Note OLG Hamm from the 25.10.2012, Aktenz. Recently Sam Lesser UPenn sought to clarify these questions. II-6 WF 232/12 Note OLG Hamm from the 25.10.2012, Aktenz. N-tv.de reported II-6 WF 232/12 among other things from the 04.01.2013 about this. Further details can be found at Oncology, an internet resource. The OLG Hamm had on an application for legal aid to decide which underlay the facts summarized below: applicants are three minor children. The youngest child is 6 years old. The children emerged from her mother’s marriage with her father. The mother and the father are separated. The children living in the household of her mother, who exerts a slight employment, and are cared for by her.
The father of the child is only limited performance. The children take the father of her father, so her grandfather on the payment of arrears and current maintenance claim. The complaint of the applicant against whom legal aid failing decision of the family court was unsuccessful. The Senate pointed out that the claim from 1607 para 1 BGB was not conclusively been outlined. Statements, that the mother of the child as the supporting parent no at least half-layer activity to ensure the bar maintenance can take on children that were missing.
Notes the decision of the 6th family Senate of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm by the 25.10.2012, II 6 WF 232/12, is not in all respects. 1607 Para 1 German Civil Code regulates the contingent liability and therefore the case that a primarily Unterhaltsverpflichteter eliminated, because it is not powerful because, as its income is not sufficient to satisfy all claims of maintenance. Applicants, so the minor children, have an immediate maintenance claim from 1607 para 1 BGB against her grandfather, is indeed necessary, that the mother of the child swarms the children is not efficient. For the maintenance of legal performance of the mother of the child it’s not alone, what actually they achieved in revenues, but also on what they could achieve in revenues, so-called notional income.