Background
M. [W] sought retroactive payment of the “supplement for free choice of childcare” (complément de libre choix du mode de garde, or CMG) for his children for the period from February 1 through October 30, 2018. During part of that period, the children lived alternately with each parent under an effective shared-residence arrangement.
The Rhône Family Allowance Fund refused the claim. The Lyon Court of Appeal upheld that refusal, reasoning that the children’s mother was the designated family-benefits recipient during the shared-residence period and that the rule permitting only one recipient for the same child prevented M. [W] from receiving CMG before the children’s residence was fixed at his home on October 1, 2018. M. [W] appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation quashed the appellate judgment in its entirety. When separated parents jointly exercise parental authority and implement shared residence effectively and equivalently, both are regarded as bearing the child’s actual and permanent care. A family benefit therefore cannot be denied to one parent solely because the other parent receives it, unless the statutory rules specific to that benefit preclude payment or extending it to both parents would require legislation.
For CMG, the governing provisions award the benefit to a household or person who employs an eligible childcare provider. Relying on the applicable Social Security Code provisions and the Conseil d’État’s May 19, 2021 decision, the Court held that the regulatory single-recipient rule could not by itself justify rejecting M. [W]’s claim. The Court did not finally determine that he qualified for payment; it returned the case to a differently constituted panel of the Lyon Court of Appeal for further proceedings.
The Rhône Family Allowance Fund was ordered to pay costs. The dispositive text separately names the Rhône Primary Health Insurance Fund—not the Family Allowance Fund—as the entity ordered under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pay M. [W] €3,000, while rejecting that entity’s request.
Key Takeaways
- In an effectively and equivalently implemented shared-residence arrangement, each parent is treated as bearing the child’s actual and permanent care.
- CMG cannot be refused solely because the other parent is the designated benefits recipient, subject to CMG-specific statutory rules, any need for legislative action, and the claimant’s satisfaction of the benefit’s eligibility requirements.
- The ruling did not award M. [W] retroactive CMG; it quashed the judgment and remanded the claim for reconsideration.
Why It Matters
The decision limits reliance on France’s regulatory single-recipient rule in CMG disputes involving genuine shared residence. Benefits authorities and courts must examine the governing statute and the claimant’s eligibility instead of treating the other parent’s recipient status as automatically decisive.
The judgment also aligns the Court of Cassation’s approach with the Conseil d’État’s 2021 conclusion that, to this extent, the single-recipient regulation conflicts with the statutory rule governing responsibility for a child.