Judicial Holding
The Anti-Domestic Violence Law of the People's Republic of China defines domestic violence as physical, psychological, or other forms of infringement committed among family members by beating, binding, mutilating, restricting personal freedom, as well as frequent verbal abuse and intimidation. Parties who have suffered domestic violence or are in imminent danger of domestic violence may apply to the court for a personal safety protection order.
In divorce cases involving domestic violence, although some children are not directly subjected to physical violence, witnessing domestic violence also causes physical and mental harm to them. Child snatching behaviors between parents fighting for custody constitute a form of domestic violence. On this basis, an application for a personal safety protection order may be filed on the ground that the child witness to domestic violence “has suffered or is facing the risk of restriction of personal freedom”, so as to protect the child.
Case Summary
Ding filed a lawsuit with the court over divorce disputes with Li. Upon learning of this, Li went to Ding’s parents’ home on the pretext of negotiating a settlement. During the negotiation, Li lost control of his emotions and injured Ding with a knife. Their son, Xiao Li, witnessed the entire incident.
With the assistance of her lawyers, Ding successfully applied to the court for a personal safety protection order, which also covered Xiao Li. During the validity period of the order, Li did not harass Ding or Xiao Li. Before the order expired, Ding applied to the court for an extension. However, the court eventually dismissed the application on the grounds that Li had not committed domestic violence or harassment against Ding and Xiao Li during the validity period, and that there was no “situation of suffering or imminent danger of domestic violence”.
After the protection order expired, Li demanded to take Xiao Li away. Having repeatedly witnessed Li’s violent acts, Xiao Li suffered severe psychological fear and repeatedly refused to contact Li or his grandmother. To ease Xiao Li’s fear, Ding had previously taken Xiao Li to a psychologist, but considerable time would be required to completely eliminate the trauma. Therefore, Ding refused Li’s request.
Shortly after Ding’s refusal, Li, accompanied by his mother and cousin, blocked Xiao Li at the school gate and attempted to forcibly take him away after school. A confrontation ensued between Ding and Li’s relatives. Xiao Li strongly resisted and explicitly refused to go with Li. Under Ding’s protection, Xiao Li reached the after-school care center, but Li and his cousin followed him. Xiao Li became highly agitated upon seeing them persistently following. To rationally persuade Li that separate visits were inappropriate at that time, Ding suggested that Li’s cousin communicate with Xiao Li alone to inquire about his true wishes.
Only after Xiao Li again clearly refused did Li and his family leave. After returning home, Xiao Li, who had gradually recovered from the shadow of domestic violence with his mother’s efforts, relapsed into extreme nervousness and anxiety.
Later, Ding communicated with Li via WeChat, hoping that he would temporarily refrain from taking coercive measures to visit Xiao Li. However, Li insisted on contacting Xiao Li in his own “reasonable manner”.
A few days later, Li returned with his cousin to block Xiao Li at the school gate. Upon seeing Li, Xiao Li immediately ran back into the school in fear. Li chased him inside and attempted to forcibly take him away. Xiao Li resisted strongly and explicitly refused to leave with Li. Nevertheless, Li held Xiao Li in his arms and persisted in taking him away. Meanwhile, Li and his cousin repeatedly bumped into Xiao Li’s maternal grandmother, who had come to pick him up, and prevented her from recording the scene, causing her phone to fall to the ground. The scene became chaotic.
Terrified, Xiao Li ran further into the school’s sports room, with Li in pursuit. Two physical education teachers noticed the situation, escorted Xiao Li to the infirmary deeper inside, and locked the door. School security arrived and reprimanded Li for disturbing order on campus, after which Li left. Traumatized by the incident, Xiao Li was so scared that he refused to go to school the next day. He only reluctantly agreed after being comforted by his mother.
Xiao Li had long witnessed Li’s domestic violence against Ding. In particular, after Li injured Ding with a knife in front of him, Xiao Li suffered severe physical and mental harm and expressed extreme reluctance to face his father. Ding then turned to the Wumei legal team for help.
After a thorough review of the case, the lawyers applied to the court for a personal safety protection order on behalf of Xiao Li, requesting the court to prohibit Li from harassing, stalking, or contacting Xiao Li and his mother Ding.
Court Order
The applicant, Xiao Li, is a minor in the process of psychological and personality development, with fragile mental capacity and low resilience. He personally witnessed his parents, his closest relatives, become enemies, and saw Li injure Ding with a knife. This has caused serious physical and mental harm and extreme psychological pressure to Xiao Li.
On [date] and [date], 20**, Li met with Xiao Li and attempted to take him away despite Xiao Li’s explicit refusal. Such insistence imposed further severe psychological pressure on Xiao Li and seriously disrupted his normal life and studies.
In summary, the application filed by Xiao Li complies with the provisions of Article 29 of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law of the People's Republic of China. The court orders as follows:
The Respondent, Li, is prohibited from harassing, stalking, or contacting the Applicant Xiao Li and his mother Ding.
This ruling shall take effect on the date of issuance and shall remain valid for six months.If Li violates the above prohibition, the court shall, in accordance with Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, impose a fine or detention according to the seriousness of the case; if the act constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law.
Lawyer’s Comments
I. Difficulties in Handling the Case
How to establish harm to a child witness of domestic violence?
The Anti-Domestic Violence Law does not explicitly list child witnesses to domestic violence as protected persons. However, broad social consensus recognizes that domestic violence inflicts profound harm on such children. In 2015, Taiwan amended its Domestic Violence Prevention Law to specifically protect children and adolescents who witness domestic violence, prohibiting the perpetrator from harassing, contacting, stalking, calling, corresponding with, or engaging in other unnecessary interactions with them. Temporary separation between the child and the abusive parent before the impact of violence subsides is an important measure to mitigate harm.
Did Xiao Li qualify for a personal safety protection order?
Article 23 of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law stipulates that a party may apply for a personal safety protection order if he or she “has suffered domestic violence or is in imminent danger of domestic violence”. The law defines domestic violence as physical, psychological, or other infringements by means of beating, binding, mutilating, restricting personal freedom, frequent verbal abuse, or intimidation among family members.
To objectively demonstrate the psychological trauma caused by Li’s violence to Xiao Li, the court appointed a social supervisor to conduct in-depth interviews with Xiao Li at his school. Xiao Li told the supervisor that his parents had quarreled since he was two years old; Li had beaten Ding on [date], September 2016; and in June 2017, Li had come to the school and attempted to forcibly drag him home. Xiao Li repeatedly stated that he did not want Li to visit him at school or the after-school care center. Social workers provided psychological counseling for Xiao Li, emotional support for Ding, and professional psychological assessments. Working from the principle of the best interests of the child, they collaborated with the legal team to develop a solution and assist in applying for the protection order.
II. Strategies and Approaches
First, public understanding of domestic violence often remains limited to physical violence, with insufficient awareness of psychological violence, sexual violence, and other forms. In cases involving non-physical violence, multiple methods should be used to prove harm to the court, such as engaging professional psychological counselors to issue assessment reports and applying for family court investigators to conduct thorough inquiries. In this case, the legal team leveraged the support of social workers, psychologists, and court-appointed social supervisors to demonstrate Li’s harm to Xiao Li from multiple perspectives.
Second, since the Anti-Domestic Violence Law does not explicitly cover child witnesses, protecting Xiao Li within the existing legal framework presented a core challenge. Li’s repeated attempts to forcibly take Xiao Li constituted an attempt to restrict his personal freedom. Despite Xiao Li’s repeated refusals, Li insisted on confronting him and abducting him from school, causing severe fear and psychological injury. Even though Li did not succeed in taking Xiao Li away, he clearly placed Xiao Li in “imminent danger of restriction of personal freedom”.
Meanwhile, Article 1 of the General Provisions of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law states its purpose as “to prevent and stop domestic violence, protect the lawful rights and interests of family members, maintain equal, harmonious, and civilized family relations, and promote family harmony and social stability”. Based on these two grounds, the legal team filed the application for a personal safety protection order on Xiao Li’s behalf.
III. Implications of the Case
In domestic violence cases, harm extends beyond the direct victim to child witnesses, who also require protection. Any physical, psychological, or other violent conduct within the household may adversely affect minors present in the environment. Though not directly abused, they are directly or indirectly exposed to violence.
Xiao Li, who witnessed his father’s violence against his mother, represents a typical case of severe psychological trauma among child witnesses to domestic violence. He received nearly one year of psychological counseling yet continued to suffer from nightmares, irritability, and obvious aversion toward his father.
This case demonstrates that responses to domestic violence must focus not only on the primary victim but also on children exposed to violent environments. Where circumstances permit, child witnesses to domestic violence should be included in the scope of protection under anti-domestic violence legislation, particularly through personal safety protection orders.