Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) Says Parents Can Withdraw a Minor Child’s Compensation

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice unanimously ruled that parents can withdraw moral damages awarded to a minor daughter without waiting for her to turn 18.

A child won the right in court to moral damages for a delayed flight. The money was hers. Even so, the lower courts decided it would stay locked up, deposited with the court, until she came of age. To release any amount before then, her parents would have had to prove a concrete need.

The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice overturned that approach. The justices unanimously held that parents, in exercising parental authority, may withdraw money owed to their minor child, and that holding the money in court is the exception, not the rule.

The Delayed Flight and the Money Locked Up in Court

The story begins with a problem familiar to anyone who travels: a delayed flight. Because of that delay, the minor obtained a court finding that she had suffered moral damages and was entitled to compensation. The case follows the same logic as others in which an annoyance goes beyond mere inconvenience and becomes a right to compensation, when the disruption significantly affects the victim’s personal sphere.

The São Paulo State Court of Justice, however, did not allow the money to be withdrawn right away. It ordered the amount to stay on deposit with the court until the beneficiary turned 18. The parents bore the burden of showing, case by case, a concrete need that would justify releasing early funds that belonged to their own daughter.

This setup produces a curious result. The money belongs to the child and was awarded to her, yet no one can use it for her benefit without first convincing the court that there is an emergency. In practice, the protection becomes an obstacle.

What Article 1.689 of the Civil Code Says

The rapporteur, Justice Humberto Martins, based the decision on Article 1.689 of the Civil Code. That provision covers two roles parents hold over their minor children’s property for as long as parental authority lasts: administration and usufruct (the right to use property and enjoy its benefits).

To administer means to look after the property, manage it, and make decisions about it in the child’s interest. Usufruct, in plain terms, means parents may use the property and enjoy its fruits, always for the purpose of raising and supporting the child. The law starts from a reasonable premise: the person who raises the child day to day is best placed to decide how that money serves the child.

For that reason, the rule in Article 1.689 is one of trust in parents. They do not need to ask permission for each expense or account for every cent as if they were mere custodians under supervision. The law presumes they are the ones who best know the child’s everyday needs, from school supplies to medical treatment.

This is where the São Paulo court’s decision went off course. By demanding proof of concrete need for every withdrawal, it turned the legal logic upside down. It treated parents, whom the law regards as trusted administrators, as suspects who must justify access to their own child’s money.

Holding the Money Is the Exception, Not the Rule

The heart of the ruling is the distinction between rule and exception. Withholding money that belongs to children and teenagers is an exceptional measure. It is justified only when a concrete circumstance puts the minor’s property at risk or when there are signs of a conflict of interest between the parents and the child.

Generic reasons are not enough. Saying that parents have a constitutional duty to provide education and health care, for example, does not by itself authorize locking the money up in court. That duty applies to all parents, all the time, and if it were sufficient grounds for withholding funds, every award to a minor would be blocked automatically.

Automatic withholding, without a justified and individualized reason, turns the legal exception into the rule.

That is precisely the rapporteur’s reasoning. When a court freezes the money automatically, without pointing to a specific reason in that case, it inverts the structure of the law. What should be reserved for situations of real risk ends up applying to all children across the board, and the exception takes the place of the rule.

The practical consequence of this inversion is serious. It strips parents of the ability to use, for their child’s benefit, a resource that already belongs to the child. It also forces them to litigate within the case itself to reach something the law presumes they are entitled to administer.

A Longstanding Approach, Maintained Over Time

This reading is not a new development in case law. The view that parents administer and enjoy the property of their minor children, and may withdraw money owed to them, dates back to the 1916 Civil Code. It was built up over decades and survived the change in legislation.

When the 2002 Civil Code took effect, the understanding remained in place. Article 1.689 preserved the same logic as the earlier system: entrusting the management of a child’s property to the parents for as long as parental authority lasts, and reserving judicial oversight for exceptional situations.

The Third Panel’s decision, then, does not invent a new rule. It reaffirms a solid legal tradition and corrects a practice that, by requiring proof of need for each withdrawal, ran against that history.

What Changes in Practice

For families who obtain compensation on behalf of a minor child, the decision sends a direct message: as a rule, the money does not have to stay locked up in court until the child comes of age. Parents, in exercising parental authority, may withdraw it and use it for the child’s benefit.

This applies to situations that are increasingly common in daily life, such as compensation in air travel cases. Anyone facing problems in that sector should know their rights to assistance and compensation in cases of flight delays and cancellations, including when the passenger harmed is a child.

The decision also settles who bears the burden of proof. Parents no longer have to prove that they need the money. It falls on whoever supports withholding it, whether the court or an interested party, to point to a concrete, individualized reason: a real risk to the minor’s property or a conflict of interest between parents and child.

In day-to-day court practice, this means requests for automatic freezes on minors’ compensation are likely to carry less weight. Without a showing of some specific circumstance, an order to keep the money on deposit until age 18 now runs counter to the approach set by the Third Panel.

One word of balance is in order. Releasing the money to the parents is not a blank check. If there is serious evidence that the money will be diverted from its purpose of protecting the child, the court can still step in. What the decision prohibits is presumed intervention, carried out without cause, simply because the beneficiary is a minor.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can parents spend a minor child’s compensation however they like?

Not without limits. The law entrusts parents with the administration and usufruct of their minor child’s property, which includes withdrawing compensation money. That power, however, exists to serve the child, not to satisfy the parents’ own interests. If the money is misused, for example spent against the child’s interest, the court may step in. The Third Panel’s decision rules out automatic freezes but preserves judicial oversight where there is a conflict of interest or a concrete risk to the minor’s property.

When can a judge keep the money on deposit until the child comes of age?

Only in exceptional, justified situations. The court must point to a concrete, individualized circumstance that puts the child’s property at risk or reveals a conflict of interest between the parents and the child. A generic justification, such as the general duty to provide education and health care, is not enough. Without that specific basis, withholding the money until age 18 violates Article 1.689 of the Civil Code and the approach set by the Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice.

Does this decision apply to every kind of compensation awarded to a child?

The logic is broad, because it rests on the general framework of administration and usufruct of minor children’s property. The case at issue involved moral damages for a delayed flight, but the legal basis, Article 1.689 of the Civil Code, covers money owed to a minor generally. The central principle holds: withdrawal by the parents is the rule, and court-ordered withholding is the exception, requiring a concrete showing of risk to the property or of a conflict of interest. Even so, each case will be examined according to its own circumstances.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.