En la sentencia comentada, el Tribunal Supremo resuelve nuevamente un asunto relativo a la custodia compartida de los progenitores y el uso que debe darse a la vivienda familiar, a falta de una normativa adaptada a este régimen de guarda. La vivienda, cuyo uso se discute, es privativa de uno de los progenitores y la principal cuestión analizada es si la atribución al progenitor no titular debe estar sujeta o no a una limitación temporal. La controversia en este caso se dificulta por la valoración que realiza la Audiencia Provincial de la renuncia hecha por el progenitor propietario en cuanto al uso rotatorio que había solicitado como pretensión principal, al extenderla erróneamente a la solicitud de limitación temporal interesada como pretensión subsidiaria. El Tribunal Supremo reitera que la atribución del uso de la vivienda al progenitor no titular, en un sistema de custodia compartida, debe limitarse temporalmente para ponderar adecuadamente los distintos intereses en juego.
In the commented judgment, the Supreme Court once again resolves an issue relating to the shared custody of the parents and the use that should be given to the family home, in the absence of a regulation adapted to this type of custody regime. The home, the use of which is disputed, is the exclusive property of one of the parents and the main question analysed is whether or not the attribution to the non-owner parent should be subject to a time limitation. The controversy in this case is rendered more difficult by the Provincial Court’s assessment of the waiver made by the owner parent regarding the rotational use he had requested as the main claim, by erroneously extending it to the request for a time limitation as a subsidiary claim. The Supreme Court reiterates that the attribution of the use of the home to the non-owning parent in a system of shared custody must be limited in time to ensure that the different interests at stake are adequately weighed up.
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados