Hu v. Chen, a dispute over the modification of custody relationship
-- Issued the country's first "Family Education Guidance Order"
keyword
Civil, change of custody relationship, custody of minors, family education guidance order
Basic facts of the case
In August 2020, the plaintiff Hu and the defendant Chen divorced by agreement, agreeing that the 8-year-old daughter Hu Xiaomou would be raised by his mother, the defendant Chen, and the plaintiff would pay monthly child support. Later, because the defendant remarried, he did not send Hu Xiaomou to school for two or three weeks. The plaintiff himself lived in a country villa 20 kilometers away from Hu Xiaomou's residence, and the nanny took care of Hu Xiaomou alone, and the defendant went to pick up the children every weekend. The plaintiff Hu believed that after the divorce, the defendant Chen failed to fulfill the obligation to raise his daughter as agreed, so he sued Chen to the court, requesting the court to order the custody of his daughter Hu Xiaomou to be changed to the plaintiff. After being questioned by the court, Hu Xiaomou expressed his preference to live with his mother Chen.
On January 6, 2022, the Tianxin District People's Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province, rendered a civil judgment, rejecting all of plaintiff Hu's claims. After the judgment was pronounced, none of the original defendants appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect. At the same time, in accordance with the "Family Education Promotion Law", the court issued the first "Family Education Guidance Order" to the defendant Chen.
Grounds for the Trial
The effective judgment of the court held that after the plaintiff Hu and the defendant Chen divorced by agreement, they still had the obligation to raise, educate and protect their minor daughter Hu Xiaomou. In this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant neglected to perform their support obligations and assume guardianship duties, ignoring Hu Xiaomou's physical, psychological and emotional needs. In view of Hu Xiaomou's subjective willingness to live with his mother, the defendant, the court ruled to reject the plaintiff's claim. At the same time, the court held that the defendant Chen's entrustment of a nanny to take care of his young daughter alone without justifiable reasons was an act of negligence in fulfilling his family education responsibilities, and should be corrected in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Family Education Promotion Law. The ruling requires Chen to pay more attention to Hu Xiaomou's physical and psychological conditions and emotional needs, contact and communicate more with school teachers, understand Hu Xiaomou's detailed situation, and require Chen to live with Hu Xiaomou, have himself or his close relatives personally raise and accompany Hu Xiaomou, earnestly perform guardianship duties, assume the main responsibility for family education, and must not allow Hu Xiaomou to live alone with a nanny.
Summary of the trial
As a minor who has reached the age of 8, Hu Xiaomou cannot simply be regarded as the object of protection, but must fully consider and respect his requirements and consciousness that are compatible with his behavior and his own cognitive ability. Hu Xiaomou already has a certain judgment ability and value measurement and selection criteria for the relationship between his parents, his parents' ability to raise them, and which one of his parents he is willing to live with, so the court should respect Hu Xiaomou's claim that he prefers to live with his mother during the trial. In view of the fact that the defendant in this case failed to earnestly perform his maintenance obligations and assume guardianship duties in accordance with the agreement, the court issued the first "Family Education Guidance Order" to the defendant after the judgment was pronounced, the purpose of which was to truly maximize the interests of children, fully embodying the people's court's exploration and innovation in the judicial protection of minors, and responding to the people's new requirements and expectations for the construction of family education and family style. The purpose of releasing this case is to remind parents to conscientiously fulfill their major responsibilities as parents, strengthen the construction of family education and family style, and strive to create a good family environment for the healthy growth of minors.