Author: Clara Eugenia Ortiz Aguayo
\nDate: July, 2014<\/p>\n
VISITATION REGIME AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS<\/strong><\/p>\n Judicial decisions regarding visitation and custody regimes for minors have given rise to differing criteria that have also affected the regime of transportation costs in compliance with communication measures between parents and children.<\/p>\n Recently, the Supreme Court Judgment dated May 14, 2014, has established doctrine determining that parents who live in different localities must share the costs incurred to collect and return the children to the other parent’s residence. However, the High Court has qualified this statement, establishing that any agreement reached by the parents to share the obligation and costs of transporting the minor shall take priority. <\/p>\n The Court justifies its decision, on the one hand, on the best interests of the minor, and, on the other, on the equitable distribution of burdens referred to in Articles 90(c) and 91 of the Civil Code. According to the judgment, “it is essential that the system established does not lose sight of the best interests of the minor, so that it does not hinder their relationship with each parent.” <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Author: Clara Eugenia Ortiz Aguayo Date: July, 2014 VISITATION REGIME AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS Judicial decisions regarding visitation and custody regimes for minors have given rise to differing criteria that have also affected the regime of transportation costs in compliance with communication measures between parents and children. Recently, the Supreme Court Judgment dated May 14, 2014,… <\/p>\n