Do Children Have to Pay for Their Parents? What Lies Behind the Planned End of the €100,000 Threshold

Politicians and the press are debating scrapping the €100,000 income threshold for parental support. No draft bill exists. The real dangers today lie elsewhere — above all in old gifts. I will review your case.

Since June 2026 the headline has been the same: “Children will have to pay for their parents again.” First things first: there has been no change in the law. The ministerial draft of the Care Reorganisation Act (Pflegeneuordnungsgesetz, PNOG) of June 2026 expressly does not include lowering the income threshold for parental support; the Federal Government wants to deal with that question “in a separate procedure”. For that procedure there is, as yet, no draft, no figure and no timetable. It is a political statement of intent — nothing more. This article puts the state of the debate into context and is no substitute for a review of your own case.

How I can help you

• Checking whether you fall within the scope of parental support at all
• Taking stock of earlier property and asset transfers (clawback of gifts)
• Reviewing requests for information and notices of preserved rights from the social welfare office
• Going through care-home and nursing contracts before you sign
• Defending against excessive support claims, including the special cases under § 1611 BGB

What this is about

The sign on every building site reads “Parents are liable for their children” — legally wrong even there. The reverse, however, very much applies: children owe their parents maintenance (§ 1601 BGB). Where the social welfare office pays the care-home costs, it can have that claim transferred to itself and recover it from the child.

Since the Relatives’ Relief Act (Angehörigen-Entlastungsgesetz, in force since 1 January 2020), that recourse has in practice become the exception: under § 94(1a) SGB XII the maintenance claim passes to the social welfare provider only where the child’s gross annual income exceeds €100,000. The Act even presumes in the child’s favour that the threshold has not been exceeded; only where there are “sufficient indications” may the office request information at all.

Because many care-home residents can no longer meet the costs themselves and it is the local authorities that fund “assistance with care”, this threshold is now politically up for grabs. Federal Health Minister Nina Warken has come out in favour of scrapping or lowering it. For the time being, the law remains § 94(1a) SGB XII with its €100,000 figure.

What applies today — the four levers

1. The income threshold (§ 94(1a) SGB XII). €100,000 of total income within the meaning of § 16 SGB IV — that is, gross income from all types of income, not just from wages. The threshold applies per child liable to pay maintenance; the income of a son- or daughter-in-law is not counted. The provision covers maintenance claims against children and parents generally — so it applies not only to assistance with care, but also to basic income support in old age.

2. Assets are left out of account. The threshold turns on income alone. Anyone who stays below it is protected — even with substantial assets. That is precisely what makes scrapping it so significant: if the threshold falls, the old assessment of income and assets comes back to life.

3. The protected minimum — practitioners are already adjusting. The Düsseldorf Table 2026 once again expressly sets out the appropriate protected minimum against parents: at least €2,650 per month for the child (including €1,000 for rent plus heating), plus 70 per cent of any income above that. For the spouse living with the child, at least €2,120 is allowed (including €800 for rent plus heating). So only around 30 per cent of the excess is drawn upon. On top of that come deductible pension contributions and work-related expenses. The Table is not a statute but an aid used by the Higher Regional Courts.

4. Ability to pay remains a precondition. Maintenance is owed only by someone who can provide it while maintaining a reasonable standard of living for themselves (§ 1603 BGB). Even without any threshold at all, no one has to pay out of the substance of their own subsistence minimum.

What the protection does not already cover today

This is where the most common cases in practice arise — entirely independent of any reform:

• Clawback of gifts (§ 528 BGB): If the donor becomes impoverished, they can demand the return of the gift from the recipient — and it is through this claim that the social welfare provider reaches the recipient. This is only excluded once ten years have elapsed since the gifted item was handed over (§ 529(1) BGB). The typical case: the property transferred years ago. The €100,000 threshold offers no protection here.
• The time-limit trap: Where the property was transferred subject to a reserved usufruct or a comprehensive right of residence, the ten-year period under § 529(1) BGB regularly does not even begin to run, according to the case law — the item has not been fully “handed over”. So the supposedly safe transfer of 15 years ago may still be open to challenge.
• Spousal maintenance: The spouse of the person needing care remains liable without the benefit of the €100,000 threshold.
• Contractual liability: Anyone who co-signs the care-home contract as a party assuming the costs, as a guarantor or as a joint debtor is liable under contract — the social-law threshold then does not help.
• On death: After death, heirs’ liability and the recovery of costs from heirs apply (§ 102 SGB XII).

What scrapping the threshold would actually mean

Not, first and foremost, “every child pays”. Rather: the assessment machinery returns.

• Blanket information procedures. Today the office may only ask where there are concrete indications. Without the threshold, a notice of preserved rights and a request for information under § 117 SGB XII would once again go out to almost every child — backed by the threat of a fine if you refuse.
• Disclosure of your entire financial position to the authority, even where in the end not a single cent is payable.
• Modest amounts, but ongoing. Because of the protected minimum and the 70-per-cent rule, the payments usually stay manageable — but they run for years and are claimed from the point at which the notice of preserved rights arrives.
• Retroactive effect is not to be expected. A new set of rules would, under general principles, apply for the future. Anyone below the threshold today is protected in respect of the social welfare benefits provided today.

What you should do now — and what you should not

Do not: rush into transferring assets “before the law arrives”. Doing so only sets the ten-year period under § 529(1) BGB running in the first place, is often ineffective where a usufruct is reserved, costs notary and property-transfer-tax fees, and creates new problems in family and inheritance law. The most expensive mistake in this field is not inaction but a hasty gift.

What does make sense now:

1. Take stock of earlier transfers — when, to whom, and with what reservations? Is the ten-year period even running? This is the most pressing point to check, independent of any reform.
2. Have care-home and nursing contracts reviewed before signing — no assumption-of-costs or guarantee undertaking without a lawyer’s scrutiny.
3. Keep your lasting power of attorney and advance healthcare directive up to date. A power of attorney creates no liability, but without one things become expensive and slow when it matters.
4. Make full use of social benefits (level of care, supplements to the personal contribution, housing benefit). Every euro of personal contribution that falls away is a euro less exposed to recovery.
5. Check the special cases: in the event of serious misconduct or long-standing gross neglect by the parent, the duty to pay maintenance may be extinguished or reduced under § 1611 BGB.
6. Never ignore a request for information from the social welfare office — but never answer one unchecked, either. Its scope and admissibility are open to challenge; premature disclosure cannot be taken back.

Frequently asked questions

Do I now have to pay for my parents’ care costs?

Under the law as it stands, only if your gross annual income exceeds €100,000 (§ 94(1a) SGB XII). Nothing has changed about this threshold. As yet there is no draft bill that lowers or scraps it.

Should I quickly have my parents’ house signed over to me now?

I would strongly advise against it. A gift only sets the ten-year period under § 529(1) BGB running in the first place, and where a usufruct is reserved it regularly does not begin to run at all. Rather than acting, you should first have your existing asset position properly assessed.

My parents transferred the property to me eight years ago — am I safe?

Not necessarily. Under § 528 BGB the value of the gift can be reclaimed, and the €100,000 threshold offers no protection against this. The claim is only excluded after ten years (§ 529(1) BGB) — and where a usufruct or a comprehensive right of residence was reserved, that period may even still be open. This needs to be checked.

The social welfare office has sent me a request for information. Do I have to answer?

You should not ignore it — the duty to provide information under § 117 SGB XII is backed by the threat of a fine. But the scope and admissibility of the request are often open to challenge. Have the letter reviewed before you hand over any documents; once disclosure has been made, you cannot take it back.

Will any new rules apply retroactively?

That is not to be expected. A change in the law would, under general principles, apply for the future. For social welfare benefits provided today, the law as it stands today continues to apply.

Your next step

If the coverage has left you worried: in most families the real point to check is not current income but a transfer made years ago. Bring me the handover contract and, in a single conversation, we will work out where your genuine risks lie and whether there is any need to act at all. As soon as a ministerial or government draft on parental support is actually on the table, I will get back to you with the concrete figures. You will find more on contractual and family-related asset questions on the General Civil Law page.

This article provides general information and is no substitute for legal advice in an individual case. Last updated: 2026-07-28.

Request an initial consultationWhat will it cost me?08091 617 7777