Federal Court of Justice decision on contesting legal paternity – Implications for fathers with maintenance obligations
On October 7, 2020, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) made a significant decision on a frequently discussed constellation in family law (Order of 7.10.2020 – Ref. XII ZB 580/18). At issue was whether a man, who is considered the legal father of a child under German law, can be required to contest the paternity in court for a child who is not biologically his in order to be released from his maintenance obligation.
Legal paternity and maintenance obligation: principles and significance of the decision
Definition: Legal and biological paternity
In German family law, a distinction is made between legal and biological paternity. Legal paternity is not necessarily established by genetic descent, but is often declared via marriage to the child’s mother or by acknowledgement of paternity (§§ 1592 et seq. BGB). As a result, the child is legally assigned as a descendant to the man—with far-reaching consequences such as parental custody, inheritance rights, and maintenance obligations.
Background of the proceedings
The BGH’s decision was based on circumstances in which a man was considered the legal father of a child, even though he was not the child’s biological parent. The man fulfilled his maintenance obligations. The child’s mother and the child applied for social benefits from the competent agency, which in turn argued that the maintenance obligation remained solely due to the existing—albeit only legal—paternity. The legal father had not contested paternity.
Legal assessment by the BGH
No duty to contest as an obligation
The BGH clarified that a legal father is not obliged to contest his paternity to a child for whom he is not the biological father in order to be relieved of his maintenance obligation. Contesting paternity is rather a personal right and as such is subject to the legal father’s free will. A compulsory obligation to undertake legal proceedings to contest paternity cannot be inferred from the law.
This also applies with regard to the principles of subsidiarity of claims to state social benefits. Neither family law considerations nor social law requirements establish an obligation for the legal father to take active steps and initiate court proceedings against his own legal paternity.
Social and family law implications
The BGH’s decision highlights the close connection between family law status assignment and claims to social benefits. The legal status as father remains, regardless of biological parentage, as long as there has been no valid contestation. On this basis, the maintenance obligation also continues.
For providers of social benefits, this means that the existence of legal paternity and the resulting maintenance obligation is to be regarded as paramount. The failure to contest paternity cannot be held against the liable man as a breach of duty so as to deny state benefits, for example.
Assessment and effects for practice
Legal certainty for fathers obligated to pay maintenance
The BGH’s decision provides planning certainty for men who are legal fathers but not biologically related to the child. It clarifies that they are not obliged to contest their paternity in every scenario just to be released from a possible maintenance obligation. The choice remains with them; this is especially true if there is an established social relationship between the child and the legal father or if other personal reasons speak against contesting paternity.
Responsibility and balancing of interests
The judgment takes into account the fact that contesting paternity can have significant consequences for the family structure and the child’s welfare. The free decision not to contest paternity is therefore protected by law. From a social law perspective, as well, a legal father cannot be reproached for inaction; this provides legal recognition for the family and the integrity of personal relationships.
Consequences for social benefit agencies
For providers of basic security and other social benefit agencies, the key factor is that legal paternity continues to serve as evidence of the maintenance obligation until it is actively terminated. Demands on liable parents to undertake legal proceedings to contest paternity are just as inadmissible as reducing benefits due to a failure to contest.
Conclusion
The BGH’s clarification of the absence of a duty to contest paternity provides reliable legal parameters and preserves the legal father’s freedom of decision. At the same time, the primary goal remains to avoid exposing children to additional uncertainty when asserting maintenance claims.
Current developments in family and social law show that the interfaces between private and public law give rise to numerous complex issues. In cases of uncertainty regarding the legal classification of parenthood and the resulting obligations, careful legal review may be necessary. The Rechtsanwälte of MTR Legal are available to provide advice and support in assessing each individual case.
