Support domicile of a foster-placed minor child pursuant to Art. 7 para. 3 lit. c SocRA

Facts

Parties and procedural history:

The Canton of Uri (appellant) challenges a judgment of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne dated 30 January 2024, which dismissed an appeal by the Canton of Uri against a decision of the Department of Health and Social Affairs of the Canton of Lucerne dated 16 November 2022. The Canton of Lucerne had rejected a support notification from the Canton of Uri for reimbursement of advance payments amounting to CHF 568,088.45 (as of 8 February 2020) for the stay of [A.] , born in 1991, in a psychiatric clinic. The Canton of Uri argued that [A.] had established his own support domicile in the Canton of Uri, whereas the Canton of Lucerne contested the jurisdiction of the Canton of Uri.

Facts of the case:

In 1998, [A.] moved with his mother and stepfather from [L.] /UR to [M.] /UR (Canton of Uri). Due to delayed speech development and behavioural issues, he was placed in a speech therapy school in the Canton of Uri from January 2000, but was exempted from classes on 15 December 2000 due to a behavioural escalation. From 3 January 2001, he was placed in a special education residential group on an outpatient basis, and from 8 January 2001 in the boarding section of the children’s home [D.] in the Canton of Uri. His mother moved with the other children to [N.] /LU (Canton of Lucerne) on 25 January 2001, where [A.] was also taken on 26 January 2001. From 12 March 2001, he attended the school and living centre [E.] in the Canton of Lucerne on a trial basis, and from 23 March 2001 on a permanent basis. In 2001, the guardianship authority established a child protection measure. From 2003 onwards, further placements followed, including a criminal placement and a protective placement. The municipality of [N.] /LU was recognised as the liable municipality for advance payments until 2018. With a decision dated 27 March 2018, the KESB Region [Q.] /LU ordered the municipality of [N.] /LU to reimburse the costs of [A.] ’s stay in a psychiatric clinic. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne with a judgment dated 14 March 2019 due to lack of standing to appeal.

The municipality of [N.] /LU informed the Canton of Lucerne in 2019 about a presumed support domicile of [A.] in [M.] /UR and demanded reimbursement of the advance payments. The Canton of Uri filed a support notification on 17 March 2021. The Canton of Lucerne rejected the objection with a decision dated 16 November 2022. The Canton of Uri then filed an administrative court appeal, which was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Lucerne with a judgment dated 30 January 2024. The Canton of Uri subsequently filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

Admissibility of the appeal:

The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal of the Canton of Uri against the final decision of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne, as it concerns a matter of public law (Art. 82 lit. a, Art. 90 FSCA) and the Federal Act on the Responsibility for the Support of Persons in Need (SocRA) applies. The Canton of Uri is entitled to appeal, as it is a canton liable for advance payments and has an interest in clarifying jurisdiction (Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA).

Applicable law and standard of review:

The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA) and reviews the appeal for violations of law pursuant to Art. 95 et seq. FSCA. It bases its review on the facts as established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA) and only corrects them in cases of obvious inaccuracy or arbitrariness (Art. 97 para. 1, Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA).

Determination of the support domicile pursuant to Art. 7 SocRA:

The dispute concerns whether [A.] established his own support domicile in [M.] /UR (Canton of Uri) by 8 January 2001 at the latest. Pursuant to Art. 7 para. 3 lit. c SocRA in the version applicable until 31 December 2006, an underage child who is permanently not living with its parents or one parent establishes its own support domicile at the last common place of residence with the parents or the parent with custody. A permanent out-of-home placement exists where the parents do not exercise their parental authority and the placement is for an indefinite period or for more than six months. The decisive factor is the intention of permanence at the beginning of the out-of-home placement, not the actual duration of the stay.

Assessment of the out-of-home placement of…