Nowadays there are innumerable custody proceedings in which the courts often deal with the question of accommodation for months. What at first glance seems to be easy to regulate is actually a long and well-considered process in which the child usually ends up staying with one parent, while the other parent is only allowed to see their own child at set times. But this does not always have to be the case, as the case law has often decided on a so-called “double residence model”.
The double residence model differs from the “residence model” in that the child not only has accommodation, but with both parents. With the residence model, one parent fulfills his / her maintenance obligation (in kind) if he / she lives with him / her. The maintenance obligation of the other parent is paid in the form of cash maintenance (alimony).
With the double residence model, as already mentioned, the child has his place of residence with both parents. Both maintenance obligations are thereby repaid. But to have a double residence, you have to / must
- the care services provided by both parents are approximately the same;
- the parents pay equally for all needs-covering benefits in kind;
- both parents have roughly the same income.
In this context, the judicature also speaks of a “legal maintenance model”. But even if, for example, both parents do not have the same income (i.e. the third prerequisite is not met), there is still a double residence, but the child subsequently has a remaining maintenance claim against the higher-earning parent.
However, if the first and / or the second prerequisite is / are not met, the classic maintenance calculation (percentage method) comes into play, in which, depending on the age of the child, a certain percentage of the monthly net income (16% – 20% of the net wage of the person liable for maintenance) ) must be raised in order to pay the maintenance.
