I must admit I had sympathy when I read about the bloke in Italy who was suing his sons because they wouldn’t lend him money.
The chap is in his 80s and, like elderly folk everywhere, is struggling on his pension.
So he asked each of his two sons for an 80 euro loan (it’s about £55). They both turned him down.
His lawyer advised him he could sue his offspring for violating their family obligations. To be totally realistic, if the elderly chap is already struggling on his pension the term ‘loan’ must be interpreted a little loosely.
His sons would be unlikely to get their money back unless dad invested in a ticket and won millions on the Euro Lottery – and wouldn’t they be sorry then.
”Er, dad. How about sharing your good fortune?”
“Certainly. Here’s that £55 back I had to force you to lend me.”
The case also prompts a debate about family obligations. Do they exist?
Should they be enforced? A study carried out by the Centre of Economic and Business Research for the insurer Liverpool Victoria estimated the average cost of raising a child from birth to 21 is £230,000.
Which is a large chunk of family obligation by any standards.
My wife Maria and I, for instance, have nurtured two daughters from birth until ... well, we still seem to be the butt of all nurture.
Don’t all parents remain the Bank of Mum and Dad for ever? According to CEB figures they have cost us £460,000 between them and the bill is still climbing.
Anyone who has five children is a family millionaire. It’s just a shame you can’t claim anything back.
Taking that parental expenditure into account, the two sons in Italy don’t have a leg to stand on in refusing to furnish a loan.
I mean, £55 does not seem such an outlandish request, even if the octogenarian dad is only going to spend it on wine, women and song.
After all, he’s Italian: he’s not going to waste it.
