Facts
On 29 June 2000, the marriage between [Y.] and Z. was dissolved. The common son X. was placed under the parental care of the mother ([Y.]). Since November 2000, [Y.] has been living with her son at the home of her partner A. Since no maintenance payments were made, [Y.] filed an application with the social welfare office of the municipality of Kirchberg for an advance payment of alimony for her son. This was rejected on 12 February 2001 on the grounds that the countable income of both concubine partners exceeded the advance payment limit. X. filed a constitutional appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen of 19 March 2002 with the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the cantonal provision, according to which the income of the concubine partner is to be taken into account when examining the entitlement to advance payment of alimony, is not arbitrary. The legislator has a wide margin of discretion in pursuing legislative policy objectives. The fact that concubine partners establish a common household constitutes a rational point of reference for this regulation. However, a regulation that leads to the consideration of the partner's…