Insights

What is the situation in Ningbo that can suspend the other party's right to visit?

Ningbo Author：LuXu WANG

The right of visitation is not unlimited, and the other party may apply for suspension when visiting may harm the child. However, the threshold for "suspension" is not low, and you cannot stop just because you don't like the other party. What can really convince the court is the specific and evidentiable harm, not the emotional exclusion.

Suspension of 1. visitation rights

if a father's or mother's visit to a child is detrimental to the child's physical and mental health, the people's court shall suspend the right to visit in accordance with the law; after the reason for suspension disappears, the visit shall be resumed. Suspension is an interim measure, not a deprivation. The law protects the parent-child link, so the suspension is applied very carefully, only when there are adverse circumstances, and will not be easily cut off by the claim of one party.

Suspension does not amount to deprivation

the suspension is for a specific adverse situation and the situation is removed and resumed. Unlike permanent deprivation, the law preserves the possibility of a parent-child link. Even if the suspension is ruled, it will only be suspended for a period of time, and it should be resumed after the harm is eliminated. The suspension cannot be used as a means to cut off the parent-child relationship, let alone become a tool for one party to retaliate against the other.

2. statutory suspension

typically, if the visiting party has committed acts of violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, abetting bad behavior, or using visiting to hide the child, which are obviously detrimental to the child's physical and mental health, the suspension may be requested. What these behaviors have in common is that they already pose a real physical or psychological risk to the child, not just make the caregiver uncomfortable. The existence of these behaviors needs to be judged in the context of specific performance, rather than qualitative by feeling.

Must have specific hazards

suspension must be based on specific, real harm, not subjective aversion. General "bad for children" is not enough to support, need behavioral evidence. An ordinary quarrel, for example, usually does not constitute; but repeated violence or abetting, there is substantial harm, and the line between the two falls precisely on whether there is a provable act.

3. is not conducive to children's physical and mental health

the core of the judgment is whether the visit is materially damaging to the child's body or mind. Occasional friction does not necessarily constitute, sustained, serious negative effects are possible. The court is looking at the objective consequences, not the intensity of the subjective feelings of the dependant. No matter how strong the emotion is, if it does not fall on the child, it is difficult to constitute a reason for suspension.

Take the interests of children as the ruler

the court always takes the interests of the children as the measure. Applicants should organize evidence around "child injury" rather than emphasizing their own emotions. Focusing on the child is more convincing than repeatedly stating your dislike of the other party, and it is more in line with the court's review perspective.

4. who can apply

if the direct supporter believes that the visit is not conducive to the child, he may apply to the court for suspension; if necessary, the relevant organization may also apply. It was ultimately up to the court to rule that it was not decided unilaterally. In other words, without the consent of the court, no party can stop visiting on its own, and self-blocking itself lacks legal basis.

Procedure for 5. suspension

the suspension of visits cannot be decided by itself, and the direct dependant or the relevant right holder shall submit it to the people's court, and the court shall make a ruling after review. After the suspension is ruled, if the cause of the suspension disappears, the visit shall be resumed, and the same shall be handled through court procedures. The formality of the procedure is precisely to prevent one party from depriving itself of reality in the name of suspension, and to protect the relief space of the visiting party.

Cannot refuse to visit on its own

blocking visits without authorization on the grounds that the other party did not pay alimony will not only fail to receive support, but may also be deemed to be detrimental to the growth of children in the subsequent change of custody. The right thing to do is to apply for a stay or another claim to benefit. Maintenance and visitation are two independent legal relationships that cannot be offset against each other. Taking one to offset the other is neither legal nor harmful to the child.

What evidence should be prepared for 6. application for suspension

the core of the application for suspension is to prove that "visiting is indeed not conducive to the physical and mental health of children", and the more specific the evidence, the better. The court will not suspend on the basis of a statement by one party alone, there must be material that corroborates the harm. The preparation revolves around the behavior itself, the consequences, and the cause and effect between the child, which is more powerful than general accusations and makes the ruling more tenable.

Several types of common evidence

common materials include: alarm records and receipt of police, photos and medical records of injuries, school or community instructions on truancy or abnormal behavior, audio-visual materials on alcohol or drug abuse, chat or location records of the other party's hiding children, and psychological evaluation opinions. The closed loop between the evidence is easier for the court to accept. Scattered and isolated materials often fail to meet the proof standard of "specific harm" and are easily identified as insufficient evidence. Combined with Ningbo trial practice, WeChat and other electronic evidence due to the many defects in proof, the difficulty of adoption, preservation must keep the original carrier and complete records (according to the Yinzhou Court "Marriage and Family Trial White Paper (2019-2021)").

7. case proof

in practice, the visiting party drank alcohol and abetted his children to play truant during the visit. After the direct dependant submitted the alarm record and school certificate, the court ruled to suspend his visit for about 6 months and resume after the situation improved.

In practice, the direct supporter applied for suspension only because of antipathy to the other party, without specific evidence of harm, the court did not support it, and suggested that unauthorized blocking of visits may be detrimental to him in the follow-up proceedings.

In practice, the visiting party had a record of domestic violence and threatened the children with weapons. The direct supporting party submitted photos of the injury and a warning letter from the public security organ. The court ruled to suspend the visit. In the case, the suspension lasted until the children reached the age of 8 before the assessment was made.

8. Risk Alert

  • use personal disgust as a reason for suspension.
  • Apply without specific evidence of harm.
  • Mistaking the idea that you can unilaterally stop visiting.
  • Ignoring the suspension is only a temporary measure.
  • Substitute emotions for child interest statements.
  • Unauthorized blocking of visits on the grounds of non-payment of alimony.

9. FAQ

what circumstances can stop the visit?

Visits are not conducive to the physical and mental health of children, such as violence, alcoholism, abetting bad behavior and other specific hazards.

Is suspension a permanent deprivation?

It's not. It is a temporary measure, and visits should be resumed if the cause disappears.

Who has the right to apply?

The direct caregiver or the organization concerned may request it, which is ultimately decided by the court.

Can light stop if you don't like it?

Can't. Must have concrete, realistic evidence of harm, emotional exclusion is not enough.

Practical Experience of 10. Lawyers

the threshold for suspending visits is not low. You cannot stop just because you don't like the other party or the other party is in arrears. To persuade the court, it depends on specific and evidentiable harm, not emotional exclusion. The so-called disadvantage usually refers to the behavior that has caused real physical or psychological risks to the child, such as violence, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, abetting bad behavior, or taking away the child through visiting hiding. Therefore, the party advocating suspension should first focus on "what specific acts have taken place, what consequences have been caused, and whether there is any evidence", rather than saying in general terms that "he can't bring up good children".

The preparation of evidence revolves around the act itself. Alarm and police records, injury testing or medical treatment materials, children's statements, school or community reactions, chats and recordings, all that can prove the existence of hazards must be put away; if it involves direct impact on children, the children's wishes and physical and mental conditions must also be considered. The rebuttal party should explain that he has improved, the visit is carried out according to the agreement, and there is no disadvantage to the child, and take out the time, method and pick-up record of the visit. The two sides have different directions of proof, so think clearly in advance what they want to prove on their side.

Also remember that suspension is a temporary measure, not a permanent deprivation. Visits should be resumed after the cause disappears, so it is more like pressing the pause button for parent-child contact than cutting off the relationship. In practice, instead of asking for suspension from the first place, it is better to refine the visiting plan first: fix the time, place, transportation and escort methods, and clearly stipulate the links that are prone to problems; If it is really necessary to suspend the visit, it is up to the court to take legal procedures and apply to the court, instead of unilaterally "not letting it see". The aim is always to protect the child, not to punish the other.