A case involving a woman in Guimarães, Portugal, who was legally obliged to pay alimony to her 81-year-old mother, has sparked significant controversy on social media. This incident has raised questions about familial obligations, both legal and moral.
Opinions are divided, with some viewing this as a moral duty, while others argue for a legal revision, suggesting that children should not have obligations toward their parents as parents do toward children.
Incidents of parents suing children and conversely, children severing ties with parents to protect their mental health, are becoming increasingly common.
Notícias ao Minuto consulted the head of the Bar Association to clarify the law and a psychologist to understand the emotional intricacies involved in such cases.
The Legal Duty to Care
In Portugal, the relationship between parents and children is underpinned by categorical legal duties, which may compel descendants to support a parent’s sustenance or housing.
“The law is clear, resting on the fundamental pillar of family solidarity. Parents and children owe each other respect, aid, and assistance. These are not mere moral obligations; they are legal duties with practical consequences. The duty to assist is most relevant here, translating to the obligation to provide for sustenance whenever necessary, encompassing everything essential for sustenance, housing, and clothing,” explained João Massano, head of the Bar Association, to Notícias ao Minuto.
The law states that “just as parents cared for their children, children hold the legal obligation to ensure their parents’ dignified survival when they can no longer do so independently,” he emphasized.
This obligation follows a hierarchical order (starting with the spouse, then descendants) and must, according to João Massano, “always be calculated sensibly, governed by the balance between the need of the person requesting support and the payer’s ability.”
“Jurisprudence has been consistent” but “not blind”
The lawyer stated, “Jurisprudence has been consistent,” meaning if a parent lacks sufficient income for subsistence – including residential or elderly care – the courts have ruled that children should contribute.
Therefore, in Portugal, if an elderly parent demonstrates need and the child has economic capacity, the court may set a monthly contribution for such expenses. But this obligation is not blind; it is calibrated. “The court evaluates each case individually,” notes João Massano.
When multiple children are involved, responsibility should be proportionately divided according to each child’s capabilities. “Those who earn more contribute more,” states the head of the Bar.
Broken Relationships “Do Not Eliminate the Obligation”
When asked if these legal obligations hold in broken relationships, João Massano admits this is a delicate issue. However, “the legal response is generally affirmative.”
“The rupture of personal relationships, or mere estrangement, does not eliminate the obligation to provide sustenance. This applies regardless of whether the parent was a good parent, as it is a measure of survival based on blood and legal ties. The courts have ruled that a mere breakdown of relations or family disagreements are insufficient to leave an ascendant destitute,” he clarifies.
The law allows only “very limited exceptions” to this rule, applicable when there are “serious behaviors” such as succession indignity, involving crimes against life.
“In the context of sustenance, the criterion is objective: Is there need? Is there ability? If yes, the responsibility remains, regardless of affection,” elucidates the head of the Bar.
Intentional Estrangement is Increasing
Though lacking concrete data, a growing perception exists among psychologists, therapists, and sociologists that more people are intentionally distancing themselves from parents in Western countries.
This usually silent phenomenon contrasts heated family disputes or loud conflictual relations, arising from cultural and psychological factors.
Limited research exists on this topic, but existing scholars are clear: Most estrangements initiated by descendants often result from parental abuse, past or present, whether emotional, verbal, physical, or sexual.
Parental divorce is another influence, as is the arrival of step-relatives, which can exacerbate financial or emotional divisions.
Value differences increasingly contribute to parent-child disagreements over politics, religion, lifestyles, or preferences.
Experts believe heightened awareness of mental health impacts how toxic or abusive family relationships affect wellbeing, increasing cases of adults distancing from their parents.
Demanding Care from Those Neglected Can Be “Traumatic”
In this regard, Notícias ao Minuto spoke with clinical psychologist Mariana Caldeira, author of “Everything That Goes On Inside – How to Heal Emotional Wounds and Rebuild Relationships in Toxic Families.”
The specialist, frequently addressing such topics on her Instagram page, followed by nearly 70,000, states that “the idea that children have a duty to care for parents is complex, as it intertwines different dimensions.”
“There is a specific legal duty (which should also be revised), but when discussing moral or emotional duty, it enters a territory necessitating careful thought. The word duty implies a load of obligation, akin to a debt. And regarding parent-child relationships, this raises an important issue: When an adult decides to have a child, it includes the responsibility to care for, protect, and ensure conditions for safe growth. This is a unilateral commitment. The child does not choose to be born, nor the parents, and holds no responsibility in this process,” she emphasizes.
Upon reaching adulthood, there should not be an automatic assumption of repayment obligation. “Care cannot be forced or decreed. It stems from relationships that over the years were secure, consistent, and sufficiently good,” she considers, reminding that present relations often reflect past constructions.
“Caring for parents may be a loving, grateful, or conscious choice gesture but should not be a moral imposition invalidating personal history. Some children raised by present, caring parents find care natural. But other children experienced emotional abandonment, violence, neglect, manipulation, or insecure relations, making mandatory care profoundly unjust and often traumatizing,” explains the psychologist, CEO of the clinic ProfundaMente.
The moral obligation to care for someone who didn’t care for us thus creates a “deep internal conflict.” According to Mariana Caldeira, “an individual feels failure for not doing so but feels self-betrayal when doing something causing personal suffering.”
“Guilt, Shame, Anxiety, and Fear of Social Judgment”
This burden manifests in various forms, as described by the psychologist. “Guilt, shame, anxiety, a sense of debt, and fear of social judgment. The cultural message ‘they are your parents, you must care for them’ completely silences the emotional history of that child, as if the past was inconsequential.”
This is particularly harsh for those raised in neglect, violence, manipulation, or insecurity. “Asking them to adopt the caregiver role now means enduring beyond what they already have,” she contends.
“No Child is Obliged to Single-Handedly Repair the Past Failures”
For this reason, Mariana Caldeira highlights that “no child has the emotional duty to single-handedly repair relationship failures.”
“Care only remains healthy when chosen, not imposed. When a secure bond and a nourished lifelong relationship exist, caring for parents is natural. When pain, distance, or trauma exists, enforcing care adds suffering to already burdened individuals,” she asserts.
Her clinic assists “many individuals who never felt truly seen by their family,” “children reaching adulthood with fragile self-esteem, constantly feeling insufficient, or working excessively to earn love.”
Toxic Relationships with Parents Have “Deep Emotional and Physical Consequences”
“Toxic relationships with parents harbor deep emotional and physical consequences, hitting foundational points where security, visibility, and appreciation are learned. Growing in an environment marked by constant criticism, control, unpredictability, neglect, or emotional violence is not merely dealing with family conflicts but developing mental and bodily survival mechanisms for contexts disallowing tranquility,” recalls Mariana Caldeira to Notícias ao Minuto.
Apart from insecurity, guilt becomes a permanent presence. Guilt for failing, not meeting expectations, having limits, distancing, and even feeling pain. This guilt is perpetuated by the idea that ‘they are your parents, accept them,’ silencing personal emotional history.
Anxiety is also among the prominent scars. “Individuals raised in toxic environments learn to live on high alert, perpetually expecting the next critique, outburst, or rejection. Even in adulthood, the body retains this memory reacting as if in constant danger, affecting relationships, work, and personal life,” says the psychologist.
There is also a significant trust difficulty: “trusting others, trusting the world, and oneself.” Consequently, people tend to form insecure relationships, repeating childhood patterns “as if always trying to resolve past issues in the present.”
Physically, consequences are equally genuine. Those raised in toxic relationships have bodies accustomed to chronic stress, manifesting in various ways, Mariana Caldeira recalls: “insomnia, light sleep, constant muscle tension, inexplicable pains, extreme fatigue, gastrointestinal issues, headaches, tachycardia, or even panic attacks.”
The nervous system becomes adjusted to “survival, not rest.” “And when people spend years in this state of vigilance, the body starts to reveal what the mind tried to endure alone,” she underscores.
“Mourning for the Parents We Wished We Had”
Toxic parent relationships also create invisible and very painful grief: “the grief for parents desired but never had,” Mariana tells us. This grief is not solely sadness. “It involves anger, confusion, shame, fear, and solitude. The truth is these relationships not only shape childhood but how we see ourselves, our relational engagements, and even our bodily existence,” she notes, highlighting “these marks aren’t definitive.”
“They are wounds to comprehend, integrate, and care for. Often, true healing begins when one views their history truthfully— without imposed guilt, without forced excuses,” she argues.
In her practice, Mariana assists these children in acknowledging their history “without guilt, setting boundaries without feeling like terrible people, understanding love and care are healthy when chosen, not a moral imposition. Above all, validating that protecting personal mental health isn’t unloving; it’s emotional survival.”
“The Law Doesn’t Recognize Everyone’s Emotional History”
Hence, the psychologist argues for legislative revision. “The law might impose a duty, but it doesn’t recognize everyone’s emotional history. The law doesn’t distinguish a present parent from a negligent one, a caring from an abusive one. The law views parenthood formally; psychology views it relationally,” she reiterates.
The legal obligation for children to sustain or care for parents “emerged from a very outdated mindset, based on an idealized family view assuming parents fulfilled their roles and a secure bond substantiates this reciprocity. But this isn’t everyone’s reality.”
“For those who endured emotional violence, manipulation, abandonment, or neglect, this legal imposition is not only unjust, but emotionally devastating. It forces individuals back into roles they suffered under, reinforces hurtful patterns, and wholly disregards their experiences, as if saying: ‘What you lived doesn’t matter. You must care anyway,'” she explains, stressing, “psychologically speaking, it doesn’t make sense to demand care where no bond existed. Healthy care arises from relationships, affection, and trust built over time.”
“It doesn’t stem from obligation, nor fear of the law or moral judgment,” despite society and laws struggling to integrate this complexity.
Law Should “Incorporate Emotional Reality Criteria”
“We persist in the idea that ‘parents are always parents’ and that alone should elicit gratitude and care. But clinically, not all family relations are affection sources. Many are pain sources. Forcing someone to care for their pain source extends trauma,” recalls Mariana Caldeira, advocating that “ideally, the law would evolve to incorporate emotional reality criteria, recognizing parenthood isn’t only biological or legal but primarily relational.”
“Forcing adult children to care for parents who never cared for them isn’t justice—it’s the extrapolation of a suffering cycle,” she posits.
To children experiencing this, Mariana Caldeira wants them to know that “their feelings are legitimate:” “It’s not ingratitude, bad character, or selfishness. It’s humanity. Caring for a parent who never cared for us is among the most challenging experiences to navigate. There’s no manual for this.”
She warns that no one must “sacrifice mental health to fulfill social expectations.” Children have the right to set boundaries, even if it displeases family. They can decide how much they can give and to what extent, without blame. “A challenging history doesn’t make them lesser children; it makes them people who survived demanding circumstances.”
Furthermore, she emphasizes that no one needs to undertake this journey alone. Seeking assistance through therapy, support groups, or trusted individuals is not weakness. “It’s a way to halt a cycle that has inflicted pain for too long,” she reasserts, delivering a message to those facing this situation.
“If there’s something I wish to clarify: You can choose to care, if it feels right; choose to distance, if self-protection aligns; choose a middle path; choose whatever ensures your wellbeing. Your story deserves truth, and your life deserves dignity. Sometimes, the greatest courage is declaring: ‘I matter too,'” she concludes.
