Commitment of the City of Chur to provide social assistance for foster-placed children due to perpetuated support domicile

Facts

Parties and procedural history:

The City of Chur (represented by the City Council) appealed with a public-law appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden of 10 December 2024, which required it to continue providing social assistance benefits for respondents [A.A.] and [B.A.] (born 2017 and 2019 respectively) beyond 30 June 2024. The respondents are siblings and have been foster-placed since February 2020. The City of Chur requested the annulment of the cantonal judgment and the commitment of the competent Zurich community to assume the costs from 1 July 2024.

Detailed facts:

The mother of the respondents, [C.A.] , moved to [V.] (now part of the City of Chur, Canton of Graubünden) on 1 April 2016 and established her support domicile there. On 20 February 2018, she entered the residential social therapy programme of the [D.] Foundation in the Canton of Zurich together with her daughter [A.A.] . In July 2019, she gave birth to her son [B.A.] . Following a therapy setback and premature discharge from therapy on 19/20 January 2020, [C.A.] definitively left the therapy facility and signed a sublease agreement for an apartment in [W.] (Canton of Zurich) with a lease start date of 1 February 2020. The respondents were foster-placed at the [F.] children’s home (Canton of Zurich) on 10 February 2020 and later placed with foster families or in a children’s home. The City of Chur terminated social assistance benefits for the respondents with effect from 1 July 2024, citing lack of jurisdiction as their support domicile was no longer in Chur. The City Council of Chur dismissed the appeal against this decision. The Administrative Court of Graubünden overturned this decision and required the City of Chur to continue providing social assistance.

Subject of dispute:

The City of Chur contested that the respondents’ support domicile remained in Chur. It argued that [C.A.] had already transferred her support domicile to Zurich before 1 February 2020 and that the foster placement of the children had only occurred from February 2020. The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the lower court had violated federal law by requiring the City of Chur to continue providing social assistance.

Considerations

1. Admissibility of the appeal:

The Federal Supreme Court admitted the appeal as the requirements for a judgment on the merits were met. The public-law appeal is admissible under Art. 82 lit. a FSCA against decisions in social assistance matters. The City of Chur was entitled to appeal as a support-obligated municipality with a legal interest in clarifying jurisdiction. The Federal Supreme Court examined the alleged violations of law under Art. 95 and 96 FSCA and applied the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA).

2. Subject of dispute and subject of appeal:

The subject of dispute was limited to whether the City of Chur had correctly terminated social assistance benefits for the respondents from 1 July 2024. Although the City of Chur also requested that the competent Zurich community be required to assume the costs, this request was outside the subject of dispute as it was not part of the cantonal proceedings. The Federal Supreme Court did not consider it.

3. Support domicile of the mother ([C.A.] ):

The support domicile of a person is determined by the canton in which they reside with the intention of permanent stay, pursuant to Art. 4 para. 1 SocRA. A support domicile only ends with the actual relocation from the canton, not already by searching for a new home. The lower court found that [C.A.] only established her support domicile in Zurich upon her police registration in [W.] (Canton of Zurich) in early February 2020. Until then, her support domicile remained in Chur. Her entry into the residential social therapy programme of the [D.] Foundation did not terminate her previous support domicile, as it constituted a home stay under Art. 5 SocRA (Art. 9 para. 3 SocRA). The appellant could not demonstrate that [C.A.] had already permanently relocated her residence to Zurich before February 2020.

4. Support domicile…