So I just discovered that some states have filial responsibility laws and some do not in the U.S. https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/health/NOA/30states.pdf

My question is which states laws are binding if the parent and adult child live in different states? In particular, if the child lives in a state with no such law can they be bound in a judgment from a state they do not reside in (and may never have resided/done business/etc.)?

This is legal curiosity and not a question about a specific case, though it is inspired by thinking about a certain parental figure in my life....

1 Answer 1


It first of all depends on what the laws of the specific state say. For example, Ohio is a state said to have such a law, but that law, ORC 2919.21 is more generally about the crime of non-support. So in fact,

(A) No person shall abandon, or fail to provide adequate support to:...(3) The person's aged or infirm parent or adoptive parent, who from lack of ability and means is unable to provide adequately for the parent's own support

Divisions B and C of the statute are limited to court-ordered support and support of juveniles. The law then says that

whoever violates division (A) or (B) of this section is guilty of nonsupport of dependents, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Nothing in the statutory language limits criminal liability in case a person was not aware of a financial need of one of their parents. This legal brief by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission indicates (based on case law in Ohio) that

Outside the criminal law, an adult child has no legal duty to support a parent unless a contract, express or implied, exists.

California has a law imposing a similar financial responsibility on children, and also has a law denying such responsibility. The "denying responsibility" part says

No relative shall be held legally liable to support or to contribute to the support of any applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter. No relative shall be held liable to defray in whole or in part the cost of any medical care or hospital care or other service rendered to the recipient pursuant to any provision of this code if he is an applicant for or a recipient of aid under this chapter at the time such medical care or hospital care or other service is rendered.

This is about public assistance for the aged, blind and disabled. And moroever (and explicitly mentioning the other law),

no demand shall be made upon any relative to support or contribute toward the support of any applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter. No county or city and county or officer or employee thereof shall threaten any such relative with any legal action against him by or in behalf of the county or city and county or with any penalty whatsoever.

But still, under Family Code 4400,

Except as otherwise provided by law, an adult child shall, to the extent of the adult child’s ability, support a parent who is in need and unable to self-maintain by work

and under §4403,

(a) Subject to subdivision (b):

(1) A parent, or the county on behalf of the parent, may bring an action against the child to enforce the duty of support under this part.

(2) If the county furnishes support to a parent, the county has the same right as the parent to whom the support was furnished to secure reimbursement and obtain continuing support.

(b) The right of the county to proceed on behalf of the parent or to obtain reimbursement is subject to any limitation otherwise imposed by the law of this state.

(c) The court may order the child to pay the county reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in a proceeding by the county under this section.

So in California, it's not entirely clear what the actual legal obligation of a child is.

You can make a successful claim against a child in Pennsylvania, see Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am. v. Pittas (Pettas). And it turns out that you can sue across state lines, see Melmark v. Schutt (this case involves suing parents of a mentally disabled adult child), a variant but under this same filial support law). The parents, in New Jersey, were sued under Pennsylvania law (where the child was). However, this isn't a trivial matter, since it involves the complex subject of "choice of law". In this case, the court (PA Supreme Court) concluded that Pennsylvania had the greater interest in applying its law, thus the parents were held to the other state's laws.

  • Thanks, I'll have to do some idle research into choice of law the next time I'm meandering aimlessly down curious mental lanes.
    – Alan
    Sep 17, 2021 at 3:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .