It is well-established — both normatively and legally — that a parent is responsible for the care and maintenance of their children, but many people are surprised to learn that, under certain circumstances, the inverse may be true as well.
In short, adult children can be held legally responsible for financially supporting their parents under filial responsibility laws — which can be found in California Family Code section 4400.
Suppose a parent experiences a significant mental decline after suffering a stroke, rendering them unable to perform the duties of their longtime job. As a result, they are forced to resign. With the parent no longer having the capacity to make ends meet, they file a filial responsibility claim to seek financial support from their adult child, who has a successful career and the means to provide support. If the court determines the parent is in genuine need and their child has the ability to pay, it may grant the claim, imposing a legal duty on the child to take care of the indigent parent.
Although relatively obscure — particularly in the realm of probate litigation — the court’s interpretation of Family Code section 4400 and its predecessor statute through the years has been surprisingly clear. This well-defined precedent could give Section 4400 new relevance, opening the door for its broader application by probate litigators.
What are filial responsibility laws and how might they be used in probate litigation? Keep reading to explore Keystone’s in-depth analysis.
What Is Filial Responsibility?
Filial responsibility refers to the legal duty certain adult children may have to financially support an infirm or indigent parent.
About filial responsibility, California Family Code section 4400 states:
“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.”
States With Filial Responsibility Laws
As of 2025, there are 30 states with active filial laws on the books. These laws can vary significantly by state and are subject to change as legislation is enacted or repealed. It’s, therefore, crucial to seek the most up-to-date legal information on what states legally require you to care for elderly parents if you are involved in a case concerning filial support.
The 30 states with filial responsibility laws are:
- Alaska
- Arkansas
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Mississippi
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- West Virginia
The states without filial responsibility laws are:
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Colorado
- Florida
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Kansas
- Maine
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- Texas
- Washington
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Does California Have Filial Responsibility Laws?
Yes, California has filial responsibility laws. They can be found in Family Code section 4400.
Understanding California’s Filial Support Laws
California filial laws can be complex to decipher, as they leave room for interpretation. Questions frequently arise, such as: How is a child’s ability — or inability — to provide financial support assessed? What criteria determine whether a parent is genuinely in need of support?
The sections that follow aim to dive deeper into filial responsibility and shed light on these questions.
How Did California Filial Responsibility Laws Originate?
The duty of adult children to financially support their indigent parents has been long-established in California.
The predecessor to Family Code section 4400 was first codified in California in 1872. In describing the scope and origin of the duty of adult children to support parents in need, the court in Swoap v. Superior Court noted that the duty is “deep rooted and of venerable ancestry.”
Swoap traces the duty back to at least the year 1601 as an aspect of the English Elizabethan Poor laws, which are an early example of social welfare statutes.
The underlying rationale for imposing this duty on adult children is that the financial burden of supporting an indigent parent should not fall on the state when capable family members are available to help. Since being codified in 1872, the duty has remained relatively unchanged by the California Legislature.H3: Who Can Bring a Filial Responsibility Action in California?
Family Code section 4403 limits the parties who can bring an action under Family Code section 4400 to two classes of plaintiffs:
(1) The County: Actions that attempt to recoup support payments made by county agencies to a parent with a child who could have provided for their support; and
(2) The Parent Themselves: Actions in which a parent attempts to seek support from their child.
The County
The county is limited to seek recompense insofar as it has provided aid above what is required to be paid under the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Significantly, a review of the case law has demonstrated that various counties in California actively seek reimbursement from the children of persons the county is financially supporting. Moreover, Family Code section 4403(c), allows the court to award attorney’s fees to the county for pursuing an action under this section — potentially placing an additional burden on children who fail or refuse to support an indigent parent.
The Parent Themselves
A parent is also permitted to initiate an action seeking financial support from their adult children.
When a parent is pursuing support from their children, the court will look at the parent’s children collectively — as each child must support the parent in proportion to their ability to do so. Surprisingly, this is true even if a parent is living with one child, and there are other children of sufficient means who are able to provide support to the parent. In effect, one child could be deemed responsible for supporting a parent, while the other children have no similar requirement.
Relatedly, a promise by a child to provide support to a parent is legally binding. Thus, not only can a parent initiate an action seeking support from their children, but they can also seek the enforcement of a promise to provide support made by their children — likely opening up additional remedies related to the enforcement of said promise.
Are Filial Responsibility Laws Enforced?
As one would expect, Family Code section 4400’s validity has been challenged on the grounds that it violates substantive due process, placing an unenforceable burden on adult children to support their parents.
However, the court in Gluckman v. Gaines held that the application of the statutory predecessor to Section 4400 was constitutionally permissible so long as the duty of an adult child to support their parents factored in the child’s ability to pay and considered the extent of the parent’s ability to support themselves.
The Legislature has codified the factors to be considered in determining whether an adult child is legally responsible for the payment of their parent’s support.
Specifically, in determining whether a child has filial responsibility, the court considers each party’s:
- Earning capacity and need;
- Obligations and assets;
- Age and health;
- Standard of living; and
- Other factors the court deems just and equitable.
Therefore, the duty of a child to support their indigent parent is not absolute but is contingent on that child’s ability to support their parent and the extent to which the parent requires support.
Notably, a parent need not be deemed destitute for a child to be required to support them, nor does a child need to be deemed of particular well means. Gluckman found that the degree to which an adult child is required to financially support their parent must be determined based on the particular facts of each case.
How Can You Avoid Filial Responsibility?
To avoid filial responsibility, you generally must prove to the court that you lack the financial means to support your parents. If you are struggling financially yourself, it’s unlikely the court would further burden you.
You may also be able to avoid filial responsibility if you were not supported by your parent when you were a child, your parent abandoned you, or there is a documented history of estrangement or abuse.
That said, filial laws in California are rarely enforced and typically only come into play when a parent is unable to financially support themselves and the county steps in to provide the necessary support.
Whether you are facing a potential claim from the county or from your parent, it’s essential to consult an experienced probate attorney, who can help you understand your rights and develop a strategy to mitigate your financial exposure.
How Might California Filial Laws Apply to Probate Litigation?
Although case law considering Family Code section 4400’s application in contexts other than enforcement of the general obligation of adult children to support their indigent parent is sparse, there may be scenarios commonly encountered by probate litigators in which its application could be broadened.
Fiduciaries Seeking Financial Support on Behalf of the Parent
As Family Code section 4403 makes clear, an action under Section 4400 can be brought only by a county or the parent themselves. Notably, however, there is no limitation (either in statute or case law) that a person legally acting on behalf of the parent could not bring an action for support under Family Code section 4400.
Specifically, a fiduciary, such as a power of attorney or conservator, acting on behalf of an indigent parent should be able to initiate an action seeking support from an adult child who has otherwise failed to provide such support.
This is important for litigators to keep in mind, particularly when representing persons who are legally authorized fiduciaries advocating for an indigent parent, where the indigent parent has children who could contribute to their support.
Suing for Recovery of Assets
Experienced litigators are likely to have encountered a set of circumstances where an adult child, exploiting their parent’s trust or diminishing mental capacity, misappropriates the parent’s assets during the parent’s lifetime. The parent, either themselves or through an agent, is then left to pursue legal action while also attempting to maintain themselves with limited income and resources.
In such a case, an action seeking support under Family Code section 4400 could be brought as an alternative to or in tandem with elder financial abuse claims, 850 petitions or related claims to place further pressure on the child who allegedly stole from their parent.
Moreover, since the support award is contingent on the parent’s ability to support themselves and the child’s ability to provide said support — and not on the actual assets that are the subject of the pending litigation — any support award could be levied on top of the value of the property recovered and could be deemed appropriate, even if the parent is successful in recovering the property that was wrongfully taken from them.
Still confused about California’s filial responsibility laws?
While filial responsibility laws aren’t frequently applied to probate cases, they may offer a unique path forward — especially if you are a fiduciary representing an aging or financially struggling parent or are a struggling parent yourself.
At Keystone, our probate attorneys can help you explore your options and determine whether bringing or defending a filial responsibility claim makes sense in your situation. Call us today to learn how we can help.
Sources
[1] See former Civ. C. §§ 206 and 242
[2] (1973) 10 Cal.3d 490.
[3] (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 52.
[4] Fam. C. § 4404.
[5] See Janes v. Edwards (1935) 4 Cal.App2d 611 (holding that the duty of support imposed by the predecessor to Family Code section 4400 does not require a parent to be deemed destitute).
[6] Most of the cases brought to enforce Family Code section 4400 are, in fact, brought by the county in which the parent resides.
[7] See Gluckman v. Gaines, supra, note 3.
[8] See Britton v. Steinberg (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 358 (holding that son of indigent mother was required to support mother, even though mother lived with daughter for the preceding forty years).
[9] Fam. C. § 4401.
[10] See Huntoon v. Powell (1928) 88 Cal.App.657 (enforcing an oral promise by son to pay indigent mother’s doctor bill).
