Six nights out of every fortnight with his children didn’t make a German father a shared-care parent. It didn’t reduce what he owed in child maintenance either. Separated parents often describe their arrangement as “shared care” simply because both are heavily involved. Legally, the question is sharper: is the care genuinely equal, or is one parent still the primary carer?
A recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice, BGH XII ZB 415/25 (XII_ZB_415-25.pdf) gives a clear answer in the context of child maintenance. The court held that substantial care by the non-resident parent does not automatically convert an arrangement into true shared care for maintenance purposes. That is true even where care approaches 45%. For English family lawyers advising international families, the decision is a useful reminder. Germany and England can treat child support very differently where care is extensive but not equal.
What Actually Happened Between These Parents?
The parents separated in April 2021. They had two children, born in 2011 and 2013. Following disputes about contact and maintenance, they agreed an extensive contact arrangement. Over a two-week cycle, the children spent six nights with the father and eight nights with the mother.
In practical terms, the father had substantial care. He argued that his level of involvement was close enough to shared care to justify a different maintenance calculation. The children sought statutory minimum child support. The father’s argument failed in the lower courts before reaching the BGH.
Is 45% Care Close Enough to Count as Shared Care?
The central issue was whether the arrangement counted as a true shared-care model, known in German law as a paritätisches Wechselmodell. The alternative was the traditional residence model, the Residenzmodell.
That distinction matters. Under German law, a primary-carer parent generally fulfils their maintenance obligation through the care and upbringing they provide. The other parent fulfils theirs through cash maintenance instead. The father wanted a different outcome. He asked the court to move towards a proportional-liability model: combine both parents’ incomes, weigh the care percentages, and calculate maintenance accordingly. The BGH declined.
Why Did the Court Say No?
Judges held that this was not a true shared-care case. The father’s care was extensive, but it was not equal. The mother remained the parent providing the greater share of day-to-day care. Section 1606(3) BGB, the BGH emphasised, remains decisive. German statute still draws a firm line between the parent who primarily cares for a child and the parent who pays cash maintenance. A primary-care parent generally meets their obligation through that care alone.
Judges also rejected the idea that courts should create a new category for “asymmetrical shared care” — cases where care is substantial but falls short of 50/50. They accepted that such cases create genuine financial complexity. But they held that any move to an income-sharing or proportional-liability model is a matter for Parliament, not judicial development. That restraint is arguably the most significant part of the judgment. The BGH considered academic criticism and reform proposals directly. Even so, it declined to rewrite the maintenance structure through case law.
Why Not Just Split It By the Numbers?
The father’s argument had an obvious appeal. He was caring for the children around 45% of the time. Why, then, should the court calculate maintenance as though the mother alone carried the burden? The BGH’s answer was practical as well as legal.
First, the statutory structure still assumes one parent may be the primary carer. The wording and legislative history of the statute do not permit a free-standing proportional approach where one parent clearly remains the main carer. Second, judges focused on child welfare and financial coordination. They saw real benefit in one parent staying clearly responsible for coordinating expenditure on the children. In high-conflict cases, dividing financial responsibility too finely risks creating further disputes over clothes, activities, school costs and everyday expenses. Clarity, in the court’s view, mattered more than mathematical precision.
Does the Father Get Nothing for His Extra Care?
None of this means a paying parent’s substantial care goes unrecognised. The BGH accepted that extended contact creates real costs. A parent with the children for significant periods may need larger accommodation. They will also incur additional travel, food, transport and leisure costs.
Two adjustments are available to reflect this. First, the court may reduce the maintenance calculation by moving down one or more income bands under the Düsseldorf Table. Second, it may allow a deduction for direct expenditure the paying parent incurs during contact. The BGH suggested a standard deduction of around 10%, rising to up to 15% in exceptional cases approaching equal shared care. In this case, even after potential reductions, the father’s income remained sufficient. He still had to pay at least the statutory minimum.
Would an English Court Have Decided This Differently?
For English family lawyers, the contrast with the Child Maintenance Service is striking. Under the CMS regime, overnight stays produce formulaic reductions in child maintenance. The reduction ties explicitly to the number of nights spent with the paying parent. The German approach is different. The real question is not how many nights each parent has. It is whether the arrangement has crossed the line into genuine equal shared care. If it has not, the primary-carer model continues to apply.
That distinction can matter greatly in cross-border cases. A parent familiar with the CMS system may assume that near-equal care will automatically reduce maintenance elsewhere too. This decision shows that assumption can be wrong.
What Should International Families Take From This?
“Shared care” is not a slogan. It is a legal classification. The same parenting pattern can produce very different financial consequences depending on the jurisdiction. There is a meaningful difference between three scenarios:
- A parent having generous and regular contact.
- A parent providing substantial but unequal care.
- Both parents providing genuinely equal day-to-day care.
Only the third is likely to justify a true shared-maintenance approach under German law. That is precisely why international families should take advice early — before agreeing an arrangement, not after a dispute arises.
What Does Frank Arndt Think This Means for Cross-Border Families?
Frank Arndt, Senior Partner and founder of Paradigm Family Law, says:
“This decision is important because it stops the maintenance debate becoming a purely mathematical argument about percentages. The court is asking a more practical question: who is actually carrying the main responsibility for the children’s daily life?”
Frank adds:
“For English solicitors, the interesting point is the contrast with the CMS approach. In England, overnight stays are central to the formula. In Germany, the court is much more reluctant to allow near-shared care to displace the primary-carer model.”
And for cross-border families, the warning is direct:
“Parents should be careful about assuming that 40% or 45% care will be treated as shared care for maintenance purposes. In Germany, unless the arrangement is genuinely equal, the paying parent may remain the paying parent, albeit with limited adjustments for the costs of extended care.”
So What Does “Shared Care” Actually Mean?
BGH XII ZB 415/25 (XII_ZB_415-25.pdf) draws a firm line. Extensive contact is not the same as equal shared care. A parent who cares for the children for a substantial minority of the time may qualify for some adjustment. That does not necessarily shift the case into a proportional maintenance model. The decision is about more than child support. It also reflects judicial restraint, careful statutory interpretation, and the practical management of separated parenting.
For English family lawyers and the families they advise, the message is straightforward. In international child maintenance cases, never assume that “shared care” means the same thing in every jurisdiction.
Specialist Advice on International Child Maintenance
At Paradigm Family Law, we advise parents managing cross-border child maintenance and contact arrangements. This includes cases involving Germany, the wider EU, and families who genuinely split care across more than one country.
If your family’s arrangement spans more than one jurisdiction, take advice early — before agreeing an arrangement, not after a dispute arises.
Not everyone needs full international proceedings to get clarity. Some parents simply want an early, independent view of the likely English financial outcome before addressing the cross-border complexity. Our sister service What Would a Judge Say? provides a fixed-fee, judge-led written opinion, usually within six weeks. For a family navigating two legal systems at once, that independent domestic benchmark can be the fastest route to a workable plan.
Contact Paradigm Family Law to speak with our international family law team about cross-border child maintenance, contact arrangements, and enforcement.
Call us on +44 (0) 203 637 4967 or visit paradigmfamilylaw.co.uk.
Related Reading
- International Child Maintenance: The Düsseldorfer Tabelle Explained — a practical guide to calculating German child maintenance.
- International Family Law: German Child Maintenance Guidelines — regional guideline rates across Germany’s Higher Courts.
- Maintenance Enforcement Across Borders — how families can enforce EU maintenance orders directly across borders.
- Guide to the Child Maintenance Calculator — how the UK’s CMS formula compares to the German approach.
