Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
5 B 16/23, 5 B 16/23 (5 C 5/24) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2024:190724B5B16.23.0 AI generated

Reimbursement of foster care costs: Interaction between youth welfare benefits and statutory adoption care

Case Number 5 B 16/23, 5 B 16/23 (5 C 5/24)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court quashed the higher regional administrative court's decision refusing leave to appeal and ordered that leave to appeal be granted, thereby allowing the plaintiff's challenge to proceed to the merits in the appellate court. The case concerns a dispute over the claim for reimbursement of childcare costs under German social law, specifically focusing on the interaction between youth welfare benefits for full-time foster care and statutory adoption care. The court found that the appeal was admissible and well-founded because the matter possesses fundamental legal significance, requiring clarification on the relationship between youth welfare benefits for foster care under Sections 27 and 33 of the Eighth Book of the Social Code and adoption care under Section 1744 of the Civil Code, and how this interplay affects the cost reimbursement claim under Section 89a of the Eighth Book of the Social Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 1744 BGB, § 89a Abs. 1 Satz 1 SGB VIII; Reimbursement of foster care costs: Interaction between youth welfare benefits and statutory adoption care: The case concerns a dispute over the claim for reimbursement of childcare costs under German social law, specifically focusing on the interaction between youth welfare benefits for full-time foster care and statutory adoption care. The court found that the appeal was admissible and well-founded because the matter possesses fundamental legal significance, requiring clarification on the relationship between youth welfare benefits for foster care under Sections 27 and 33 of the Eighth Book of the Social Code and adoption care under Section 1744 of the Civil Code, and how this interplay affects the cost reimbursement claim under Section 89a of the Eighth Book of the Social Code.

Keywords

AI generated
foster care adoption leave statutory benefit reimbursement of costs challenge of administrative decisions social assistance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The provision cited as the legal basis for granting leave to appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.
§ 1744 BGB
§ 89a Abs. 1 Satz 1 SGB VIII
AI generated
5 C 25/11
Reimbursement Rights for Foster Care Providers After Change of Parental Residence: Scope of SGB VIII §§ 89a(3) and 89e(1)
5 C 25/12
Foster care cost reimbursement: analogical extension of § 89a Abs. 2 SGB VIII to pre-existing local competence and pre-benefit residence determination
5 C 4/21
Reimbursement of child day-care fees exceeding foster care flat rates due to non-pauschalisable municipal cost variations under SGB VIII
III R 43/08
Scope of child benefit reimbursement for youth welfare services: limitation to assessed cost contribution and pro-rata distribution of total child benefit
5 C 31/12
Cost Reimbursement Under § 89a SGB VIII in Foster Care Cases: Requirement of Carrier Identity and Applicability of § 86 Abs. 4 SGB VIII to Post-Performance Changes in Parental Residence

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

The provision cited as the legal basis for granting leave to appeal due to the fundamental significance of the legal issue.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revisionszulassung; Erstattung von Pflegegeld

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Sächsischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts über die Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen sein Urteil vom 30. März 2023 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde des Klägers ist zulässig und begründet. Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen.

Die Revision kann dem Senat Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, in welchem Verhältnis die jugendhilferechtliche Leistung von Hilfe zur Erziehung in Form der Vollzeitpflege (§§ 27, 33 SGB VIII) und die Adoptionspflege (§ 1744 BGB) stehen und wie sich dies gegebenenfalls auf den Kostenerstattungsanspruch nach § 89a Abs. 1 Satz 1 SGB VIII auswirkt.