Article 1218. Children's Obligations Toward Parents

I. General Overview

a. Historical Review of the Obligation

In contrast to the comprehensive and unconditional obligation of parents to support their children, Article 1218 and subsequent provisions of Georgian law establish the obligation of a child (or children) to support their parents. In this sense, the alimony obligations between parents and children are mutually connected.

The duty to care for one’s parents dates back thousands of years and is referenced in Roman, [1] Jewish, and Christian sources. [2] The philosophical foundation of this obligation lies in the reciprocation of care once provided by the parents to the child. For example, this obligation was recognized by Thomas Aquinas, a medieval Italian theologian and philosopher. [3] Likewise, Aristotle, in his work Nicomachean Ethics, wrote:

“No one can repay [parents and the gods] as much as they deserve. Taking care of them to the best of one’s ability would be a mark of honor. Therefore, it should be assumed that a child must not reject their father, though a father may reject his child. For he who has received kindness must repay it. But a child cannot repay the father in full for what he has done. Hence, the child remains forever in debt to the father.” [4]

Aristotle thus saw the obligation to care for parents as a moral response to the good received from them — a view that aligns closely with the Georgian legislator’s position expressed in Article 1218(3).

In English law, reciprocal duties of care between parents and children were established as early as 1597, [5] and further expanded through legislation passed by Parliament in 1601. [6] At that time, the primary responsibilityfor care lay with blood relatives, [7] while mechanisms were provided for state support for those who could not receive help from family. [8] The influential English jurist William Blackstone also recognized the duty of children to care for their parents, describing it as a reciprocal obligation in return for the care once given by the parents. [9]

The duty to support parents was not limited to England but extended to its colonies, including the American colonies. [10] For instance, in 1705, Pennsylvania’s legislature passed a law that imposed on children the duty to support and financially assist their parents. [11] Over time, other U.S. states adopted similar laws. These laws have been challenged repeatedly on constitutional grounds — such as equality before the law, unlawful seizure of property, and double taxation — but such challenges have generally been unsuccessful. [12]

b. Content of the Obligation

Legislatures in various U.S. states justify the obligation to support aging parents by referencing the care and support those parents previously provided to their children — in other words, because parents once cared for their children, the children now have a duty to care for their elderly parents. [13] For this reason, some states have enacted provisions similar to Article 1218(3) of the Georgian Civil Code, which exempts a child from the duty of care if the parent previously failed to properly care for them. [14] Additionally, a child's lack of financial resources can also serve as grounds for exemption. Typically, the duty to care exists only in relation to a parent who is in genuine need of support. [15] Beyond these practical considerations, the legal establishment of the duty to support parents also serves a broader social purpose — it helps to reduce discriminatory treatment toward the elderly. [16] Moreover, when children fulfill this obligation, the state's financial and social burden is eased as fewer elderly individuals rely solely on public support. [17]

As a general rule, the duty to support parents applies equally to all children. In some jurisdictions, legislation may even grant one child the right to seek contribution from their siblings, not only for a proportional reimbursement of already provided support, but also to compel them to share in the obligation before support is provided. In certain U.S. states, parents, government agencies, and even creditors are permitted to file claims against children to recover the costs of support provided to the parent. In Montana, for instance, the law requires children to reimburse the state for public aid given to their parents. [18]

Under general legal principles, the obligation to support a parent includes providing food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. In some cases, this duty may be interpreted to include the costs of burial upon the parent's death. This issue becomes particularly relevant when a third party seeks reimbursement from a child for funeral expenses incurred on behalf of the deceased parent.

Mechanisms to enforce the obligation to support parents exist in civil, criminal, and administrative law. Civil law may, for example, grant parents the right to bring a legal claim against their children. In some states, such as California and Massachusetts, failure to fulfill this duty is considered a criminal offense. [19]

II. Content of the Norm in Georgian Law

a. Preconditions for Applying the Norm

The general principle set forth in Article 1218(1) — that children are obligated to care for and assist their parents — is clarified in paragraph two of the same article. The obligation to provide support arises only when:(a) the child is of legal age, and(b) the parent is in need of assistance. Based on this, the principles of “material need” and “material means”, developed in the context of parental alimony (see commentary on Articles 1214 and 1221), also apply here. The obligation for children to support their parents is based on the general assumption that an adult child is capable of working and has the potential to generate income. Accordingly, the duty to support typically remains in effect until the child reaches retirement age. In one case, where a parent (plaintiff) sought compensation from a child (defendant) for damages resulting from the loss of a provider, the Supreme Court of Georgia explained that children are obligated to support their parents until they reach retirement age — in the case of men, 65 years old. The Court further noted a presumption that a deceased person would have continued to work and earn income until the age of 65, which would have been used to fulfill the obligation to support the parent. [20]

For an alimony obligation to be imposed, the child must be an adult. Even if a minor child has their own income, they cannot be legally compelled by a court to pay alimony to a parent.

b. Exclusion from the Obligation to Support Parents

Exemption from the obligation to support a parent is permitted only in cases specifically defined by law. Unlike the unconditional obligation of a parent to support their child, the obligation to pay alimony to a parent is not absolute. It arises only if the parent did not neglect their own obligation to care for and support the child in the past, and only if the parent was not deprived of parental rights.

If a parent’s parental rights were revoked with respect to only one child, the obligation to support should be excluded solely for that child, while the obligation remains in force for the other children. The same logic applies to Article 1218(3) — if a parent failed to fulfill their parental duties toward one child, but fulfilled them toward others, then only the neglected child may be released from the obligation to provide support.

It is considered fair for the parent to retain the right to alimony if the revocation of parental rights has been annulledand their rights have been legally restored. The law also recognizes the restriction or suspension of parental rights, but these do not constitute valid grounds for exemption from the obligation to pay alimony.

c. The Child’s Financial Condition

A child who is obligated to support their parent must retain a basic financial reserve — often referred to as “rainy day money” or a "self-preservation fund." [21] Additionally, when supporting a parent, the child is not required to exhaust a significant portion of their own property or savings, especially considering that alimony obligations typically arise at a later stage in the child’s life, when rebuilding wealth is more difficult. [22] Accordingly, when calculating alimony, the amount needed for the child’s own essential financial security is deductedfrom their obligations. The exact amount of this deduction is left to the discretion of the court to determine based on the circumstances of the case. [23] In cases where the alimony obligor is married and has income, the calculation of material means for the purpose of supporting parents is done in light of the specific needs of the family unit. [24] If the child has no independent income, they may be expected to use personal allowances or pocket money to support the parent. However, the obligation to pay alimony cannot be imposed if fulfilling it would impoverish the child — for example, pushing them below the poverty line or making them dependent on state social assistance. [25]

In such cases, the court also gives consideration to the financial condition of the parent (plaintiff) as well as the nature of the relationship between the parent and the child (defendant).

d. The Parent’s Financial Condition

One of the key prerequisites for imposing the obligation to support a parent is the parent’s genuine need. Unlike the unconditional duty of parents to support their children, the child’s obligation to care for and assist parents is conditional. In one case, lower courts rejected a parent’s claim for alimony from their child, reasoning that the parent did not require support and was using the litigation to prolong a family conflict that originated from the sale of shared family property.

However, the Supreme Court of Georgia took a different approach. It emphasized two main factors: (a) The parent was classified as a Group II person with a disability and was receiving 274 GEL in state assistance, indicating a material need for support; (b) There was no evidence under Article 1218(3) of the Civil Code that the father had neglected his parental duties during the child’s minority.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the child was obligated to support the parent and pay alimony. [26]

Regarding the amount of alimony, the Court explained it should be determined through a reasonable and fair assessment, sufficient to cover the basic needs for a decent living. This includes consideration of: (1) The needs and financial situation of the dependent parent, (2)As well as the financial and family condition of the child.

Furthermore, under Article 1219(2) of the Civil Code of Georgia, the court must consider the obligation of all adult children, regardless of whether the claim was filed against one, several, or all of them. [27] In another case, the court denied a parent’s alimony claim, reasoning that the parent: (a) Received a pension,(b) Owned a rented apartment, generating additional income. [28] Alimony obligations toward parents may also surface in the context of other legal disputes. In one case, where a court was addressing alimony in favor of a child, the defendant (the parent) argued that they themselves had a legal duty to support their own parent and requested a reduction in the amount owed to the child.

The court rejected this, clarifying that while Article 1218(1) of the Civil Code expresses a general moral obligation of children to support their parents, this alone is insufficient in legal proceedings. The defendant must provide either: (a) A final court decision imposing alimony in favor of the parent, or (b) Concrete evidence that the parent is in actual need of assistance. [29]

In yet another case, both trial and appellate courts rejected a parent’s alimony claim on the basis that: (a) The parent owned land, raised livestock, and cultivated crops; (b) The child was not allowed to live in the family home and was forced to stay with a friend; (c) The child was unemployed at the time. [30] These examples reinforce that the parent’s actual material condition and relationship with the child are critical in determining whether the support obligation applies.

References

1. Catherine Doscher Byrd, Relative Responsibility Extended: Requirement of Adult Children to Pay for Their Indigent Parent's Medical Needs, 22 Family Law Quarterly 87 (1988), p. 88.

2. The Bible, Old Testament, Book of Exodus: “Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”Gospel of Matthew 15:2, 4 (King James Version): “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread? ... For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”(The general obligation to honor and care for one’s parents is also referenced in the Fifth Commandment.)

3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 101.1 (Blackfriars ed., 1968).

4. Gordeziiani, R., Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics (2003), pp. 189–190.

5. The Poor Law of 1597, 39 Eliz., c. 3, § 7 (1597).

6. Elizabethan Poor Relief Act of 1601, 43 Eliz. I, ch. 2, § IV (England, 1601).

7. Robin M. Jacobson, Note, American Healthcare Ctr. v. Randall: The Renaissance of Filial Responsibility, 40 South Dakota Law Review 518 (1995), pp. 527–28;Day, P., The Abandonment Defense to a Claim for Parental Support, 11 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues380 (2000).

8. One form of public assistance included the provision of tax benefits.

9. Thompson, D., I Am Not My Father's Keeper: Families and the Elderly in Nineteenth Century England, 2 Law & History Review 265 (1984), p. 266.

10. tenBroek, J., California’s Dual System of Family Law: Its Origin, Development, and Present Status, 16 Stanford Law Review 257 (1964).

11. Colonial Laws of Pennsylvania, 1705–06, ch. CLIV, § V, p. 253;Riesenfeld, S.A., The Formative Era of American Public Assistance, 43 California Law Review 175 (1955), pp. 230–31.

12. American Healthcare Ctr. v. Randall, 513 N.W.2d 566, 572 (S.D. 1994) (The court rejected the argument that the obligation to care for parents violated the constitutional principle of equality);Groover v. Essex Co. Welfare Bd., 264 A.2d 143, 144 (D.C. 1970);Dep’t of Mental Hygiene v. McGilvery, 329 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1958) (Court held that imposing the obligation does not constitute unlawful taking of property);Atkins v. Curtis, 66 So. 2d 455 (Ala. 1953);Maricopa Co. v. Douglas, 208 P.2d 646, 649 (Ariz. 1949) (Court found no issue of double taxation in imposing such responsibility).

13. Alaska Statutes § 25.20.030 (Michie 1998); § 47.25.230 (Michie 1998);Oregon Revised Statutes § 109.010 (West 1990).

14. Similar laws exist in California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

15. Comparable provisions apply in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.

16. Blair, J., Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother – But for How Long? Adult Children’s Duty to Care for and Protect Elderly Parents, 35 University of Louisville Journal of Family Law 765 (1996–97) (Author discusses violations of elderly rights and considers adult children’s legal obligation to support parents as a safeguard);Kline, T.A., A Rational Role for Filial Responsibility in Modern Society?, 26 Family Law Quarterly 195 (1992) (The article explores the historical development of filial support laws and highlights their role in addressing age-based discrimination).

17. Helen B.M. v. Samuel F.D., 479 A.2d 852, 855 (Del. Fam. Ct. 1984);Pickett v. Pickett, 251 N.E.2d 684, 687 (Ind. Ct. App. 1969) (The court identified two key factors: parents' financial need and children's ability to provide support);Gluckman v. Gaines, 71 Cal. Rptr. 795, 797 (1968);City of Springfield v. Siderlund, 122 N.E.2d 898 (1954);Albert Einstein Med. Ctr. v. Foreman, 243 A.2d 181, 183 (1968);Belknap v. Witmire, 72 P. 589, 590 (1903) (Court held that if expenses were incurred for a parent at the child’s request, the child must reimburse them);Jasper County v. Osborne, 13 N.W. 104, 106 (Iowa 1882) (Court held that children must reimburse the state for expenses paid on behalf of a parent).

18. Lee, A., Singapore's Maintenance of Parents Act and U.S. Filial Responsibility Laws, 17 Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 671 (1995), p. 678.

19. California (Cal. Penal Code § 270c); Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 273, § 20).

20. Georgian Supreme Court Case No. AS-883-2019, 20/09/2019.

21. BGH FamRZ 2015, 1174; NJW 2013, 3027.

22. BGH FamRZ 2016, 888.

23. Cf. BGH NJW 2003, 131; BGH NJW 2014, 1176; BGH FamRZ 2016, 889.

24. BGH NJW 2010, 3161; BGH NJW 2014, 1173.

25. BGHZ 111, 194; BVerfG FamRZ 2001, 1685.

26. Georgian Supreme Court Case No. AS-494-462-2017, 12/03/2018.

27. Georgian Supreme Court Cases Nos. AS-494-462-2017, 12/03/2018; AS-289-278-2012, 07/05/2012.

28. Georgian Supreme Court Case No. 3k-1420-02, 18/02/2003.

29. Georgian Supreme Court Case No. AS-1092-1012-2017, 01/12/2017.

30. Georgian Supreme Court Case No. AS-322-998-03, 16/09/2003.