The Child Supplement in the Context of Maintenance Law: Consideration as the Child’s Income
The treatment of state transfer payments under maintenance law is regularly the subject of court decisions and legal disputes. Specifically, the question of whether the child supplement according to § 6a of the Federal Child Benefit Act (BKGG) should be considered as the child’s income within maintenance calculations has been controversial until now. With its decision on 30.09.2019 (Higher Regional Court Hamm, File No. 4 UF 2/19), the Higher Regional Court Hamm conducted an in-depth evaluation of this issue and clarified the significance of this ruling for family law practice.
Systematics of the Child Supplement
Objective and Legal Classification
The child supplement according to § 6a BKGG is paid to parents or guardians whose own income is sufficient to cover their personal needs but is insufficient or barely sufficient to cover the needs of the children living in the household. The supplement serves the purpose of sparing families with low earned income from relying on additional social benefits – especially benefits under SGB II. The payment is made to the parents, but formally to ensure the child’s maintenance.
Distinction from Other Social Benefits
Unlike child-related benefits such as child benefit, which is designed as a tax equalization payment, or benefits under SGB II, which are paid based on income and need, the child supplement has an independent justification: it closes the gap for children who, due to the parents’ lack of entitlement, are not sufficiently protected by other social benefits.
The Child Supplement as Income within the Maintenance Law Framework
Relevant Decision Criteria
The Higher Regional Court Hamm examined whether and in what form the child supplement must be considered when determining maintenance according to § 1612a BGB. The decisive factor here is the determination of the maintenance-relevant income of the child, which is crucial for the maintenance obligations of non-marital parents but also within other maintenance law relationships.
Classification Issue: Income of the Child or the Parents?
According to the Higher Regional Court Hamm, the child supplement is to be classified as the income of the child and not as the income of the parents. The court justifies this by referring to the purpose of the child supplement. The benefit is exclusively granted to cover the existential needs of the child, whereby the payment is made to the custodians but the disposal is strictly limited to the child’s maintenance. It follows that the child supplement directly reduces the child’s needs, thereby reducing the maintenance to be provided by a third party (particularly by the parent).
Principle of Equal Treatment of State Benefits
The court makes clear that the maintenance law classification of the child supplement follows the standards that also apply to other benefits originally serving the child’s welfare. The character of the payment as a purpose-bound benefit for the child justifies its consideration as child-related income.
Consequences for Maintenance Law Practice
Significance for Maintenance Calculation
Including the child supplement as the child’s income has a direct effect on the amount of child maintenance to be paid. The child’s need, to be determined according to the Düsseldorf Table or specific needs, is reduced by the child’s own income (which according to the Higher Regional Court Hamm also includes the child supplement). The maintenance obligor can thus anticipate a reduced maintenance obligation since the need covered by other sources is to be offset.
Distinction in Claims Assignment and Third-Party Benefit Law
The decision of the Higher Regional Court Hamm simultaneously clarifies that not every state transfer payment is automatically treated as the child’s income under maintenance law. The decisive criterion is the purpose binding as well as the question of whether the payment is intended to cover the child’s or the parents’ maintenance needs. The differentiation required by the purpose and intent of the legislator thus remains decisive.
Procedural Implications and Current Developments
Considering the child supplement as the child’s income may influence current and future proceedings regarding maintenance calculations. Participants in proceedings are obliged to report and substantiate the actual inflows from the child supplement within the framework of the maintenance disclosure procedure. The decision also reflects the dynamics in family law jurisprudence concerning intersections with social law benefit claims.
Conclusion and Outlook
With its decision, the Higher Regional Court Hamm has set new emphases in the evaluation of the child supplement under maintenance law. By classifying it as the child’s income, the dual purpose – securing the child’s welfare and relieving public budgets – is equally acknowledged. However, the issue remains dynamic as changes in social benefit law and divergent higher court decisions may continuously influence the prevailing opinion.
Given the complex interrelations between family and social law, a nuanced classification of the child allowance in the calculation of maintenance is indispensable. Those seeking in-depth legal questions regarding the consideration of state transfer payments or the calculation of maintenance obligations will find competent and individual support from experienced contacts at MTR Legal – especially in the area of legal advice in family law.
