Support domicile of an adult person following an independently concluded care contract

Facts

The case concerns the question of the support domicile of an adult person after reaching the age of majority. A., born on 7 July 2002, was under parental custody until reaching the age of majority and was placed with a foster mother in the political municipality (PostSA) W./ZH by decision of the Child and Adult Protection Authority (CAPA) V., retroactively as of 15 July 2018. Upon reaching the age of majority on 7 July 2020, the child protection measures lapsed, and the CAPA established a representative guardianship with income and asset management.

A. deregistered from PostSA U. (mother’s place of residence) and registered in PostSA W. on 7 July 2020. She expressed to the professional guardianship the intention to remain permanently in W. and concluded a care contract with the foster mother B. on 1 October 2020. The guardianship was transferred to CAPA X. on 1 December 2020. The Social Welfare Office W. rejected A.’s social assistance application on 11 January 2021, while PostSA U. temporarily assumed support and notified the Canton of St. Gallen of the support case. The Canton of Zurich requested that the Canton of St. Gallen assign A.’s support domicile to PostSA U., which the latter rejected by decision of 31 May 2022. The Canton of Zurich then filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen, which dismissed the appeal by decision of 10 July 2023. Finally, the Canton of Zurich filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the Canton of Zurich was not liable to reimburse costs in A.’s support case.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the lower court violated federal law by affirming A.’s support domicile in PostSA W. upon reaching the age of majority and thereby acknowledging the Canton of St. Gallen’s entitlement to cost reimbursement from the Canton of Zurich. The Canton of Zurich’s appeal was based on the argument that A.’s support domicile remained in PostSA U. beyond reaching the age of majority, as she continued to live in the foster family and required official placement in family care.

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s view that A.’s support domicile after reaching the age of majority is governed by the provisions applicable to adults. According to Art. 4 para. 1 SocRA, residence in a canton with the intention of permanent stay establishes a support domicile. The lower court correctly found that A. resided in PostSA W. with such an intention, as evidenced by her police registration, her statement to the professional guardianship, and the conclusion of the care contract.

The appellant argued that the care contract precluded the establishment of a support domicile, as A. continued to live in the foster family. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed this argument, emphasising that Art. 5 SocRA only excludes the establishment of a support domicile in cases of official placement in family care. Since the…