As a family lawyer who has long handled civil cases involving minors—including divorce disputes, child custody battles, and visitation rights conflicts—I have consistently upheld the following litigation principles:
Mediation first, with the best interests of minors as the priority;
Oppose fighting for custody by transferring or concealing children;
Oppose instilling hostility toward one parent in the child;
Oppose inducing children to express partisan opinions.
My practice is dedicated to minimizing harm to minors amid family conflicts.
Recently, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Guidelines for People’s Courts in Trying Civil Cases Involving Minors (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines). Consisting of 39 specific rules covering the entire process of case acceptance, trial, and enforcement, the Guidelines consolidate mature judicial practices for minor protection and address practical difficulties faced by frontline practitioners. Many of its highlights align closely with my longstanding litigation principles and provide clear practical guidance for divorce lawyers handling minor-related cases.Below, I interpret the core highlights by combining my handled cases and professional practice principles.
Highlight 1: Anchoring the “Best Interests of the Minor” Principle to Resolve Practical Chaos in Custody Battles
Article 1 of the General Provisions of the Guidelines clearly establishes the best interests of the minor as the core criterion, requiring comprehensive protection of the minor’s personal safety, emotional well-being, property, and developmental interests. This is fully consistent with my years of practice opposing child concealment, parental alienation, and hostile indoctrination in custody disputes.
In divorce cases, custody battles often become the focal point of conflict. Some parties resort to extreme measures such as concealing children or maliciously defaming the other parent to gain an upper hand. While such tactics may temporarily control the child, they severely damage the minor’s emotional security and physical and mental health—behaviors I firmly reject in my practice.
Case 1: Year-Long Interprovincial Child Custody Battle
A couple had one daughter. Despite multiple divorce negotiations, they failed to reach an agreement on custody. During one summer vacation, the husband’s family took the child to their hometown under the pretense of a summer visit, removing her from Guangzhou, where the family had long resided. Afterwards, the husband and his relatives repeatedly obstructed the wife’s visitation. When the wife traveled to the hometown to see the child, she was unreasonably refused and insulted.With the guidance of Wumei lawyers, the wife called the police and preserved preliminary evidence of obstruction of visitation.
The wife then filed for divorce, only to discover the husband had already sued in advance, requiring consolidated trial. During this period, the husband transferred the child from the hometown to another province without just cause, creating multiple barriers that left the wife unable to see her child for nearly a year, causing severe parental separation.Such child concealment not only infringed the wife’s guardianship but also violated Article 1 of the Guidelines emphasizing the best interests of the minor, artificially severing the child’s emotional bond with her mother and seriously harming her well-being.
On the day before trial, the husband unexpectedly withdrew his lawsuit to delay proceedings and maintain control over the child. Wumei lawyers responded immediately, assisting the wife in refiling for divorce the same day, using procedural tactics to break the husband’s delaying strategy and fully protect the lawful rights of the mother and child.At trial, counsel helped the wife secure a brief period of reunification in Guangzhou, but the husband again absconded with the child in her pajamas to another province, refusing calls and evading communication.
Wumei lawyers submitted a visualized, evidence-rich account of the husband’s entire course of concealment to the court. The court ultimately focused on the custody dispute and rendered a prompt judgment granting custody of the daughter to the wife. With court and legal support, the mother and child were finally reunited, allowing the child to live stably in Guangzhou.This outcome aligns perfectly with the “best interests of the minor” principle in the Guidelines, confirming the reasonableness of opposing child concealment in custody fights and demonstrating the Guidelines’ role in regulating such harmful practices.
Highlight 2: A Minor Child’s Opinion Is Not a Decisive Factor in Custody Determination
Article 1084 of the Civil Code provides:
Children under two years of age shall be placed in the direct custody of the mother as a general rule;For children aged two and above, if the parents cannot reach an agreement, the court shall decide based on the specific circumstances and in accordance with the best interests of the minor;For children aged eight and above, their true wishes shall be respected.
In practice, many parties seeking custody induce or intimidate children aged eight or older to express inauthentic preferences. This distorts legislative intent, neglects the irreplaceable roles of both parents, and may cause severe psychological harm to minors.
The Guidelines regulate such conduct.Article 18 clarifies that if a minor’s expressed opinion is detrimental to his or her physical and mental health, the court shall explain this in the judgment and decide in line with the best interests of the minor.This effectively curbs opportunistic behavior of manipulating children’s statements.
Highlight 3: Strengthening the Mediation-First Philosophy to Reduce Secondary Harm to Minors
Article 3 of the Guidelines stipulates that, except for matters unsuitable for mediation such as status confirmation, civil cases involving minors shall actively pursue mediation, with the participation of multiple stakeholders if appropriate.This aligns closely with my practice principle: mediation first, priority protection of minors’ interests.
In divorce disputes, spousal hostility easily transfers to children. Mediation minimizes confrontation and redirects parties from “fighting for interests” to “jointly supporting the child’s growth”—a core approach consistently upheld by Wumei lawyers.Compared with adversarial judgments, mediation reduces psychological shock to minors and facilitates smoother future implementation of visitation, child support, and other arrangements.
Case 2: Facilitative Mediation Safeguards Minor’s Interests
A couple had one son. After the wife’s first divorce petition was denied, the husband and his family maliciously blocked her visitation, leaving her unable to see the child for more than six months and causing severe emotional distress.The husband also committed adultery, concealed equity in a pre-IPO company, and held real estate under relatives’ names. Conflicts escalated sharply; the husband refused all negotiation, leaving mediation at an impasse.
After being retained by the wife, Wumei lawyers did not rush to litigation. Guided by the principle of prioritizing the minor’s interests, we prioritized mediation to rebuild the mother-child bond and reduce harm from parental separation, rather than focusing solely on adversarial property division.
Using facilitative mediation techniques and coordinating with the court, we clarified the legal consequences of the husband’s conduct while accommodating his reasonable requests, gradually defusing hostility.Ultimately, through multi-party coordinated mediation, the parties reached a comprehensive agreement establishing a clear visitation schedule, property division, and child support terms.This achieved the client’s core demands while minimizing secondary harm to the minor. The successful resolution exemplifies the deep integration of the Guidelines’ mediation philosophy with Wumei’s litigation principles.
The Guidelines explicitly encourage multi-stakeholder mediation involving close relatives, schools, neighborhood committees, civil affairs authorities, the Communist Youth League, women’s federations, care committees, social organizations, and social workers.This provides clear guidance for family lawyers handling complex minor-related divorce cases.My consistent principle—mediation first, minor interests paramount—aligns with the Guidelines’ core spirit of the best interests of the child, ensuring that emotional and physical well-being remains prioritized even amid complex property and equity disputes, preventing intensified parental conflict from harming children.
Compared with rigid judgments, mediation resolves multiple disputes efficiently and supports sustainable implementation of visitation and support, achieving unity of legal and social effects and validating the practical importance of strengthened mediation under the Guidelines.
Conclusion
Based on years of family dispute practice, the core highlights of the Guidelines in family trial are twofold:
Upholding the fundamental principle of the best interests of the minor, regulating harmful practices such as child concealment and induced testimony, clarifying that a child’s opinion is not dispositive, and prioritizing physical, mental, and emotional health;
Reinforcing the mediation-first model to resolve family conflicts peacefully, minimize secondary harm from parental confrontation, and provide clear practical standards for legal practice.
As family lawyers, we believe the best interests of the minor must guide the entire case.A compassionate and responsible family lawyer should embrace the vision that “the softest under heaven overrides the hardest under heaven.”We not only protect clients’ lawful rights and maximize their interests but also think long-term, planning comprehensively for the future of clients and their families.