe global psychomotor developmental delay, grade II gastroesophageal reflux, stridor, observation for scoliosis, high-arched palate (paladar ojival), cognitive limitation, intrauterine growth retardation, laryngomalacia, preauricular fistulas, and subependymal cyst, along with a significant language delay and a left lumbar vertebral curvature, as well as grade III autism spectrum disorder. In other words, and with due respect, the minor is and will be absolutely dependent, so the mother cares for him permanently and, consequently, without rest, without a schedule, without vacations or holidays, but, additionally, without accumulating any social charge that would allow her to aspire to a pension once she reaches old age. This is the reality the mother lives day by day, minute by minute, and yet, the respondent aspires to administer for himself all he receives from working overtime and the income he receives from the lease. In other words, it is not enough for the respondent that the mother is not only postponing her personal life but is, almost, annulling herself as a person and as a woman due to the social function of care she fulfills. To make it very clear: the mother's contribution in this case is invaluable, unlimited, and irreplaceable. This latter point, even because if the mother could enter the extradomestic labor market, it is practically impossible to pay for the permanent care of the minor. That is, it would be a payment that would be more than difficult to cover, because it would also imply covering all pertinent labor burdens. Therefore, what the appellant proposes is contrary to 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, and Articles 1, 2.a, 3, 4.b, e, and g of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convención Belem Do Pará.” Thus, for an adult woman who is not in a position to generate resources, the sum imposed barely allows the acquisition of personal hygiene products and contributes something to the other common needs of the family group: public services, food, housing, etc.

VIII.Added to this, it is important to note that one of the beneficiaries is an adolescent. Therefore, she has needs inherent to the growth period in which she finds herself and, additionally, experiences the budgetary limitations of a household organized around the disabilities and illnesses that have been diagnosed in her brother. So much so, that the mother is dedicated to the social function of care. Furthermore, it is clear that the basic food basket is different for a person with disabilities. This is in accordance with Article 2, subsections h, i, j of the Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal de las Personas con Discapacidad, namely Law No. 9379, published in Alcance No. 254, La Gaceta No. 166 of August 30, 2016. In this way, with the set amount, the nutritional need (necesidad alimentaria) of each beneficiary must be satisfied according to their particular circumstances and, for this reason, the child must be guaranteed the rights that assist him as a minor and as a minor with disabilities. That is, what is provided in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment No. 9 (2006) on “The rights of children with disabilities,” issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child; in the Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the recommendations of the Committee of said Convention, as well as the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Law No. 7948 published in La Gaceta No. 238 of December 8, 1999; Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, Forty-eighth session, of December 20, 1993, and Law No. 9940, Cumplimiento de derechos y desarrollo de oportunidades de las personas con trastorno del espectro autista. For all the reasoning given, there is no merit whatsoever to accept the appeal formulated by the respondent. That is, his allegations are not receivable and make invisible the enormous effort the plaintiff makes to attend to her needs and those of the minor beneficiaries. Thus, the appeal filed is denied and, on the matters that have been the object of the appeal, the appealed decision is confirmed."

ON THE MERITS: The right to maintenance (derecho alimentario) has as its basic foundation the solidarity between persons who have a kinship or a bond. Its special nature makes this obligation pecuniary non-patrimonial, joint and several (solidaria), of public policy (orden público), conditional, peremptory, highly personal (personalísima), usually non-waivable, priority, non-compensable, usually non-recoverable, non-attachable, modifiable, usually reciprocal, of periodic or successive performance, susceptible to suspension, usually not subject to rendering of accounts, based on the directive of responsibility in the fulfillment of family duties, non-transactional, divisible, principal or subsidiary, partially alternative, insurable, susceptible to termination, cannot be given as a guarantee, extraterritorial, is not remissible, is a value debt and not a monetary one, legally determined, not susceptible to confusion (confusión); enforceable by body attachment (apremio corporal), it is a human right, usually not susceptible to remission (remisión) and does not admit a subrogatory action, susceptible to being paid by consignment (consignación) and by payment by subrogation (subrogación); its non-compliance constitutes a crime and affects institutes typical of Family Law (Derecho de las Familias) such as, for example, the suspension of parental responsibility (responsabilidad parental) or, as a ground for judicial separation in case of non-compliance, among others. It is worth noting that these characteristics are contained expressly and implicitly in the Alimony Law (Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias) and the Family Code (Código de Familia), which, in accordance with the principles of integration indicated by article 2 of the cited Law, must form a whole for the finalistic interpretation of the provisions. For the reasons set forth, necessarily, the interpretation of the rules on alimony payments (cuotas alimentarias) must be carried out having as its basis their purpose, which is the satisfaction of the basic needs of each beneficiary person (persona beneficiaria), within which are found, their daily sustenance, housing, clothing, medical assistance, education, recreation, transportation, but all within the framework of the accustomed standard of living, as well as their real needs, for whose setting, increase, and decrease must be taken into consideration the needs and the standard of living accustomed by each beneficiary person for their normal physical and psychological development, as well as the assets, rents and income in general, as well as the economic possibilities, basic needs—not sumptuous—and the capital belonging to or possessed by the person who must provide them. III. Specifically, article 160 bis of the Family Code indicates that the maintenance provision (prestación alimentaria) comprises the attention of the needs for the normal physical and psychological development of the beneficiary persons, their education, instruction or training for work.

As a complement, numeral 164 of the same Code indicates that support (alimentos) should be understood as "that which provides sustenance, housing, clothing, medical assistance, education, recreation, transportation, and others, in accordance with the economic possibilities and the capital belonging to or possessed by the person who must provide them. The needs and the accustomed standard of living of the beneficiary for their normal physical and psychological development, as well as their assets, shall be taken into account." To reinforce the foregoing, numeral 7 of the Alimony Law (Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias) establishes as a principle for its interpretation the interest of the beneficiaries, as well as the procedural principles set forth in article 2, third paragraph of that instrument. This latter point, since the procedural rules are intended to allow access to justice and, consequently, the realization of the substantive right, as can be inferred from article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil). Hence, article 68 of the Alimony Law establishes that, in matters not regulated in that Law, the summary process established in the Civil Procedure Code shall be applied supplementarily. IV. For the reasons set forth, it is evident that the legal nature of the obligation under study does not share the characteristics typical of a civil debt, as it does not seek to enrich, punish, compensate, or indemnify, but rather to defray the expenses of the beneficiaries according to the aforementioned parameters. Consequently, in this type of process, the reversal of the burden of proof (inversión de la carga de la prueba) applies, as it is up to the defendant to actually demonstrate what their income and expenses are, as well as the priority and periodicity of each. Otherwise, the plaintiff would be forced to prove the counterparty's income, and since such aspects belong to the private sphere, the plaintiff usually has very little information about the economic possibilities of the defendant. Thus, the demonstration must be exhaustive, especially since not only the assets belonging to the obligors count, but also what they possess; hence, the financial behavior of a person obligated to pay support is also relevant. In this way, the priority nature of said obligation imposes the need to consider the gross income of the obligors, deducting those elementary expenses to cover their basic needs and others of a legal origin, such as social security contributions (cargas sociales). In this sense, it is not possible to ignore that the support obligation takes priority over any non-basic expense which, in principle, can be said to be any expense that does not rationally satisfy the needs of the obligor, which must be subject to assessment in each specific case, taking as an example of such expenses those relating to food, housing, etc. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that, in the analysis of the aforementioned parameters, the characteristics, principles, and purpose of the support obligation are unavoidable. The opposite goes against the spirit of the law, which would render it inoperative. It must be clear that the priority of the support obligation is indisputable.

For example, Article 171 of the Family Code (Código de Familia), Article 62 of the Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, Article 172 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), Article 44 of Law No. 9859 published in Supplement No. 150 to La Gaceta No. 147, June 20, 2020, and Article 155 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central), as well as Article 30, subsection a) of the Labor Code, among other norms, regulate this matter. In the case of Article 171 of the Family Code, the norm states: "The support debt shall have priority over any other, without exception." **V.** As a complement, it is important to indicate that there are needs that are protected by the specific regulation contemplated in the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) regarding presumptions from Article 414 to 417. It is therefore presumed that each beneficiary eats, needs clothing, and also drinking water, as well as electricity for the minimum: eating, washing clothes, etc. All these needs are human presumptions derived from undeniable and fully demonstrated facts: **the beneficiaries remain alive.** As a complement, there are expenses whose demonstration is not necessary because in Family Law (Derecho de Familia) there is an express norm on the subject: whatever by custom does not generate a receipt does not need to be proven. This follows from Article 221 of the Family Code. Therefore, in a support proceeding, it is not possible to demand that the party claiming support provide receipts for absolutely all expenses, because everything understood as included in the cited Article 221 and derived from human presumptions also requires no proof, unless a specific expense outside of what can be considered habitual and essential for living is being claimed. To all this, it is added that when dealing with minors, Articles 1, 5, and 9 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code (Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia) must be applied, so that it is necessary to make the decision that is most beneficial for the minor, in a way that the decision must also be consistent with the specific needs derived not only from having been born and remaining alive, but also from their condition as a minor. For greater clarity, each beneficiary of support—and in this case it is no exception—must satisfy the category of decent housing (vivienda digna), whether through proportional payment of rent, mortgage, and/or maintenance of the property as applicable; transportation for all types of activities; food in consideration of the beneficiary's real nutritional needs; proportional payment of public services; recreation; clothing; acquisition of personal hygiene and household cleaning products, etc. That is, each beneficiary has needs as a person and as a person in the particular condition in which they find themselves.

**VI.** In the same vein, the setting of a child support payment (pensión alimentaria) is not intended to consolidate or cause overloaded maternity situations, as this is contrary to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, specifically, Article 5. Therefore, it is not the mother’s sole responsibility to meet the needs of each minor, nor is it possible to disregard the contribution the mother makes through domestic work, which involves a set of indispensable activities. Thus, for the purposes of Article 35 of the Family Code —reformed by Law No. 9765, La Gaceta No. 239 of December 16, 2019, Supplement No. 280— as well as by application of numerals 5.a, 13.a, and 14.1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and, also, by application of Law No. 9325 —Ley de Contabilización del Aporte del Trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica—, it must be understood that the mother, as part of her contribution to the support of each minor, usually provides care with everything that entails. In certain cases, it is possible that in addition to such contribution, the mother may contribute money to the household economy, but, in any case, domestic work and the care of dependent persons in general cannot be disregarded as a contribution. To disregard it, for example, in the case of minor sons and daughters, would imply generating and consolidating overloaded maternity situations, as well as rendering invisible the social function of care. In this regard, I refer to the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council on “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development,” of October 10, 2023, resolution A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1, available at https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1. That resolution, among other things, states: “1. Recognizes the importance of respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights of paid and unpaid caregivers and of persons receiving care and support; 2. Expresses deep concern about the unequal organization and distribution of care and support work, and about the impact it has on the rights of all women and girls in society and in the economy. 3. Recognizes that, to achieve gender equality, it is essential to equitably distribute care and support work and the time dedicated to such work; 4.

Urges States to: a) Implement all necessary measures to recognize care work and redistribute it among individuals, as well as among families, communities, the private sector, and States, in such a way as to promote gender equality and the enjoyment of human rights by all persons; b) Increase investment in care and support policies and infrastructure in order to guarantee universal access to affordable and quality services for all persons, including childcare services and health and support services for persons with disabilities and older persons, and to guarantee universal access to parental, maternity, and paternity leave and to social protection for all workers, both informal sector workers and those working in atypical forms of employment; c) Foster and support research and studies aimed at producing data disaggregated by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, marital status, disability, geographic location, and other relevant characteristics in the national context, as well as statistics on the scope and distribution of care work and the time devoted to it, as well as on the persons providing and receiving such care, through periodic time-use surveys and the establishment of satellite accounts to assess the contribution of that work to national income and to quantify unpaid care work, in order to include it in the gross national product for the purposes of designing, financing, and evaluating policies in this area; d) Adopt all necessary measures to enable the full, equal, genuine, and inclusive participation of women, persons with disabilities, and older persons, as well as children, in decision-making regarding care and support, both in private and public life, including social dialogue and collective bargaining by paid care workers; e) Raise awareness about the negative impacts of stereotypes related to gender, disability, and age in providing and receiving care and support, and establish programs and policies to eliminate those stereotypes." It is for all of the foregoing that it is not possible to disregard the contribution that the mother makes to her solidary support duty through care, since even according to Ley N° 9325 —Ley de contabilización del aporte del trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica— there exists the "care economy (economía de cuidado)" and it refers to "unpaid work performed in the home, related to housing maintenance, care for other household or community members, and maintenance of the paid labor force." That law notes that this category of work is of fundamental economic importance in a society. For greater understanding, that regulatory instrument indicates in Article 3 that "the following, among others, are considered unpaid domestic and care work activities: a) The organization, distribution, and supervision of domestic tasks. b) Food preparation. c) Cleaning and maintenance of housing and household goods. d) Cleaning and maintenance of clothing. e) The care, upbringing, and instruction of children (transport to school and help with school tasks). f) The care of older adults and sick persons." g) Carrying out purchases, payments, or paperwork related to the household. h) The cleaning and maintenance of goods for family use. i) Community services and unpaid assistance to other households of relatives, friends, and neighbors. This classification does not exclude other activities that may be incorporated in due course." For all of the above, it is not possible to disregard the contribution that the plaintiff makes to her solidary maintenance duty through caregiving, since even according to Law number 9325 -Law for the accounting of the contribution of unpaid domestic work in Costa Rica- the mother participates in the "care economy" which refers to the "unpaid work performed in the home, related to the maintenance of the dwelling, the care of other persons in the household or the community, and the maintenance of the paid workforce." This law notes that this category of work is of fundamental economic importance in a society. For greater understanding, this regulatory instrument indicates in article 3 that "the following, among others, are considered unpaid domestic and care work activities: a) The organization, distribution, and supervision of domestic tasks. b) Food preparation. c) Cleaning and maintenance of the dwelling and household goods. d) Cleaning and maintenance of clothing. e) The care, upbringing, and instruction of children (transport to school and help with the development of school tasks). f) The care of elderly and sick persons. g) Carrying out purchases, payments, or paperwork related to the household. h) The cleaning and maintenance of goods for family use. i) Community services and unpaid assistance to other households of relatives, friends, and neighbors. This classification does not exclude other activities that may be incorporated in due course." It is therefore clear that the contribution made by the mother cannot be rendered invisible, even less so in a maintenance proceeding. VII. In this case, it is on record that the respondent's salary income is not what he indicates in his appeal, since, on a regular basis, his salary is considerably higher than the amount he claims to receive. Indeed, upon studying the breakdown of salaries reported to social security -images 146 to 159 and 241 to 248-, it is evident that from August of the year two thousand eighteen to December of the year two thousand twenty-four, the respondent's income is notoriously higher than the amount he argues. In fact, his salary usually ranges between approximately eight hundred thousand colones and, much more frequently, over one million colones per month. Added to this, although the respondent, when answering the lawsuit, denied receiving additional income from rent, it was demonstrated that deposits for this concept enter his bank account. Therefore, the respondent has two incomes and, of these, his salary does not regularly amount to the sum the respondent indicates; rather, it is usual that his salary exceeds the amount stated by the defendant in his appeal. Thus, it is not true that he works overtime occasionally nor that it is paid irregularly. On the contrary, it is observed in the salary study that his income is permanently higher than the salary the appellant now indicates. The appellant is so clear on the regularity of his salary that he decided to take on several loans. Therefore, it is inconsistent to argue that he cannot pay the child maintenance because his income is uncertain, but he acquires debts that are deducted from his salary. Added to this, when answering the lawsuit, the respondent alleged that his monthly expenses amount to the sum of one hundred eighty-six thousand colones. This is the result of the sum of the expenses he alleged when answering, and the respondent earns much more than that amount in overtime. Furthermore, even if his salary actually supports the payment of debts, as has already been explained, the maintenance obligation has a priority nature. As for the rest time claimed by the appellant, it is important to note that, as reflected by his salary history, for a long time -years- he has decided to have additional income to his "normal" salary, and it is in this way that he has decided to acquire debts. On the other hand, it is evident that the mother of the minors never rests.

For further understanding, the plaintiff is permanently caring for a child with multiple illnesses and disabilities. Thus, it is recorded in the case file that the parties' son has been diagnosed with severe global psychomotor development delay, such as grade II gastroesophageal reflux, stridor, observation for scoliosis, ogival palate, cognitive limitation, intrauterine growth retardation, laryngomalacia, preauricular fistulas and subependymal cyst, along with significant language delay and a left lumbar vertebral curvature, as well as grade III autism spectrum disorder. In other words, and with due respect, the minor is and will be, *absolutely dependent*, such that the mother cares for him permanently and, consequently, without rest, without a schedule, without vacations or holidays, but also, without accumulating any social security contributions that would allow her to aspire to a pension once she reaches old age. This is the reality the mother lives day to day, minute to minute and, nevertheless, the defendant aspires to manage for himself everything he receives for working overtime and the income received from the rental. In other words, it is not enough for the defendant that the mother is not only postponing her personal life but, almost, is nullifying herself as a person and as a woman due to the social caregiving function she fulfills. To be perfectly clear: the mother's contribution in this case is invaluable, unlimited, and irreplaceable. The latter even because if the mother could join the extra-domestic labor market, it is practically impossible to pay for the permanent care of the minor. That is, it is a payment that could more than difficultly be covered, because it would also imply covering all the pertinent labor aspects. Therefore, what the appellant proposes is contrary to article 13 subsection a) and 16 subsection c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Law No. 6968 and articles 1, 2.a), 3, 4.b), e) and g) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women "Convención Belem Do Pará." Thus, for an adult woman who is not in a position to generate resources, the imposed sum scarcely allows for the acquisition of personal hygiene products and contributes somewhat to the other common needs of the family group: public utilities, food, housing, etc.

**VIII.** In addition to this, it is important to point out that one of the beneficiaries is an adolescent. Therefore, she has the needs typical of the growth period she is in and, furthermore, experiences the budgetary limitations of a home that is organized around the disabilities and illnesses that have been diagnosed in her brother. So much so, that the mother is dedicated to the social caregiving function. Moreover, it is clear that the basic food basket is different for a person with disabilities. This pursuant to article 2 subsections h), i), j) of the Law for the Promotion of Personal Autonomy for Persons with Disabilities, being Law No. 9379, published in Supplement No. 254, La Gaceta No. 166 of August 30, 2016.

Thus, with the established amount, the nutritional needs of each beneficiary must be satisfied according to their particular circumstances and, therefore, the child must be guaranteed the rights that assist him as a minor and as a minor with disabilities. That is, the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment No. 9 (2006) on "The rights of children with disabilities," issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child; in the Childhood and Adolescence Code, the UN Convention on Disability and the recommendations of the Committee of said Convention, as well as the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Law No. 7948 published in La Gaceta No. 238 of December 8, 1999; Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, Resolution Approved by the General Assembly, Forty-eighth session, of December 20, 1993, and Law No. 9940, Compliance with rights and development of opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder.

For all the reasons given, there is no merit whatsoever to grant the appeal filed by the respondent. That is, his allegations are not receivable and they render invisible the enormous effort made by the plaintiff to meet her needs and those of the minor beneficiaries. Thus, the appeal filed is denied, and, regarding what has been the subject of the appeal, the appealed resolution is upheld." **II.

ON THE MERITS: The fundamental basis of the right to child and spousal support (derecho alimentario) is solidarity among persons who are related by kinship or a bond. Its special nature makes this obligation pecuniary non-proprietary, joint and several (solidaria), of public policy (orden público), conditional, peremptory, strictly personal (personalísima), usually non-waivable, priority, non-compensable, usually non-recoverable, unseizable, modifiable, usually reciprocal, of periodic or successive performance, susceptible to suspension, usually not subject to an accounting, based on the principle of responsibility in the fulfillment of family duties, non-negotiable, divisible, principal or subsidiary, partially alternative, insurable, susceptible to termination, cannot be given as a guarantee, extraterritorial, is not remissible, is a debt of value and not a monetary one, legally determined, not susceptible to merger (confusión); enforceable by bodily constraint, is a human right, usually not susceptible to remission and does not admit a subrogatory action, susceptible to being paid by consignation and by payment through subrogation; its breach constitutes a crime and affects institutions inherent to Family Law such as, for example, the suspension of parental responsibility or, as a ground for judicial separation in the event of breach, among others.

It is worth noting that these characteristics are contained expressly and implicitly in the Law on Child and Spousal Support Pensions (Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias) and the Family Code (Código de Familia), which, in accordance with the principles of integration set forth in Article 2 of the cited Law, must form a whole for the purposive interpretation of the provisions. For the reasons stated, the interpretation of the rules on support payments (cuotas alimentarias) must obligatorily be carried out on the basis of their purpose, which is the satisfaction of the basic needs of each beneficiary (persona beneficiaria), including their daily sustenance, housing, clothing, medical assistance, education, recreation, transportation—but all within the framework of their accustomed standard of living—as well as their real needs, for the setting, increase, and reduction of which consideration must be given to the needs and the standard of living accustomed to by each beneficiary for their normal physical and psychological development, as well as the assets, income, and earnings in general, as well as the economic possibilities, basic needs—not luxurious—and the capital belonging to or possessed by the person who must provide them.

III.Specifically, Article 160 bis of the Family Code (Código de Familia) indicates that the support provision (prestación alimentaria) includes the attention to the needs for the normal physical and psychological development of the beneficiaries, their education, instruction, or job training.

As a complement, Article 164 of the same Code (Código) states that food (alimentos) shall be understood as, "that which provides sustenance, housing, clothing, medical assistance, education, recreation, transportation, and others, in accordance with the economic means and the capital belonging to or possessed by the person who must provide them. The needs and the standard of living accustomed to by the beneficiary, for their normal physical and psychological development, as well as their assets, shall be taken into account." To reinforce the above, Article 7 of the Alimony Law (Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias) establishes as a principle for its interpretation, the interest of the beneficiaries, as well as the procedural principles established in Article 2, third paragraph, of that instrument. This latter point, given that the procedural rules have the purpose of allowing access to justice and, consequently, the materialization of the substantive right, as follows from Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil). Hence, Article 68 of the Alimony Law establishes that, in matters not regulated in that Law, the summary proceeding (proceso sumario) established in the Civil Procedure Code shall be applied supplementarily. IV. For the reasoning set forth, it is evident that the juridical nature of the obligation under study does not share the characteristics of a civil debt, as it does not seek to enrich, punish, compensate, or indemnify, but rather to cover the expenses of the beneficiaries according to the aforementioned parameters. Consequently, in this type of proceeding, the reversal of the burden of proof operates, as it corresponds to the respondent to demonstrate what their income and expenses actually are, as well as the priority and frequency of each. Otherwise, the claimant would be forced to prove the counterparty's income, and, as such aspects pertain to the private sphere, the claimant often has very little information about the respondent's economic means. Thus, the demonstration must be exhaustive, especially considering that not only the assets belonging to the obligated persons count, but also what they possess, hence their financial behavior is also relevant for a person obligated to pay food. In this way, the priority character of said obligation imposes the need to consider the gross income of the obligated persons, deducting those elementary expenses to cover their basic needs and others of legal origin, such as social charges. In this sense, it is not possible to ignore that the support obligation (obligación alimentaria) takes priority over any non-basic expense, which, in principle, can be said to be any expense that does not rationally satisfy the needs of the obligated person, which must be subject to assessment in each specific case, taking as an example of such expenses, those relating to food, housing, etc. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that, in the analysis of the aforementioned parameters, the characteristics, principles, and purpose of the support obligation are unavoidable. The inverse goes against the spirit of the law, which would render it inoperative. It must be clear that the priority of the support obligation is indisputable.

For example, Article 171 of the Family Code (Código de Familia), Article 62 of the Alimony Law (Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias), Article 172 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), Article 44 of Law No. 9859 published in Supplement No. 150 to La Gaceta No. 147, June 20, 2020, and Article 155 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central), as well as Article 30, subsection a) of the Labor Code, among other norms, regulate this matter. In the case of Article 171 of the Family Code, the norm states: "The alimony debt shall have priority over any other, without exception." **V.** As a complement, it is important to note that there are needs that are protected by the specific regulation on presumptions (presunciones) contemplated in the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) from Article 414 to 417. It is therefore presumed that every beneficiary eats, needs clothing, and also, potable water, as well as electrical energy for the minimum: to eat, wash clothes, etc. All these needs are human presumptions (presunciones humanas) that derive from undeniable and fully demonstrated facts: **the beneficiaries remain alive.** As a complement, there are expenses whose demonstration is not necessary because in Family Law there is an express norm on the subject: that which by custom does not generate a receipt is not necessary to prove. This follows from Article 221 of the Family Code. Therefore, in an alimony proceeding it is not possible to demand from the party claiming alimony receipts for absolutely all expenses because everything that is understood to be included in the cited Article 221 and that derives from human presumptions also does not require proof unless a specific expense is being alleged that falls outside what can be considered habitual and indispensable for living.

In addition to all this, when dealing with minors, Articles 1, 5, and 9 of the Childhood and Adolescence Code (Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia) must be applied, so that it is necessary to make the decision that is most beneficial for the minor, meaning the decision must also be consistent with the specific needs that derive not only from having been born and remaining alive but from their condition as a minor.

For greater clarity, each alimony beneficiary - and in this case is no exception - must satisfy the decent housing (vivienda digna) item, whether through the proportional payment of rent, mortgage, and/or maintenance of the property as applicable; transportation for all types of activity; food in consideration of the real nutritional needs of the beneficiary; proportional payment of public services; recreation; clothing; acquisition of personal hygiene and household cleaning products, etc. That is, each beneficiary has needs as a person and as a person in the particular condition in which they find themselves.

**VI.** In the same vein, the setting of a food support payment does not have the purpose of consolidating or causing overburdened maternities, as that is contrary to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, specifically, article 5. Thus, it is not the mother's responsibility to solely satisfy the needs of each minor, nor is it possible to disregard the contribution the mother makes through domestic work, which involves a set of indispensable activities. Therefore, for the purposes of article 35 of the Family Code (Código de Familia) -reformed by Ley N° 9765, La Gaceta N° 239 of December 16, 2019, Alcance N° 280-, as well as, by application of article 5.a, 13.a, and 14.1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and, also by application of Ley N° 9325 -Ley de Contabilización del Aporte del Trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica-, it must be understood that the mother usually, as part of her contribution to the support of each minor, provides care with everything that entails. In certain cases, it is possible that in addition to such contribution, the mother may contribute money to the household economy, but, in any case, domestic work and the care of dependents in general cannot be disregarded as a contribution. Disregarding it, for example, in the case of minor sons and daughters, would imply generating and consolidating overburdened maternities, as well as making the social function of care invisible. In this regard, I refer to the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council on “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development” of October 10, 2023, resolution A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1, available at https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1 That resolution, among other things, states: “1. Recognizes the importance of respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights of paid and unpaid caregivers and of persons receiving care and support; 2. Expresses deep concern about the unequal organization and distribution of care and support work, and about the repercussions this has on the rights of all women and girls in society and in the economy. 3. Recognizes that, to achieve gender equality, it is essential to equitably distribute care and support work and the time dedicated to such work; 4.

Urges States to: a) Implement all necessary measures to recognize care work and redistribute it among individuals, as well as among families, communities, the private sector, and States, in such a way as to promote gender equality and the enjoyment of human rights by all persons; b) Increase investment in care and support policies and infrastructure in order to guarantee universal access to affordable, quality services for all persons, including childcare services and health and support services for persons with disabilities and older persons, and to guarantee universal access to parental, maternity, and paternity leave and social protection for all workers, both informal sector workers and those working in atypical forms of employment; c) Promote and support research and studies aimed at producing data disaggregated by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, marital status, disability, geographic location, and other pertinent characteristics in the national context, as well as statistics on the scope and distribution of care work and the time dedicated to it, as well as on the persons who provide these services and those who receive them, through periodic time-use surveys and the establishment of satellite accounts to assess the contribution of that work to national income and to quantify unpaid care work, in order to include them in the gross national product for the purposes of designing, financing, and evaluating policies in this area; d) Adopt all necessary measures to allow the full, equal, genuine, and inclusive participation of women, persons with disabilities, and older persons, as well as children, in decision-making related to care and support, both in private and public life, including social dialogue and the collective bargaining of paid care workers; e) Raise awareness about the negative impacts of stereotypes related to gender, disability, and age in the provision and receipt of care and support, and establish programs and policies to eliminate these stereotypes." It is for all the foregoing that it is not possible to disregard the contribution that the mother makes to her joint support obligation (deber alimentario solidario) through care, since even according to Law No. 9325 -Ley de contabilización del aporte del trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica- there exists the "care economy" and it refers to "unpaid work performed in the home, related to the maintenance of the dwelling, care for other persons in the household or the community, and the maintenance of the paid workforce." That law notes that this category of work is of fundamental economic importance in a society. For greater understanding, that normative instrument indicates in Article 3 that "the following, among others, are considered unpaid domestic and care work activities: a) The organization, distribution, and supervision of domestic tasks. b) Food preparation. c) Cleaning and maintenance of the dwelling and household goods. d) Cleaning and maintenance of clothing. e) The care, upbringing, and instruction of children (transportation to school and assistance with the development of school assignments). f) The care of older adults and sick persons." g) Carrying out shopping, payments or procedures related to the home. h) Cleaning and maintenance of family-use goods. i) Community services and unpaid help to other households of relatives, friends and neighbors. This classification does not exclude other activities that may be incorporated in due course." For all of the above, it is not possible to disregard the contribution the plaintiff makes to her joint maintenance obligation through care, since even according to Law Number 9325 -Law for the accounting of the contribution of unpaid domestic work in Costa Rica- the mother participates in the "care economy (economía de cuidado)" which refers to "unpaid work performed in the home, related to the maintenance of the dwelling, care for other persons in the household or the community, and the maintenance of the paid workforce." That law notes that this category of work is of fundamental economic importance in a society. For greater understanding, this normative instrument indicates in Article 3 that "the following, among others, are considered activities of unpaid domestic and care work: a) Organization, distribution and supervision of domestic tasks. b) Food preparation. c) Cleaning and maintenance of housing and household goods. d) Cleaning and maintenance of clothing. e) Care, upbringing and education of children (transport to school and help with school tasks). f) Care of elderly and sick persons. g) Carrying out shopping, payments or procedures related to the home. h) Cleaning and maintenance of family-use goods. i) Community services and unpaid help to other households of relatives, friends and neighbors. This classification does not exclude other activities that may be incorporated in due course." It is therefore clear that the contribution made by the mother cannot be made invisible, especially in a child support proceeding. VII. In this case, it is on record that the respondent's salary income is not what he claims upon appealing, since, on a regular basis, his salary is considerably higher than the amount he affirms receiving. Indeed, upon studying the breakdown of salaries reported to social security -images 146 to 159 and 241 to 248-, it is evident that from August of the year two thousand eighteen to December of the year two thousand twenty-four, the respondent's income is noticeably higher than the amount he argues. In fact, his salary usually ranges between approximately eight hundred thousand colones and well over one million colones per month. Added to this, although the respondent, when answering the complaint, denied receiving additional income from rent, it was demonstrated that deposits for this concept are made into his bank account. Therefore, the respondent has two incomes and, of these, the salary does not regularly amount to the sum the respondent indicates; rather, it is usual for his salary to exceed the amount the defendant states when appealing. Thus, it is not true that he works overtime occasionally, nor that it is paid to him irregularly. On the contrary, it is observed in the salary study that his income is permanently higher than the salary the appellant now indicates. The appellant is so clear about the regularity of his salary that he decided to take on several loans. It is therefore inconsistent to argue that he cannot pay the child support because his income is uncertain, but he acquires debts that are deducted from his salary. Added to this, when answering the complaint, the respondent alleged that his expenses amount to the sum of one hundred eighty-six thousand colones per month. That is the result of the sum of the expenses he alleged when answering, and the respondent earns much more than that amount in overtime. Furthermore, if his salary indeed supports the payment of debts, as has already been explained, the maintenance obligation has a priority character. Regarding the rest period the appellant demands, it is important to point out that, as reflected in the history of his salary, for a long time -years- he has decided to have additional income over and above his "normal" salary, and it is thus that he has decided to acquire debts. Furthermore, it is evident that the mother of the minors never rests.

**VIII.** In addition to this, it is important to point out that one of the beneficiaries is an adolescent. Therefore, she has the needs typical of the growth period she is in and, furthermore, experiences the budgetary limitations of a home that is organized around the disabilities and illnesses that have been diagnosed for her brother. So much so, that the mother is dedicated to the social function of caregiving. Additionally, it is clear that the basic food basket is different for a person with disabilities. This is in accordance with Article 2, subsections h), i), j) of the Law for the Promotion of Personal Autonomy of Persons with Disabilities, namely Law No. 9379, published in Supplement No. 254, La Gaceta No. 166 of August 30, 2016.

In this way, the set amount must satisfy the food need of each beneficiary person according to their particular circumstances and, therefore, the child must be guaranteed the rights that assist them as a minor and as a minor with disabilities. That is, what is provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment No. 9 (2006) on “The rights of children with disabilities,” issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child; in the Childhood and Adolescence Code, the UN Convention on Disability and the recommendations of the Committee of said Convention, as well as the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Law No. 7948 published in La Gaceta No. 238 of December 8, 1999; Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, Resolution Approved by the General Assembly, Forty-eighth session, of December 20, 1993, and Law No. 9940, Compliance with rights and development of opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder. For all the reasoning given, there is no merit whatsoever to grant the appeal filed by the respondent. That is, their allegations are not receivable and render invisible the enormous effort made by the plaintiff to meet her needs and those of the minor beneficiaries. Thus, the appeal filed is denied and, regarding what has been the subject of appeal, the appealed decision is upheld."

"II. SOBRE EL FONDO: El derecho alimentario tiene como fundamento básico la solidaridad entre personas que guardan un parentesco o un vínculo. Su especial naturaleza, hace que dicha obligación sea pecuniaria no patrimonial, solidaria, de orden público, condicional, perentoria, personalísima, usualmente irrenunciable, prioritaria, incompensable, usualmente irrepetible, inembargable, modificable, usualmente recíproca, de cumplimiento periódico o a tracto sucesivo, susceptible de suspensión, usualmente no sujeta a rendición de cuentas, basada en la directriz de responsabilidad en el cumplimiento de los deberes de familia, intransigible, divisible, principal o subsidiaria, parcialmente alternativa, asegurable, susceptible de terminación, no puede ser dada en garantía, extraterritorial, no es remisible, es una deuda valor y no dineraria, determinada legalmente, no susceptible de confusión; exigible mediante apremio corporal, es un derecho humano, usualmente no susceptible de remisión y no admite acción subrogatoria, susceptible de ser pagada por consignación y mediante pago por subrogación; su incumplimiento constituye delito y afecta institutos propios del Derecho de las Familias como, es el caso de la suspensión de la responsabilidad parental o bien, como causal de separación judicial en caso de incumplimiento, entre otros. No sobra decir que características están contenidas en forma expresa e implícita en la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias y el Código de Familia, las cuales en concordancia con los principios de integración que señala el artículo 2 de la Ley citada, deben formar un todo para la interpretación finalista de las disposiciones. Por los razonamientos expuestos, obligatoriamente, la interpretación de las normas sobre cuotas alimentarias, debe realizarse teniendo como fundamento la finalidad de las mismas, la cual es la satisfacción de las necesidades básicas de cada persona beneficiaria, dentro de las cuales se encuentra, su sustento diario, habitación, vestido, asistencia médica, educación, diversión, transporte, pero todo, dentro del marco del nivel de vida acostumbrado, así como, sus necesidades reales, para cuya fijación, aumento y disminución deben tomarse en consideración las necesidades y el nivel de vida acostumbrado por cada persona beneficiaria para su normal desarrollo físico y psíquico, así como los bienes, rentas e ingresos en general, así como las posibilidades económicas, necesidades básicas -no suntuosas- y el capital que pertenezca o posea quien ha de darlos. III. De forma concreta, el artículo 160 bis del Código de Familia, indica que la prestación alimentaria comprende la atención de las necesidades para el normal desarrollo físico y psíquico de las personas beneficiarias, su educación, instrucción o capacitación para el trabajo. Como complemento, el numeral 164 del mismo Código, señala que, debe entenderse por alimentos, “lo que provea sustento, habitación, vestido, asistencia médica, educación, diversión, transporte y otros, conforme a las posibilidades económicas y el capital que le pertenezca o posea quien ha de darlos. Se tomará en cuenta las necesidades y el nivel de vida acostumbrado por el beneficiario, para su normal desarrollo físico y psíquico, así como sus bienes”. Para reforzar lo anterior, el numeral 7 de la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, establece como principio para su interpretación, el interés de las personas beneficiarias, así como los principios de carácter procesal establecidos en el artículo 2 párrafo tercero de ese instrumento. Esto último, puesto que las normas de procedimiento tienen como finalidad, permitir el acceso a la justicia y, en consecuencia, la materialización del derecho de fondo, tal como se desprende del artículo 3 del Código Procesal Civil. De ahí que, el artículo 68 de la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, establece que, en lo no regulado en esa Ley, se debe aplicar supletoriamente el proceso sumario establecido en el Código Procesal Civil. IV. Por los razonamientos expuestos, es evidente que la naturaleza jurídica de la obligación en estudio no participa de las características propias de una deuda civil, pues no busca enriquecer, castigar, compensar, ni indemnizar, sino sufragar los gastos de las personas beneficiarias según los parámetros ya dichos. En consecuencia, en este tipo de procesos, opera la inversión de la carga de la prueba, pues corresponde a la parte accionada demostrar en realidad cuáles son sus ingresos y egresos, así como la prioridad y periodicidad de unos y otros. De lo contrario, se estaría obligando a la parte actora a demostrar los ingresos de la contraparte y, como tales aspectos corresponden a la esfera privada, la parte actora suele tener muy poca información sobre las posibilidades económicas de la parte accionada. Así, la demostración debe ser exhaustiva, máxime que no solamente cuentan los bienes que pertenezcan a las personas obligadas sino, lo que posean, de ahí que también sea relevante el comportamiento financiero que tenga una persona obligada al pago de alimentos. De esta forma, el carácter prioritario de la obligación dicha impone la necesidad de considerar los ingresos brutos de las personas obligadas descontando aquellos gastos elementales para cubrir sus necesidades básicas y otros de origen legal, como son las cargas sociales. En este sentido, no es posible dejar de lado que la obligación alimentaria es prioritaria sobre cualquier egreso no básico que, en principio, puede decirse que es todo gasto que no satisfaga en forma racional las necesidades de la persona obligada, lo cual debe ser objeto de valoración en cada caso concreto, tomando como ejemplo de tales gastos, lo relativo a alimentación, habitación etc. Por consiguiente, es posible concluir que, en el análisis de los parámetros dichos, son insoslayables las características, principios y la finalidad de la obligación alimentaria. Lo inverso, va contra el espíritu de la ley lo cual la haría inoperante. Debe quedar claro que, la prioridad de la obligación alimentaria es indiscutible. Por ejemplo, el artículo 171 del Código de Familia, artículo 62 de la Ley de Pensiones Alimentarias, 172 del Código de Trabajo, artículo 44 de la Ley N.°9859 publicada en Alcance N.°150 a La Gaceta N.°147, 20 de junio de 2020 y artículo 155 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central, así como artículo 30 inciso a) del Código de Trabajo, entre otras normas, regulan este tema. En el caso del artículo 171 del Código de Familia, la norma dice: “La deuda alimentaria tendrá prioridad sobre cualquier otra, sin excepción”. V. Como complemento, es importante indicar que existen necesidades que están amparadas a la regulación específica que contempla el Código Procesal Civil sobre presunciones desde el artículo 414 al 417. Se presume entonces que cada persona beneficiaria come, necesita vestido y, además, agua potable, así como energía eléctrica para que lo mínimo: alimentarse, lavar la ropa, etc. Todas estas necesidades son presunciones humanas que se derivan de hechos innegables y plenamente demostrados: las personas beneficiarias permanecen con vida. Como complemento, existen gastos cuya demostración no es necesaria pues en Derecho de Familia existe norma expresa sobre el tema: lo que por costumbre no genera recibo no es necesario probarlo. Así se desprende del artículo 221 del Código de Familia. Entonces en un proceso alimentario no es posible exigir a la parte que reclama alimentos recibos de absolutamente todos los gastos porque todo aquello que se entiende comprendido en el artículo 221 citado y que se derive de las presunciones humanas, tampoco requiere prueba excepto que se esté alegando algún gasto específico fuera de lo que pueda considerarse habitual e indispensable para vivir. A todo esto, se suma que cuando se trata de personas menores de edad, se deben aplicar los artículos 1, 5 y 9 del Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, de forma que es necesario tomar la decisión que sea más beneficiosa para la persona menor de edad de forma que la decisión también debe ser congruente con las necesidades específicas que se derivan ya no solamente de haber nacido y permanecer con vida sino de su condición de persona menor de edad. Para mayor claridad, cada persona beneficiaria de alimentos -y en este caso no es la excepción- debe satisfacer el rubro vivienda digna, ya sea mediante el pago proporcional de alquiler, hipoteca y/o mantenimiento del inmueble según corresponda; transporte para todo tipo de actividad, alimentación en atención a las necesidades nutricionales reales de la persona beneficiaria, pago proporcional de servicios públicos, diversión, vestido, adquisición de productos de higiene personal y de higiene del hogar, etc. Es decir, cada persona beneficiaria tiene necesidades como persona y como persona en la condición particular en la que se encuentre. VI. En el mismo sentido, la fijación de una pensión alimentaria no tiene como finalidad la consolidación o provocación de maternidades sobrecargadas, pues ello es contrario a la Convención sobre la Eliminación de Todas las Formas de Discriminación contra La Mujer, específicamente, el artículo 5. Entonces, no corresponde a la madre satisfacer únicamente las necesidades de cada persona menor de edad y tampoco es posible desconocer el aporte que realiza la madre por medio del trabajo doméstico que involucra un conjunto de actividades indispensables. Así las cosas, para efecto del artículo 35 del Código de Familia -reformado por Ley n.°9765, La Gaceta n.°239 de 16 de diciembre de 2019, Alcance n.°280- así como, por aplicación del numeral 5.a, 13.a y 14.1 de la Convención sobre la Eliminación de Todas las Formas de Discriminación contra La Mujer y, también por aplicación de la Ley n.°9325 -Ley de Contabilización del Aporte del Trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica-, debe entenderse que usualmente la madre, como parte de su contribución al sustento de cada persona menor de edad, aporta el cuido con todo lo que eso conlleva. En ciertos casos, es posible que además de tal aporte, la madre pueda colaborar a la economía del hogar con dinero, pero, de todas formas, el trabajo doméstico y, la atención de personas dependientes en general no puede ser desconocido como un aporte. Desconocerlo, por ejemplo, en el caso de hijos e hijas menores de edad, implicaría generar y consolidar maternidades sobrecargadas, así como invisibilizar la función social de cuido. Al respecto, remito a la resolución del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU sobre “Promoción y protección de todos los derechos humanos, civiles, políticos, económicos, sociales y culturales, incluido el derecho al desarrollo,” de 10 de octubre de 2023, resolución A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1, disponible en https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/54/L.6/Rev.1 Esa resolución, entre otras cosas dice: “1. Reconoce la importancia de respetar, proteger y hacer efectivos los derechos humanos de los cuidadores remunerados y no remunerados y de las personas que reciben cuidados y apoyo; 2. Expresa profunda preocupación por la organización y el reparto desigual de los trabajos de cuidados y apoyo, y por las repercusiones que ello tiene en los derechos de todas las mujeres y las niñas en la sociedad y en la economía. 3. Reconoce que, para lograr la igualdad de género, es esencial distribuir equitativamente los trabajos de cuidados y apoyo y el tiempo dedicado a dichos trabajos; 4. Insta a los Estados a que: a) Apliquen todas las medidas necesarias para reconocer el trabajo de cuidados y redistribuirlo entre las personas, así como entre las familias, las comunidades, el sector privado y los Estados, de tal modo que se promueva la igualdad de género y el disfrute de los derechos humanos por todas las personas; b) Aumenten la inversión en políticas e infraestructuras de cuidados y apoyo a fin de garantizar el acceso universal a servicios asequibles y de calidad para todas las personas, incluidos servicios de cuidado de niños y servicios de salud y apoyo para las personas con discapacidad y las personas de edad, y de garantizar el acceso universal a licencias parentales, de maternidad y de paternidad y a la protección social para todos los trabajadores, tanto de los trabajadores del sector informal como de aquellos que trabajan en formas atípicas de empleo; c) Fomenten y apoyen las investigaciones y estudios encaminados a producir datos desglosados por ingresos, sexo, edad, raza, etnia, situación migratoria, estado civil, discapacidad, ubicación geográfica y otras características pertinentes en el contexto nacional, así como estadísticas sobre el alcance y la distribución del trabajo de cuidados y del tiempo que se le dedica, así como sobre las personas que prestan estos cuidados y las que los reciben, mediante encuestas periódicas sobre el empleo del tiempo y el establecimiento de cuentas satélite para evaluar la contribución de ese trabajo a los ingresos nacionales y cuantificar el trabajo de cuidados no remunerado, a fin de incluirlos en el producto nacional bruto a los efectos de diseñar, financiar y evaluar políticas en este ámbito; d) Adopten todas las medidas necesarias para permitir la participación plena, igualitaria, genuina e inclusiva de las mujeres, las personas con discapacidad y las personas mayores, así como los niños, en la toma de decisiones relativas a los cuidados y el apoyo, tanto en la vida privada como pública, incluido el diálogo social y la negociación colectiva de los trabajadores asistenciales remunerados; e) Sensibilicen acerca de los impactos negativos que tienen los estereotipos relacionados con el género, la discapacidad y la edad a la hora de prestar y recibir cuidados y apoyo, y establezcan programas y políticas para eliminar esos estereotipos.” Es por todo lo dicho que no es posible desconocer el aporte que realiza la madre a su deber alimentario solidario mediante el cuidado, pues incluso según la Ley n.°9325 -Ley de contabilización del aporte del trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica- existe la "economía de cuidado" y, se refiere al "trabajo no remunerado que se realiza en el hogar, relacionado con el mantenimiento de la vivienda, los cuidados a otras personas del hogar o la comunidad y el mantenimiento de la fuerza de trabajo remunerado". Esa ley advierte que esta categoría de trabajo es de fundamental importancia económica en una sociedad. Para mayor comprensión, ese instrumento normativo indica en el artículo 3 que "se consideran actividades de trabajo doméstico y de cuidado no remunerado, entre otras, las siguientes: a) La organización, distribución y supervisión de las tareas domésticas. b) La preparación de alimentos. c) La limpieza y el mantenimiento de vivienda y enseres. d) La limpieza y el mantenimiento del vestido. e) El cuidado, la formación e instrucción de la niñez (traslado al colegio y ayuda al desarrollo de tareas escolares). f) El cuido de las personas adultas mayores y enfermas. g) Realizar compras, pagos o trámites relacionados con el hogar. h) La limpieza y el mantenimiento de bienes de uso familiar. i) Servicios a la comunidad y ayudas no pagadas a otros hogares de parientes, amigos y vecinos. La presente clasificación no excluye otras actividades que se puedan incorporar en su oportunidad." Es por todo lo dicho que no es posible desconocer el aporte que realiza la actora a su deber alimentario solidario mediante el cuidado, pues incluso según la Ley número 9325 -Ley de contabilización del aporte del trabajo doméstico no remunerado en Costa Rica- la madre participa de la "economía de cuidado" que se refiere al "trabajo no remunerado que se realiza en el hogar, relacionado con el mantenimiento de la vivienda, los cuidados a otras personas del hogar o la comunidad y el mantenimiento de la fuerza de trabajo remunerado". Esa ley advierte que esta categoría de trabajo es de fundamental importancia económica en una sociedad. Para mayor comprensión, ese instrumento normativo indica en el artículo 3 que "se consideran actividades de trabajo doméstico y de cuidado no remunerado, entre otras, las siguientes: a) La organización, distribución y supervisión de las tareas domésticas. b) La preparación de alimentos. c) La limpieza y el mantenimiento de vivienda y enseres. d) La limpieza y el mantenimiento del vestido. e) El cuidado, la formación e instrucción de la niñez (traslado al colegio y ayuda al desarrollo de tareas escolares). f) El cuido de las personas adultas mayores y enfermas. g) Realizar compras, pagos o trámites relacionados con el hogar. h) La limpieza y el mantenimiento de bienes de uso familiar. i) Servicios a la comunidad y ayudas no pagadas a otros hogares de parientes, amigos y vecinos. La presente clasificación no excluye otras actividades que se puedan incorporar en su oportunidad". Queda claro entonces que el aporte que hace la madre no puede ser invisibilizado y menos en un proceso alimentario. VII. En este caso, consta que el ingreso salarial del accionado no es el que señala al recurrir, pues de forma habitual, su salario es considerablemente superior al monto que afirma recibir. Incluso, al estudiar el desglose de salarios reportados ante la seguridad social -imágenes 146 al 159 y 241 al 248-, es evidente que desde agosto del año dos mil dieciocho y a diciembre del año dos mil veinticuatro, el ingreso del accionado es notoriamente superior al monto que argumenta. Incluso, usualmente su salario oscila entre los ochocientos mil colones aproximadamente y, mucho más de un millón de colones al mes. Sumado a esto, si bien el accionado al contestar la demanda negó recibir un ingreso adicional por concepto de alquiler, quedó demostrado que a su cuenta bancaria ingresan depósitos por ese concepto. Entonces, el accionado tiene dos ingresos y, de ellos, el salario, no asciende regularmente a la suma que el accionado indica, sino que, es usual que su salario supere el monto que señala el demandado al recurrir. Entonces, no es cierto que labore horas extras de forma ocasional y tampoco, que le sean pagadas de forma irregular. Por el contrario, se observa en el estudio de salarios que su ingreso es permanentemente superior al salario que ahora indica el apelante. Tan claro tiene el apelante la regularidad de su salario que decidió asumir préstamos varios. Entonces, es inconsistente argumentar que no puede pagar la pensión alimentaria porque su ingreso es incierto, pero adquiere deudas que son rebajadas del salario. Sumado a esto, al contestar la demanda, el accionado alegó que sus gastos ascienden a la suma de ciento ochenta y seis mil colones al mes. Ese es el resultado de la suma de los gastos que alegó al contestar y, en horas extras el accionado devenga mucho más que ese monto. Además, si efectivamente su salario soporta el pago de deudas, como ya ha sido explicado, la obligación alimentaria tiene carácter prioritario. En cuanto al horario de descanso que reclama el apelante, es importante hacer ver que, tal como lo refleja el histórico de su salario, desde hace mucho tiempo -años- ha decidido tener ingresos adicionales a su salario “normal” y, es así como ha decidido adquirir deudas. Por otra parte, es evidente que la madre de las personas menores de edad nunca descansa. Para mayor comprensión, la actora está cuidando de forma permanente a un niño con múltiples enfermedades y discapacidades. Así, consta en autos que el hijo de las partes ha sido diagnosticado con retardo severo del desarrollo psicomotor global, como reflujo gastroesofágico grado II, estridor, observación por escoliosis, paladar ojival, limitación cognitiva, retraso del crecimiento intrauterino, laringomalacia, fístulas preauriculares y quiste subependimania, junto con un retraso importante en el lenguaje y una curvatura vertebral izquierda lumbar, así como trastorno del espectro autista grado III. En otras palabras, y con el respeto debido, la persona menor de edad es y será, absolutamente dependiente, de forma que la madre cuida de él de manera permanente y, por consiguiente, sin descanso, sin horario, sin vacaciones ni días feriados o asuetos, pero, además, sin acumular ninguna carga social que le permita aspirar a una pensión una vez que llegue a la vejez. Esta es la realidad que vive la madre día a día, minuto a minuto y, sin embargo, el accionado aspira a administrar para sí todo lo que recibe por laborar horas extras y, el ingreso que recibe producto del arrendamiento. En otras palabras, al accionado no le basta con que la madre no solo está postergando su vida personal sino, casi que, está anulándose como persona y como mujer por la función social de cuido que cumple. Para que quede muy claro: el aporte de la madre en este caso es invaluable, ilimitado e insustituible. Esto último incluso porque si la madre pudiera incorporarse al mercado laboral extradoméstico, es prácticamente imposible pagar por el cuido permanente de la persona menor de edad. Es decir, sería un pago más que difícilmente podría ser cubierto, porque implicaría cubrir también todos los extremos laborales pertinentes. Entonces, lo que plantea el recurrente es contrario al 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 y los artículos 1, 2.a), 3, 4.b), e) y g) de la Convención Interamericana para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar la Violencia contra la mujer “Convención Belem Do Pará.” Así, para una mujer adulta que no está en posibilidad de generar recursos, la suma impuesta si acaso permite adquirir los productos de higiene personal y, aportar en algo para las demás necesidades comunes del grupo familiar: servicios públicos, alimentos, vivienda, etc.

VIII.Sumado a esto, es importante señalar que, una de las beneficiarias es adolescente. Entonces, tiene las necesidades propias del período de crecimiento en el que se encuentra y, además, experimenta las limitaciones presupuestarias de un hogar que está organizado en función de las discapacidades y enfermedades que han sido diagnosticadas a su hermano. Tanto es así, que la madre está dedicada a la función social de cuido. Además, es claro que la canasta básica alimentaria es diferente para una persona con discapacidades. Esto conforme el artículo 2 incisos h), i), j) de la Ley de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal de las Personas con Discapacidad, sea la Ley n.°9379, publicada en Alcance n.°254, La Gaceta n.°166 de 30 de agosto de 2016. De esa forma, con el monto fijado se debe satisfacer la necesidad alimentaria de cada persona beneficiaria según sus circunstancias particulares y, por ello, al niño le deben ser garantizados los derechos que le asisten como persona menor de edad y, como persona menor de edad con discapacidades. Es decir, lo previsto en la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño y la Observación General n.°9 (2006) sobre “Los derechos de los niños con discapacidad”, emitida por el Comité de los Derechos del Niño; en el Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, la Convención ONU sobre Discapacidad y las recomendaciones del Comité de dicha Convención, así como la Convención Interamericana para la Eliminación de todas las Formas de Discriminación contra las Personas con Discapacidad, Ley n°7948 publicada en La Gaceta n.°238 de 8 de diciembre de 1999; Normas Uniformes sobre la igualdad de oportunidades para las personas con discapacidad, Resolución Aprobada por la Asamblea General, Cuadragésimo octavo periodo de sesiones, de 20 de diciembre de 1993 y la Ley n.°9940, Cumplimiento de derechos y desarrollo de oportunidades de las personas con trastorno del espectro autista. Por todos los razonamientos dados, no existe mérito alguno para acoger el recurso formulado por el accionado. Es decir, sus alegatos no son de recibo e invisibilizan el enorme esfuerzo que hace la actora para atender sus necesidades y las de las personas menores de edad beneficiarias. Así, se deniega la apelación planteada y, en lo que ha sido objeto de recurso, se confirma la resolución recurrida."