A judgment establishing the amount of child support owed by parents does not have a permanent character and may be subject to modification in the event of a change in circumstances concerning either of the two key factors determining its amount.
As a general rule, therefore, a change in circumstances entitles a party to request a modification of a judgment or agreement concerning maintenance obligations. A "change in circumstances" is understood as a significant decrease or cessation of the earning and financial capacity of the person obliged to pay maintenance, or a significant increase in the justified needs of the beneficiary, such that the previously established scope of the maintenance obligation requires adjustment—either by decreasing or increasing the amount of maintenance. A change in circumstances may also result from events that cause the maintenance obligation to expire. Examples include the denial of paternity, annulment of child acknowledgment, or the beneficiary's attainment of financial self-sufficiency.
Parents are obligated to provide maintenance to a child who is not yet able to support themselves. However, a child’s needs change over time and typically increase with age, for example due to the commencement of education, the need for additional tutoring, or the development of interests. These circumstances often constitute a "change in circumstances" justifying the modification of a judgment or agreement concerning child maintenance. While the mere passage of time does not, in itself, justify altering the amount of maintenance, the effect of inflation and the decrease in the purchasing power of money over time must be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of maintenance payments.
The attainment of the age of majority by the child does not necessarily affect the amount of previously determined maintenance nor does it automatically terminate the parents' maintenance obligation. Similarly, the birth of another child does not in itself result in the termination of existing maintenance obligations toward other children. However, such an event may justify an adjustment to the scope of the current obligation (i.e., a recalibration of the amount of maintenance payments).
(See: Supreme Court judgment of 14 May 2002, Case No. V CKN 1032/00.)
Other circumstances that may constitute a "change in relations" warranting an adjustment of existing maintenance payments or a declaration that the obligation has expired include:
- a significant increase or decrease in the earning or financial capacity of the obligated party,
- the beneficiary ceasing to be in a state of need,
- the obligor losing their earning capacity,
- the child acquiring the ability to independently meet their needs,
- a lack of effort by an adult child to achieve self-sufficiency (in cases of parental support for adult children),
- the emergence of undue hardship for parents providing maintenance to an adult child, or
- the continuation of the maintenance obligation being contrary to principles of social coexistence.
The maintenance obligation is modified or expires on the date the relevant court judgment becomes final. However, it is possible to limit the duration or adjust the amount of maintenance for a period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, provided that circumstances justifying such claims existed during that time. Nonetheless, increasing the amount of maintenance retroactively is limited and only permissible when the beneficiary has outstanding unmet needs or has incurred obligations to satisfy such needs during the relevant period.
When bringing a claim under Article 138 of the Family and Guardianship Code (Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy, "KRO"), the claimant must indicate whether they are seeking to have the maintenance obligation terminated (i.e., the cessation of maintenance payments), or whether they are requesting a change in the amount previously established.
There is divergence in case law as to whether it is permissible to reduce the amount of maintenance where the claimant has requested only the termination of the maintenance obligation. Two opposing views exist on this issue:
According to the first view, if the claimant requests more—i.e., the complete termination of the obligation—and that request proves unsubstantiated after evidentiary proceedings, the court may partially uphold the claim by reducing the maintenance obligation, since a request to terminate includes, by implication, a request for reduction.
The second view is more rigid and asserts that if the claimant has only requested termination or a declaration of expiry of the obligation, the court may not award anything different than what was explicitly sought. Therefore, under this interpretation, the court cannot reduce the amount of maintenance if the claimant requested only its termination.
Given the practical issues related to maintenance obligations, it is worth highlighting the following court judgments:
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 November 2022, Case No. I OSK 1851/20
The payment of maintenance benefits from the State Maintenance Fund to a minor does not release the debtor from their parental obligation to provide support. Any cancellation of maintenance debt effectively shifts the financial burden of child support from the debtor to society as a whole.
Judgment of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 5 October 2022, Case No. II CSKP 552/22
Specifying a maintenance obligation in an agreement—regardless of its form—does not affect the legal position of other creditors of the obligor and does not secure their ability to satisfy claims from the obligor’s assets. A maintenance agreement, like any standard private agreement, does not provide for direct enforcement through state coercion. An obligor who enters into such an agreement may prioritize other creditors and allocate their assets accordingly.
The situation differs if the obligor creates an enforceable title of execution, which, once declared enforceable, grants priority to maintenance claims under Article 1025 §1(2) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. In such cases, it is not the mere existence of the obligation that impairs other creditors' rights, but rather the determination of its amount and the creation of conditions enabling it to be recognized in enforcement proceedings. Such actions may be deemed fraudulent transfers.