The article is about a legal dispute regarding the entitlement to parental allowance during a stay abroad. A plaintiff is contesting the revocation of the parental allowance granted for the seventh to twelfth month of her daughter's life due to a longer stay of the family in Canada. However, the court decided that during this time, the plaintiff neither had a residence nor a habitual residence in Germany and therefore has no entitlement to parental allowance. The State Social Court has determined that during her stay abroad in Canada, the plaintiff could have returned to her fully furnished rental apartment in Germany at any time. However, the circumstances did not indicate that she would use the apartment sufficiently in the future. In order to use an apartment, it must be the center and focus of life. The focus of living conditions is assessed based on economic, legal, and personal circumstances. For planned stays abroad of up to one year, it is presumed that the domestic residence will be maintained unless there are positive indications to the contrary. For stays abroad of more than one year, interim stays in the country must have the character of temporary residence in order to maintain the domestic residence. In parental allowance law, the residence is considered in light of the purpose of this family benefit. The State Social Court (LSG) has correctly determined that the plaintiff gave up her domestic residence in Germany when she moved to Canada with her husband. The LSG has correctly determined that the plaintiff's planned temporary stays in Germany are not sufficient to maintain a comprehensive center of life in Germany. The plaintiff's objections do not demonstrate any forecasting errors by the LSG. It is the responsibility of the factual instances to determine the habitual residence, and the Federal Social Court (BSG) only has to examine whether appropriate criteria were applied. The plaintiff's argument that she received child benefit during her stay in Canada has no influence on the outcome. The parental allowance offices and social courts must independently examine whether the domestic residence or habitual residence continues in the parental allowance procedure. The article addresses the question of whether a domestic residence or habitual residence is required for entitlement to parental allowance. It is stated that the decisions of the family cash offices in tax-related child benefit procedures do not have binding effect on the parental allowance offices. It is emphasized that there are no fundamental differences between the social law and tax law concepts of residence. Furthermore, it is explained that a mere residual employment relationship abroad does not establish entitlement to parental allowance. Finally, it is pointed out that the connection of the entitlement to parental allowance to a domestic residence or habitual residence is constitutionally justified in order to take into account the specific economic conditions in Germany. [Extracted from the article]