<![CDATA[Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) Number 4 of 2016 authorizes judges of the Religious Courts to determine child support ex officio to the father when the child is under the mother's custody. However, in Decision Number 1656/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Pdg, the court did not determine child support despite fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the Circular Letter. This study aims to analyze the implementation of judges' ex officio authority in determining child support, examine the legal considerations underlying the absence of a child support order in the decision, and identify factors that hinder the implementation of SEMA Number 4 of 2016 at the Class IA Padang Religious Court. This research employed an empirical juridical method using a case approach. Data were collected through literature study, analysis of court decisions, and interviews with judges and legal practitioners, then analyzed qualitatively. The results indicate that SEMA Number 4 of 2016 grants judges the authority to determine child support even without a specific request from the parties as a means of protecting children's rights after divorce. Nevertheless, its implementation remains dependent on each judge's legal interpretation and discretion. In Decision Number 1656/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Pdg, the judges considered that child support could not be awarded because it was not included in the plaintiff's petition, taking into account the principle of ultra petita, judicial prudence, effectiveness of the judgment, and the father's financial capacity. These considerations are not entirely consistent with SEMA Number 4 of 2016, which provides judges with ex officio authority to ensure the best interests of the child. The main obstacles include the parties' lack of understanding regarding child support rights, limited information concerning the father's financial capability, and differing judicial perspectives regarding the application of ex officio authority.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
