Requirements for child maintenance advance in cases of unclear paternity
In cases where investigations to establish the identity of the parent obliged to pay maintenance fail due to an anonymous relationship, particularly a so-called ‘one-night stand,’ special requirements arise regarding the granting of a child maintenance advance. This issue was recently addressed by the Saxon Higher Administrative Court in its judgment of August 3, 2023 (Case No. 5 A 350/22). The court clarified the obligations of the custodial mother when the identity of the other parent is unclear for the application for child maintenance advance. The key question is which evidence may be required from the mother to credibly demonstrate her lack of knowledge regarding the paternity, and what investigative efforts are considered reasonable.
Background of the child maintenance advance
The child maintenance advance is a government benefit provided when the parent obliged to pay maintenance either fails to pay or does not provide sufficient child support. A central principle of the Child Maintenance Advance Act (UVG) is the principle of subsidiarity: The benefit is to be claimed only if the mother or father as the custodial parent has taken all reasonable steps to identify or involve the other parent.
This applies particularly in situations where paternity is unclear and rests solely on a single sexual encounter. In such cases, the requirements for the application are especially stringent. The custodial mother bears the burden of explanation and proof with respect to her lack of knowledge regarding the paternity.
Requirements for credibly demonstrating lack of knowledge
Obligations of the child’s mother
If paternity remains unclear, the child’s mother must provide a comprehensive and credible explanation as to why she is unable to identify the father. The court requires a concrete and coherent description of the circumstances under which the intimate contact occurred. General statements or silence are not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to describe the sequence of events, any conversations, as well as any information exchanged—even if incomplete—as much in detail as possible.
Concrete investigative measures
Reasonable measures particularly include the mother passing on any relevant clues, even if they seem minor, to the competent authority. Information such as the name, location, social environment, or other details must be disclosed if known or ascertainable. In each individual case, the authority will assess whether further investigations can reasonably be demanded or whether the woman’s lack of knowledge remains plausible.
According to case law, what is considered reasonable also includes the mother making efforts to obtain information about the father’s identity through third parties (friends, companions, party hosts, etc.), provided this is possible without significant burden or risk to the mother.
Practical significance and consequences for applicants
The judgment makes clear that merely asserting a one-night stand without further knowledge of the other parent does not automatically entitle one to benefits. The court sets a high bar for the duty to cooperate and emphasizes that entitlement to benefits under the UVG always requires active cooperation. This also includes passing on even marginal clues and actively attempting to gather additional information.
If such efforts fail objectively and no further reasonable findings can be brought to light, an obligation to provide benefits may still exist. However, the mother must be able to prove this plausibly.
Assessment of the judgment
With its decision, the Saxon Higher Administrative Court addresses complex questions regarding the burden of proof and the scope of the obligation to cooperate under the Child Maintenance Advance Act. The ruling also aligns with the approach of administrative courts, which impose stricter requirements for submissions in unclear paternity cases to prevent abusive claims. The proceedings vividly illustrate that not only honesty but also initiative is required of the custodial person if there are realistic leads for investigation.
It should be noted that the decision before the Administrative Court may not be legally binding and can be the subject of ongoing legal review. The particular circumstances of each individual case remain decisive. (Source: Saxon Higher Administrative Court, Judgment of 03.08.2023, Case No. 5 A 350/22)
In-depth legal questions and contact
The requirements outlined above demonstrate the complexity of such scenarios under maintenance law. Questions regarding cooperation obligations, administrative proceedings, and legally secure applications are often of significant economic relevance, both for applicants and in conjunction with other claims and obligations. For more in-depth information and individual assessments of specific cases, the lawyers at MTR Legal are fully available.
