The evolution of Civil Liability in contemporary society also reaches the Family Law, by
prioritizing the dignity of the human person, and therefore, the existential interests of the child
and adolescent, central figures in the practice of parental alienation in cases of litigious
divorces, which they become victims of resentful parents, who abuse parental power,
violating constitutional rights, such as the right to live together. Based on this new
perspective, the Civil Liability Institute faces the challenge of contributing to the necessary
recognition of new types of damages, covered by the generic name of moral damage, because
in addition to the strictly moral perspective, other interests make up the sphere of an
individual, in training, which needs differentiated tutelage and that meets the principle of the
best interest of children and adolescents. The present research, therefore, presents the
importance of recognizing existential damage, as an autonomous category of damage, in
family relationships, based on the cases in which the violation of the right to coexistence is
identified, aggravated by the action of time, which possibly it may damage life relationships,
the parenting project and the right to children's identity. Thus, from the dialogue between
Family Law and Civil Liability, through the study of existential damage, the primary
objective is to demonstrate its occurrence in cases where the alienating phenomenon is
configured, and at the same time, ascertain whether Liability presents itself as an effective
institute to curb abusive parenting practices or at least contribute to its reduction. The
methodology used is bibliographic and documentary, using the analysis of decisions, of
qualitatively selected cases, and the understanding contained in judgments about off-balance
sheet damage, in the face of the violation of the duty of care. It was observed that the
extension of moral damage does not reach all the off-balance sheet interests of the human
person. The generic character coupled with the lack of reasoning may not justly protect the
damage experienced.
|
