Adult Children's Financial Obligations to Parents in Marriage
The financial obligations of adult children to their parents, particularly within the context of marriage, vary across different traditions, with some emphasizing filial support and others focusing on parental duties to children.
In Jewish tradition, the primary financial obligations often flow from parents to children, especially daughters, and these obligations can extend into adulthood and marriage. For instance, a father is required to provide for his children's maintenance, at least until age six, and some interpretations extend this obligation further [1]. The Babylonian Talmud discusses stipulations in marriage contracts where female children are entitled to sustenance from their father's property until they are married [3]. This sustenance can even be provided from the father's estate after his death [8]. If a daughter marries, her husband becomes obligated to provide for her sustenance, but previous obligations from her mother's husbands (e.g., stepfathers) can still hold, requiring them to provide the financial value of her support [2]. Even if adult daughters marry and use a common inheritance for wedding expenses, minor daughters may also draw from that inheritance for their own weddings [9]. The father's financial involvement in a daughter's betrothal is also noted, particularly when the daughter is young, as the father may benefit from the betrothal money and rights to the marriage contract [4, 7].
Conversely, some traditions emphasize the adult child's financial responsibility towards their parents. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, interprets Jesus's commentary on the commandment to "Honor thy father and mother" (Matthew 15:4-6) as requiring children to minister to their parents' support when necessary, not merely to cherish right feelings towards them [5]. This perspective highlights a reciprocal duty where adult children are expected to provide for their parents in their time of need.
The concept of marriage itself also carries civil obligations, as noted by Hodge, where the state has the right to enforce duties such as a husband's obligation to sustain his wife [6]. While this primarily concerns spousal support, it underscores the broader principle of financial responsibility within familial relationships. In some cases, a father might even accept responsibility for a son's financial obligations, such as a daughter-in-law's marriage contract, if the son's own property becomes blighted [10].
Sources
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Marriage 12:14: Just as a man is required to provide his wife with her subsistence, he is required to provide for the maintenance of his children, both male and female, until they reach the age of six. 25 Rabbenu Nissim maintains that this obligation is incumbent on a father from the Torah itself, as an extension of his obligation to provide for his wife. Rabbenu Asher, however, maintains that the father's obligation is independent of the marriage bond. Even if he fathers children outside marriage, he is liable for their support. Afterwards, he shou”
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Marriage 23:18: [The following rules apply when the woman's] daughter marries during the time [in which her mother's husbands] obligated themselves to supply her with her sustenance. Her own husband is obligated to provide her with her sustenance, and both of her mother's husbands are obligated to give her the financial value of her support. [Even when the men] who obligated themselves to support her die, if they affirmed their commitment to her mother with an act of contract or they composed a formal document recording their obligation, [the daught”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 53b.2: § The mishna taught that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract is the clause: Any female children you will have from me will be sustained from my property. The Gemara notes that Rav would teach that the daughters are entitled to sustenance until they are taken as wives by men, and Levi would teach that they are entitled to sustenance until they become grown women. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav, are daughters entitled to sustenance even though they have become grown women, if they are still unmarried? Yet how can this be correct? A”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 102b.3: Rava said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a case of a father whose daughter is a young woman, since the father derives benefit from this betrothal. The money given by the groom for the betrothal, as well as the rights to the bride’s marriage contract, belong to the father of the bride. Consequently, he accepts through verbal agreement alone the obligation to pay the money he specified. However, in the case of a grown woman, where the father does not derive benefit from the betrothal because the rights to the betrothal money and marriage contract belong to t”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 47: Matt. xv. 4 .) It may be remarked here, in passing, that our Lord’s comment on this commandment given in Matthew xv. 4-6 , shows that the honouring of their parents required of children, does not mean simply the cherishing right feelings towards them, but as well the ministering to their support when necessary. Christ said to the Pharisees, “God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother; . . . . but ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift (consecrated to God), by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: inconsistent with the fact that marriage is an ordinance of God, that it should be, in another aspect, a civil institution. It is so implicated in the social and civil relations of men that it of necessity comes under the cognizance of the state. It is therefore a civil institution. (1.) In so far as it is, and must be, recognized and enforced by the state. (2.) It imposes civil obligations which the state has the right to enforce. The husband is bound to sustain his wife, for example, and he is constrained by the civil law to the perform”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 43b.6: Rava raised an objection from a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda says that the payment specified in the first marriage contract belongs to her father. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of one who betroths his daughter when she is a minor, and she matures and subsequently marries, that her father no longer has authority over her once she becomes an adult, and he does not retain his rights to her marriage contract. According to the above explanation, why does Rabbi Yehuda agree in that case? Here too, let him say: Since the father is entitled to the payment of her mar”
- Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Marriage 21:18: What is implied? If the father is [wealthy enough] to be obligated to give charity, the money necessary for his daughter's support should be expropriated from him and used to support the daughter, while she is in her mother's custody. Even if the mother marries another [man], her daughter remains in her custody, and the father is obligated to provide for her sustenance until his death, as an act of charity. [Moreover, even if the girl's] father dies, she is entitled to receive her sustenance from his estate, as a provision of [her mo”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 139a.12: Rav Yehuda says that this is what it is saying: If the adults married after their father’s death and used the common inheritance to pay for their weddings, the minors that marry after their father’s death may also pay for their weddings from the common inheritance. But if the adults married during their father’s lifetime, and the minors said after their father’s death: We will marry in the same manner that you married, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever sum their father gave the adults to pay for their weddings in his lifetime he gave the”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 181a.98:19: The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that it is a case where the son had property of his own at the outset, but afterward it was blighted. Since the son had his own property, the father accepted responsibility for the obligation, and now that the property has no value, the daughter-in-law can collect payment for her marriage contract from the father.”