Our Expert in Romania
No results available
Last updated: 4 September 2026
Romanian law does not impose a fixed or automatic amount of child maintenance. The court assesses the needs of the child together with the means of the parent who owes maintenance. The percentages set out in the Romanian Civil Code are maximum limits, not standard awards.
This distinction is important. A calculation based only on the paying parent’s salary may be incomplete, while simply applying the statutory maximum may produce a misleading result. The child’s age, education, health, ordinary living expenses and the resources of both parents may all be relevant.
Both parents have a legal obligation to support their minor child. As a rule, the parent with whom the child lives fulfils this obligation primarily in kind, through day-to-day care and by meeting the child’s needs directly. If the other parent does not contribute voluntarily in kind, the court may order that parent to pay maintenance in money.
Under Articles 527–530 of the Romanian Civil Code, the assessment is based on:
the child’s needs;
the income, assets and other resources of the parent liable to pay;
that parent’s ability to obtain income; and
the parent’s other legal maintenance obligations.
The child’s needs and the parent’s means may be proved by any admissible evidence.
Article 529 of the Civil Code establishes the following maximum limits:
| Children entitled to maintenance | Maximum share of the parent’s net monthly income |
|---|---|
| One child | Up to one quarter (25%) |
| Two children | Up to one third (approximately 33.33%) in total |
| Three or more children | Up to one half (50%) in total |
These are ceilings. The court is not required to award the maximum percentage and there is no universal “usual rate” applicable to every case.
The total maintenance owed to children and to any other persons legally entitled to maintenance may not exceed one half of the liable parent’s net monthly income.
Maintenance may be set either as a fixed sum or as a percentage of net monthly income. A fixed sum is adjusted by operation of law every quarter according to the inflation rate.
The court considers the evidence in the individual case rather than applying a purely mathematical formula. Relevant evidence may include:
salary and other regular income;
tax records and evidence of income from independent activities;
property and other assets;
the parent’s realistic earning capacity;
the child’s housing, food, clothing and transport costs;
education and extracurricular expenses;
medical or therapy costs; and
other existing legal maintenance obligations.
The statutory fraction is applied to the liable parent’s net monthly income only as an upper limit. It should not be presented as an automatic award. Likewise, particular expenses do not automatically permit the court to exceed the limits in Article 529.
Where income is irregular or disputed, the court may examine a broader evidential picture. A parent’s lack of formally declared income does not necessarily exclude maintenance if the evidence shows assets, resources or a genuine ability to earn.
If a parent has a proven net monthly income of RON 4,000 and owes maintenance to one child, the maximum calculated under Article 529(2) is RON 1,000 per month. The court may award that amount or a lower amount, depending on the child’s established needs and the parent’s means and other obligations.
This example identifies only the statutory ceiling. It does not predict the outcome of a particular case.
Parents owe maintenance to a minor child. If, after reaching the age of 18, the child continues their studies, the parents may remain obliged to provide support until those studies are completed, but not beyond the age of 26.
The position of an adult child should be assessed separately. Continued maintenance is not merely an automatic extension of an order concerning a minor in every procedural setting.
As a rule, maintenance is due from the date on which the court claim is filed. It may exceptionally be awarded for an earlier period if the filing of the claim was delayed through the debtor’s fault.
This is distinct from the recovery of instalments already due under an existing enforceable instrument.
Under Article 531 of the Civil Code, the court may increase or reduce maintenance, or terminate it, when there has been a change in:
the means of the person providing maintenance; or
the needs of the person receiving it.
A request for an increase should therefore identify the relevant change since the earlier order or agreement and support it with evidence. The same principle applies when the paying parent seeks a reduction.
Possible evidence includes updated income documents, tax records, medical documents, education expenses, proof of changed living costs and evidence concerning other maintenance obligations. The appropriate evidence depends on the facts; there is no fixed checklist that will be sufficient in every case.
In Decision no. 36 of 23 February 2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 495 of 16 June 2026, the High Court of Cassation and Justice clarified the procedure applicable to claims seeking an increase in maintenance owed by a parent to a minor.
The High Court held that, in such proceedings:
hearing a child who has reached the age of 10 is not mandatory; and
the court is not required to decide on the basis of a psychosocial inquiry report.
The ruling concerns proceedings whose object is the increase of child maintenance. It should not be generalised to disputes concerning parental responsibility, the child’s residence or contact arrangements, in which different statutory requirements and considerations may apply.
Nor does the decision prevent a court from administering evidence that it considers necessary in the circumstances. Its significance is that neither the child’s hearing nor a psychosocial inquiry is automatically required solely because the claim concerns an increase in maintenance.
A maintenance obligation contained in an enforceable court judgment or another enforceable instrument may be pursued through a Romanian bailiff (executor judecătoresc). Depending on the circumstances and the applicable procedural rules, enforcement measures may include:
garnishment of salary or other periodic income;
attachment of bank accounts;
seizure and sale of movable assets; and
enforcement against immovable property.
For maintenance obligations, up to one half of the debtor’s net monthly income may be garnished. The precise enforcement route and the documents required should be checked in each case. It is unsafe to assume that every form of enforcement begins with the same notice period.
Intentional non-payment may also have criminal-law consequences. Article 378 of the Romanian Criminal Code addresses, among other conduct, bad-faith non-payment for three months of maintenance established by a court or notarial instrument. The offence is punishable by imprisonment from six months to three years or a fine, and prosecution is initiated following a prior complaint by the injured person. Because criminal liability requires the statutory conditions—including bad faith—to be established, a criminal complaint is not a substitute for civil enforcement and should not be presented as an automatic remedy for arrears.
When the creditor and debtor are in different countries, the applicable mechanism depends on the states involved, the date and nature of the decision, and the relevant international instrument.
Within the European Union, Council Regulation (EC) no. 4/2009 governs jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforceability, enforcement and cooperation in maintenance matters. Whether a decision circulates without a declaration of enforceability depends, among other matters, on whether the state of origin is bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations.
For cases involving states outside the relevant EU framework, the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance may apply if both states are bound by it. Other treaties or domestic recognition and enforcement rules may be relevant where no common instrument applies.
Central authorities may assist with qualifying applications, but they do not replace the courts or enforcement bodies of the requested state. No reliable universal completion time can be given: translation, service, challenges to recognition, incomplete documentation and difficulties locating the debtor or assets can materially affect the process.
Before starting proceedings, it is useful to establish:
whether maintenance is already contained in an enforceable judgment, notarial instrument or agreement;
the child’s current and documented needs;
the paying parent’s proven resources and other legal obligations;
whether a fixed sum or a percentage award is more appropriate; and
in an international case, which EU regulation, convention or domestic procedure applies.
Child-maintenance cases are fact-sensitive. The statutory percentages provide limits, but they do not replace an assessment of the child’s needs, the parents’ respective contributions and the evidence available in the particular case.
For advice on Romanian child-maintenance proceedings or the cross-border recognition and enforcement of maintenance decisions, contact Eniko Fulop at Fulop Lawyers (emails – eniko@fuloplawyers.com, contact@fuloplawyers.com), a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Romanian Civil Code, Articles 499 and 527–534, Romanian Legislative Portal
High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision no. 36 of 23 February 2026
Romanian Criminal Code, Article 378, Romanian Legislative Portal
posted 6 minutes ago
posted 25 minutes ago
posted 46 minutes ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 4 hours ago
posted 5 hours ago
No results available
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Send welcome message