The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cantabria upheld the right of a woman who had a daughter last summer and are both single-parent families to receive a ten-week birth allowance in addition to the sixteen weeks that matched and enjoyed.
In a ruling that allows the appeals submitted by the Social Security Service, which considers that the allowance should not be extended, and by the woman herself, who asks for another sixteen weeks, the court upholds the decision taken last January by the head of the Social Court No. 4 of Santander.
The ruling rejects Social Security’s argument that the failure to provide this additional benefit does not constitute discrimination against a minor from a single-parent family, since “it would also discriminate against a minor from a single-parent family in which one parent of the parents did not have the right, or none of them had it.”
According to the Social Security Service, “the purpose of the rule is not to protect the interests of the minor, but to give both parents the same period of rest in order to guarantee women’s de facto equality in access to work.”
Minor Interest and Gender Perspective
However, the Social Chamber understands that “provisions for the protection of the birth and care of a minor must be interpreted in the light of the general principle of the best interests of the minor”.
In this sense, “being the suspension of employment and the recognition of the postulated allowance as an adequate means of caring for a minor during the first weeks of life, this situation cannot be affected by the fact of birth in an unmarried family. family of origin, a situation that should be adequately protected by the provision of the claimed subsidy.”
According to the Chamber, recognizing only sixteen weeks “results in a minor spending less time on care and attention than someone with both parents if they do not exercise their permits at the same time.”
The Court considers that the purpose of the norm “was unequivocally stated” when the title “maternity and paternity benefits” was changed to “maternity and childcare benefits”.
Along with this, the Chamber recalls that in most single-parent families the only member is a woman, “therefore, it is necessary to apply the necessary gender perspective, a principle that should govern the interpretation and application of the rules”, as it is established. An organic law on the de facto equality of women and men.
Sixteen more weeks would mean inequality
On the other hand, in connection with the appeal filed by the woman, who seeks an extension of up to sixteen weeks, which corresponds to the other parent, the Chamber clarifies that the first six weeks of this period must be continuously used immediately after childbirth. . . .
“These six weeks are non-transferable as their purpose is to ensure a balanced impact on family responsibilities and thus avoid stereotyping of caregiving tasks,” the ruling states.
This therefore coincides with the decision of the trial judge, for which granting an additional sixteen weeks “would imply inequality, since a single-parent family would receive thirty-two weeks compared to twenty-six for a two-parent family in the case of alternation of two parents.”
“Six weeks immediately after the birth should have belonged to the other parent, and in relation to them one cannot speak of a violation of the principle of equality. In short, only those weeks are accumulated, the purpose of which is to care for a minor, ”concludes the court.
*The article has been translated based on the content of www.nuevatribuna.es. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!
*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.
*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!