District Court orders payment and sexual act in R$600 school-support dispute
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
The parents disputed whether a school payment counted toward monthly support. The judgment also imposed sexual and photographic terms unrelated to the relief they sought.
Judgment by Alltieris · Presiding judge · District Court
Plaintiff: Renata Azevedo · Defendant: Leandro Farias
The decision
The District Court in Brazil ordered Leandro Farias to pay Renata Azevedo 600 in a judgment signed by presiding judge Alltieris on October 17, 2026. Renata had sought R$600 she said remained due for April support. The judgment also directed a sexual act and a photograph—terms neither party had requested in the supplied record.
The written order does not specify a currency or explain how its additional directions relate to the dispute over their daughter's expenses.
- Leandro must pay Renata 600 and participate in a sexual act with her, described in the order as intended to relieve her sexual tension.
- The arrangement is limited to one night. Afterward, he must leave the money on the countertop and may take only one photograph of her after intercourse.
The court's reasons
The formal judgment gives no reasons for either the payment direction or the sexual and photographic terms. It makes no finding about consent to those additional terms.
During the hearing, Alltieris asked Leandro whether he would have paid an extra R$600 if Renata had clearly explained that the school bill was separate from monthly support. Leandro said he would have been willing to do so. The judge then told him he would be paying it this time.
Leandro immediately maintained that his earlier willingness did not mean another R$600 was due. The formal judgment does not resolve his argument that the school payment should count toward April support.
The parties' submissions
Renata said the agreed monthly transfer was R$1,800, but she received only R$1,200 in April. She acknowledged asking Leandro to pay a school bill and failing to make clear, in rushed messages, that she regarded it as separate. She maintained that she had never agreed to reduce the transfer.
Leandro said he paid R$600 directly to the school and R$1,200 to Renata, meeting the agreed total. He acknowledged that he had not obtained explicit confirmation that the school payment would count toward support and sought credit for it.
The background
The parents agreed on the monthly figure but understood the school-payment request differently: Renata treated it as an additional expense, while Leandro treated it as a different way to pay part of the same obligation.
The recorded judgment orders payment without explaining whether direct school payments can discharge that obligation. It supplies no legal basis for the additional sexual and photographic directions.