Establishment of kinship (maternity / paternity); assignment of parental responsibility (personal care or custody) and direct and regular relationship (parenting time, visitation)

The complainant was born out of wedlock in 1950; her father has recognized paternity and has committed to pay monthly child support. Since the complainant’s father died in 1962, she received an orphan´s pension. As the amount of the pension exceeded the child support contribution, the principal heiress refused to pay child support. The county court Kiel decided that the orphan´s pension should be offset against the child support claim, as it was not the purpose of the orphan´s pension to provide the child with an additional allowance. This would lead to unequal treatment of legitimate and illegitimate children but since the Legislator had not changed the law, it was in accordance with the law. Article 6.5 of the Basic Law did not contain any applicable law, but only an instruction to the legislature. 
The complainant considered the judgement unconstitutional. The illegitimate child was already at a disadvantage compared to the legitimate child, since it had no inheritance right of its own, but only a support claim against the father´s heirs. These could settle the illegitimate child with an amount equal to the compulsory portion (the minimum right a child not mentioned in a will can claim from the deceased parent’s estate). In comparison the legitimate child had a right of inheritance. This unequal treatment was increased by offsetting the orphan´s pension against this claim. Therefore, the judgement violated Article 3 and Article 6.5 of the Basic Law.
The basic law contained a number of articles requiring a reorganization of family law. Art. 3.2 of the Basic Law required equality of men and women. Unequal family law had to be changed until a deadline in Art. 117 of the Basic Law. Also, Article 6.5 of the Basic law was to be interpreted as giving the legislature the opportunity to reorganize. However, in this case, in the absence of a reference date, the deadline was to be determined by considering all the circumstances. If the legislature remained inactive, the constitution was to be interpreted in such a way that Article 6.5 of the Basic Law should be implemented by the jurisdiction as far as possible. Article 6.5 of the Basic Law expressed an important value decision of the constitution.  
The FCC held that the deadline had not yet expired at the time in question, as the legislature had been extremely busy in recent years and the regulations on the legal status of illegitimate children under private law require thorough preparation. The expiration date is imminent, namely at the end of the legislative period. After that, Article 6.5 of the Basic Law must be implemented by the courts. Since in the present case § 1712 of the Civil Code has not yet expired, it must be checked whether the orphan´s pension could be offset against the child support under § 1712 of the Civil Code. However, in the interpretation and application of § 1712 of the Civil Code in the present case, Article 6.5 of the Basic Law was not sufficiently considered. The claim from § 1712 of the Civil Code should offer the child a replacement for the missing right of inheritance and was an economic participation in the father´s inheritance. The orphan´s pension did not serve to relieve other dependents. Article 6.5 of the Basic Law prohibits that the compensation for the lack of inheritance law is taken away. Therefore the crediting the orphan´s pension was not compatible with Article 6.5 of the Basic Law.