Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning behind the judgment issued in case No. 05202-2021-01105, concerning a reduction in child support payments in a family law case involving women, children, and adolescents in Ecuador. The study was developed based on the standards of sufficient and proper reasoning recognized by the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008), the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, and legal doctrine. To this end, the normative, factual, and argumentative foundations of the ruling were examined to determine whether the judicial decision adequately justified the modification of the child support obligation and whether it effectively safeguarded the best interests of the beneficiary children. The results show that the judgment maintains a minimum level of reasoning, as it identifies the subject matter of the proceedings, defines the relevant normative and factual issues, verifies the compatibility of the established amount with the Minimum Child Support Payment Table, and maintains the best interests of the child as the guiding principle. However, the analysis also revealed limitations in the justification provided for the ruling, as the decision relied primarily on the parties' settlement. Therefore, while the judgment exceeds the basic threshold of sufficient reasoning, it does not fully meet the standard of proper justification, particularly regarding the evaluation of evidence and the strict justification for the granted reduction. Consequently, the research concludes that the analyzed ruling does not suffer from a deficiency that would invalidate it, but it does demonstrate a judicial practice that, while constitutionally permissible, falls short of a more rigorous, comprehensive, and rights-based approach to child support matters.