Facts

Parties:

  • [A.] (appellant), born 1980, and [B.] (respondent), born 1987, are the unmarried and separated parents of [C.] , born 2015.
  • [C.] is under the joint custody of both parents.

Procedural history:

  • On 28 June 2017, [A.] requested the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland to regulate the care of the child and child maintenance.
  • On 5 July 2017, [B.] approached the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland with the same request.
  • On 8 March 2018, the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland did not proceed with the claim filed with it due to lack of local jurisdiction.
  • On 4 June 2018, the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland ordered a visiting rights representative for [C.] and appointed [D.] as the child's representative on 18 June 2018.
  • After unsuccessful mediation, the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland commissioned a family psychological expert opinion, which was submitted on 27 February 2020.
  • By decision of 13 October 2020, the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland left the child under the joint parental custody, placed it with the mother as the place of residence under the alternating care of both parents, and made a detailed care arrangement.
  • The appeal filed by [A.] on 17 June 2021 regarding the care arrangement and child maintenance was dismissed by the Higher Court of the Canton of Bern with decision of 12 May 2022.
  • [A.] approached the Federal Supreme Court with an appeal in civil matters on 15 June 2022.

Main points of contention:

  • Care shares: [A.] requests equal care (50/50 model), while the lower court granted the father a care share of 40%.
  • Child maintenance: [A.] objects to the calculation of child maintenance and requests the referral of the case back to the lower court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal in civil matters and finds that the appeal regarding the care shares is unfounded. The lower court determined the care shares based on judicial discretion (Art. 4 CC), with the child's best interests being the paramount principle of child law. The lower court did not determine the care shares arbitrarily or manifestly unfairly, but considered the circumstances of the individual case and found a solution adapted to the particularities.

Regarding child maintenance, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court considered the appellant's appeal regarding maintenance phases 2-4 to be insufficiently substantiated. The…