SWITZERLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Giovanna Bonafede, Manuela Brenneis-Hobi, Prof Dr Annette Spycher and Vanessa Thompson, Kellerhals Carrard
ence level set under Swiss enforcement law, which provides a fixed amount, despite this amount being objectively insufficient. This minimum includes food, clothing, and personal care. In addition, a portion of housing costs, health insurance premiums, school fees, and third-party care expenses (babysitters, after-school activities, etc) must be added. If the parents are married, both parents’ surpluses are divided among the parents and minor children so that each parent receives a double share compared to each child (“big heads” versus “small heads”). If they are unmarried, the debtor parent’s surplus is divided only between the paying parent (“big head”) and the minor child (“small head”). There are, however, excep ‑ tions to this. The other unmarried parent is not entitled to mainte ‑ nance for themselves or to share in the paying parent’s standard of living. This calculation method may result in the child enjoy ‑ ing a higher standard of living than during the parents’ cohabitation. In such cases, based on the judge’s broad discretion (unlimited inquisitorial power), the contribution may be adjusted to allow the child to benefit only from the standard of living they had dur ‑ ing the parents’ cohabitation. Childcare maintenance This specific type of maintenance covers indirect costs incurred by the parent who cannot work (fully or partially) because they take care of the child and therefore cannot cover their own needs. From a legal perspective, this is a contribution for and belonging to the child, but the custodial parent benefits from it economically. The economic consequences of the time dedicated to the child’s care must be borne jointly by both par ‑ ents, regardless of whether they are married. In this way, Swiss law has ensured equal treatment for the children of married and unmarried parents. Childcare expenses are calculated by subtracting the net income resulting from a gainful activity that can
reasonably be expected of the custodial parent from their total relevant expenses. If the resulting balance is negative, the shortfall con ‑ stitutes the care contribution, which is added to the child’s maintenance contribution. The custodial parent’s relevant expenses are set based on the minimum subsistence level, as provided by a fixed amount. Case law has established limits on when the custodial parent can refrain from seeking employment: • once the youngest child reaches school age (pri ‑ mary school), the parent is expected to work at least 50%; • at age 12 (lower secondary school), the expecta ‑ tion is at least 80%. • at age 16, full employment is expected. These limits are not rigid. Rather, the court must adjust them to the specific circumstances of the case, par ‑ ticularly when the parent is required to care for several children, or when a child has special needs, etc. The court may therefore impute a hypothetical income to the parent, taking into account the parent’s level of education, age, health, the conditions of the labour market, and the overall situation of the custodial par ‑ ent. Alternate care It is increasingly common for both parents to share childcare (typically not on an exact 50/50 basis, but often in different proportions). Judges generally favour alternating custody arrangements. In alternating custody arrangements, the financial contribution for the child is divided between parents based on their share of care and their financial capac ‑ ity. It is not always easy for judges to determine the proportion of care each parent provides and, conse ‑ quently, each parent’s respective financial contribu ‑ tion as there is no exact method for determining the percentage of care.
244 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook