The Supreme Court has taken a decisive step in protecting children born into single-parent families. Through ruling STS 234/2026, dated January 23, the social chamber of the high court invoked the doctrine of the Constitutional Court and affirmed that "the sole parent in a single-parent family is entitled to an additional 10 weeks of leave that would correspond to another parent." This prevents these children from receiving less care time than those born into two-parent families, who thus have 16 weeks plus an additional 10. The ruling stems from an appeal filed against a judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Valencian Community. This court had rejected the request of a single mother who was working and who claimed to have an additional 16 weeks of leave as if there were a second parent. The Supreme Court, while not recognizing the additional 16 weeks, allows for 10, as the first six are mandatory and non-transferable after childbirth. The ruling "represents the consolidation of a far-reaching doctrinal shift, aligned with the recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court," Unive Advocats points out. In particular, the Supreme Court applies the doctrine established in Constitutional Court ruling 140/2024, which declared unconstitutional the legal omission that prevented extending this leave in cases of single-parent families. The ruling established that maintaining this distinction generated discrimination based on birth, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. The lawyers' organization, which has extensive experience in litigation with Social Security and benefits, emphasizes that from a legal perspective, this ruling resolves a benefits dispute: "It introduces a mandatory interpretation of the Social Security system in accordance with the principle of equality and the best interests of the child." The Constitutional Court has ruled that a structural difference in protection between minors cannot be maintained based on the family model into which they were born. According to Unive Advocats, this ruling opens "a clear and legally sound avenue for claims in cases where only the standard 16 weeks of leave have been granted," particularly in the case of single-parent families. In practice, single mothers and single-parent families who have been systematically denied this extension, despite the constitutional mandate to guarantee equivalent protection for children regardless of family structure, will be able to benefit. "This is a ruling of enormous social impact, which corrects a clear inequality and places the best interests of the child at the center of the system," the firm's legal team stated. This demand has been one of the main priorities of the single-parent family advocacy group for years. Precisely because of this direct contact with the affected families, the firm emphasizes the importance of those in this situation being able to get informed and file a claim as soon as possible to enforce the right recognized by the Supreme Court.

Sometimes we don't want to love or take responsibility for what it entails; we just want to be loved, no matter how or by whom. It's absurd and immature, but that's how it is. The goal seems to be not just being loved, but rather establishing mature and healthy relationships with others, thinking about what we contribute, and not demanding that those who care about us fill the voids of our own deficiencies. I learned all this in therapy, what do you think? It hasn't gone as badly for me as it did for Sara Bosom, has it?

If the situation doesn't change, Nadira's family [a fictitious name, like the rest of the witnesses] will soon have spent a year in the Sant Màrius private shelter, referred by social services. Nadira will find the strength to leave him, to make him her ex. in tourist establishments, some three thousand vulnerable people Like them, 41% are single-parent families, with 92% of them being women as the adult representatives.