Exception for spouses or registered civil partners with a minor child

In a family, one parent may work full-time while the other looks after the children or works only limited hours. If their combined income does not cover all their needs, receiving supplementary basic income support does not necessarily mean the end of a naturalisation application. The law provides a special exception for spouses and registered civil partners with a minor child. Whether it applies depends on their actual family life together and the partner’s employment.

Under § 10(1), sentence 1, no. 3(c) StAG, three elements must be present together: the applicant is a spouse or registered civil partner, they live with a person who works full-time in accordance with point (b), and a minor child forms part of the family unit. Meeting just one of these requirements is not enough.

The exception concerns the requirement to be able to support oneself without benefits under SGB II or SGB XII. It does not waive the other naturalisation requirements. Someone who has not yet completed the required period of residence, for example, may need to rely on another statutory provision for that purpose. The financial exception for families and joint naturalisation are related, but they are not the same thing.

Since July 2026, supplementary benefits under SGB II have been called Grundsicherungsgeld. Even if a benefit decision still uses the name Bürgergeld during the transition, the legal assessment remains the same. The StAG refers to the Social Code. The change of name creates neither an additional relaxation of the requirements nor a new ground for exclusion. §§ 19 and 65a SGB II

An existing marriage is the most common situation in which the exception applies. By “registered civil partner”, the law means a legally established civil partnership, not every lasting personal relationship. Sharing a household, having children together or living together for many years does not automatically turn an unmarried relationship into a registered civil partnership for the purposes of this provision.

For marriages or partnerships formed abroad, we assess their legal classification and the supporting evidence. The certificate and, where necessary, its translation therefore serve more than the general purpose of recording marital status. They establish one element of the exception. Whether a foreign partnership corresponds to the registered civil partnership meant by the legislation may require a separate assessment.

The wording does not require the partner who works full-time to apply for German citizenship at the same time. Nor is that partner’s nationality specified as an additional requirement under point (c). What matters here is their employment meeting the requirements of point (b) and their family life together. All the applicant’s naturalisation requirements must nevertheless still be assessed.

It is not enough for the spouse to have just signed a full-time employment contract. The reference to point (b) means that they must currently be working full-time and must have worked full-time for at least twenty of the last twenty-four months. This time requirement is easily overlooked in family applications.

Changing jobs is not in itself a problem. The required months may come from several consecutive jobs. There is no requirement to have worked for the current employer for twenty months. However, longer periods of part-time work or periods without work cannot be counted as full-time months merely because an employment contract remained in place throughout.

A partner’s full-time self-employment may also be relevant. In that case, the scale of the work and the fact that it is actually being carried out must be evidenced particularly clearly. For employees, full-time work does not necessarily mean a forty-hour week; it depends in particular on the normal working hours at the workplace or under the applicable collective agreement. The detailed article on the full-time employment exception explains how the periods are calculated and what evidence is suitable.

Two part-time jobs held by different spouses cannot simply be added together to make one person’s full-time job. If both parents each work half-days, there is generally no person meeting the full-time employment requirement laid down in the law. However, if the family still covers its needs in full without SGB II or SGB XII benefits, it does not need an exception. Otherwise, childcare requirements may justify a hardship assessment.

The statutory rule requires an actual family relationship in practice. A marriage certificate and the same registered address are not enough if the relationship has in fact ended. Conversely, living separately for work reasons does not automatically mean there is no family unit. What matters is whether a shared life and actual family responsibilities continue.

The official administrative guidance takes a shared life and, generally, a shared household as its starting point. Particular reasons may explain living in separate places. A weekly commuter who stays overnight where they work and otherwise participates in family life is therefore in a different position from spouses who are permanently separated. Occasional visits alone do not establish a sufficient family relationship. AH-StAG 2025, no. 10, paragraphs 111 to 113

The minor child must also be part of this family unit. It is not enough simply to point to a child living elsewhere. For shared care, separate homes or blended families, we describe the actual family relationships. The wording of the law does not expressly require the child to be the biological child of both partners; what matters remains whether the child’s place in the family unit is legally and factually substantiated.

We document family life using relevant registration records, birth certificates, custody or contact arrangements and a clear account of your everyday family circumstances. Not every family needs the same documents. A straightforward shared household will generally need less explanation than different residential addresses or a child regularly moving between two households.

Alongside this, the administrative guidance takes a restrictive approach based on the child’s care needs and the applicant partner’s opportunities to work. It aims in particular to cover families where childcare prevents or limits the applicant’s own employment. For older children, it examines more closely why the applicant is still not working or is working only limited hours.

This approach is an administrative interpretation, not an additional age limit expressly set out in the law. Its scope is legally disputed. A refusal based solely on the blanket statement “The child is already fourteen” therefore falls short. Both the wording of the law and the actual circumstances of the child and family must be included in the assessment.

A school-age child may, for example, need particular support because of a disability, illness or regular therapy appointments. Varying school hours, a lack of afternoon childcare and necessary travel time also matter when considering whether work is actually compatible with childcare. Under the administrative interpretation described above, however, the applicant may be asked why they are not working if their teenage child is largely independent. This does not mean that the law requires them to work a particular number of hours from the child’s fourteenth birthday.

The guidance expressly also covers situations in which constant care is not required but the applicant cannot find sufficient work despite trying. Job applications, professional qualifications and availability may therefore be important when presenting an individual case. Such evidence does not replace the partner’s full-time employment required by law; it addresses a different question.

The family does not have to justify its arrangements by reference to general assumptions about family roles. The rule is not limited to mothers or to families with a male main earner. What matters is the actual division of paid work and care, together with the legally specified partnership. Whether the applicant is a mother, father or registered civil partner does not change the starting point of the assessment.

The requirements must still be met when the decision is made. If the partner becomes unemployed, moves permanently to part-time work or the family unit ends, point (c) may cease to apply. A longer period of full-time employment in the past does not, on its own, secure the exception indefinitely. However, this does not mean that every brief absence due to illness or every period of paid leave automatically causes it to be lost.

A birth may also change the situation. An additional person to support may increase the supplementary benefits received; at the same time, a minor child may establish the required family circumstances for the first time. Whether the partner meets the full-time employment requirements must still be calculated separately. A new family situation does not replace missing months of work.

If the only minor child is approaching adulthood, we clarify in advance how subsistence will be secured afterwards. The applicant’s own employment, changes in housing costs or other income may be relevant. Submitting an application in good time does not generally freeze the child’s age for the entire duration of the procedure.

The age limits applying to other naturalisation questions do not change this. The capacity to act independently in the procedure from the age of 16 and the language rule for children under 16 do not concern the status of being a minor under point (c). A 17-year-old who can already act independently in the procedure may therefore still be the minor child in the family unit. Conversely, an adult child does not continue to establish this exception merely because they are still at school or need financial support. The different consequences of a birthday are explained in Young children, age limits and reaching adulthood during the procedure.

We cross-check the documents to see whether they describe the same current circumstances. An old registration certificate, an employment contract that has since changed and an outdated benefit decision may create a contradictory picture. Changes can usually be explained clearly if their dates and substance are identified. The sheer volume of documents matters less than what they establish.

Particularly with family benefits, a distinction must be made between the person receiving the bank transfer and the people whose needs it covers. A benefit decision may include several family members even though only one bank account is specified. For the financial assessment, it must remain clear which entitlements and income belong to whom.

The fact that a minor child belongs to the family unit does not mean they are automatically naturalised at the same time. A corresponding request for naturalisation is necessary, and the requirements applying to the child must be considered separately. The financial rule for families and joint naturalisation under § 10(2) serve different purposes: one concerns benefit receipt; the other, subject to its requirements, allows family members to be naturalised together despite a shorter period of residence.

For joint naturalisation, the administrative guidance also extends the favourable financial treatment to the minor children concerned. However, this does not mean that everyone living in the household is automatically naturalised. Where there are several children, different custody arrangements or an already German child, we make clear who is applying and which child merely helps establish the condition under point (c).

Single parents cannot rely on point (c) merely because they live with a minor child. The additional requirement of a marriage or registered civil partnership with a person meeting the specified full-time employment conditions is missing. This must be distinguished from the question of whether necessary childcare constitutes particular hardship under § 8(2) StAG.

The same applies to parents who can both work only part-time because of childcare needs. The official guidance points to discretionary naturalisation for these situations. This depends on specific care requirements and reasonable alternatives. The description “family with a child” alone is not enough to support a favourable hardship decision.

For applications made by 23 August 2023, the transitional rule in § 40a StAG may also be important. It may allow a more favourable assessment of benefit receipt for which the applicant is not responsible. We therefore identify the correct assessment route before you plan major changes to work or childcare because of a perceived gap.