Children Discovered Non-biological in Ningbo: Rules of Compensation for Fraudulent Raising
found that the children raised for many years were not their own. In addition to anger, many people were more concerned about a practical problem: whether the money spent in these years could be returned, how much it could be returned, and which side the law was on. To state the conclusion upfront: where one party conceals the fact that a child is not biologically theirs, leading the other party to mistakenly believe the child is their own and to actually provide for the child’s upbringing, judicial practice generally recognizes this as “fraudulent support.” The defrauded party is entitled to seek reimbursement of the support payments already made, compensation for emotional distress, and recovery of the costs associated with a paternity test. There is a clear case in Ningbo: in the dispute over liability for damages after Wang mou 1 and tong mou divorced, the people's court of ninghai county ruled that the concealer should compensate 20000 yuan for mental damages, 3000 yuan for appraisal fees, and return 30000 yuan for alimony, totaling 53000 yuan. However, there is no uniform price list for the amount of compensation. For the same cause of action, local judgments range from several thousand yuan to hundreds of thousands of yuan. What really determines is the length of upbringing, evidence of actual expenditure, local living standards and the degree of fault.
1. What is fraudulent upbringing?
The so-called fraudulent upbringing refers to the fact that one of the spouses (usually the woman) conceals the fact that the child born to him is not born to the other, so that the other spouse (usually the man) takes the child as his own child in the state of being deceived. Judges Xiao Feng of the Supreme Court and Tian Yuan of the Heze Intermediate Court defined it as the fraudulent party's concealment of the fact that the children born to the fraudulent party were non-legitimate children in the "Thinking and Rules of Judgment of Marriage and Family Disputes", so that the fraudulent party was deceived The act of raising the children born to others as their own children. Once the truth is revealed, the ensuing disputes—such as claims for reimbursement of child support and compensation for emotional distress—are collectively referred to as fraudulent child-rearing disputes.
From the perspective of adjudication practice, it is generally necessary to satisfy three requirements at the same time to constitute fraudulent upbringing.
First, there was concealment. The fraudster knew or should have known that the child was not the child of the other party, but failed to tell the truth. Concealment is not limited to outright lying; knowingly remaining silent for a prolonged period while the other party remains under a misunderstanding also constitutes fraud. The courts in the Wei and Du cases emphasized that the essence of fraud lies in "deliberate concealment". Conversely, if one party truthfully disclosed at the time of marriage that “the child may not be yours,” and the other party, after becoming aware of this, still voluntarily agreed to raise the child, it would be difficult to establish fraud. In the case of Mr. Yu from Suining, the defendant relied on this very defense, but the court rejected it because he failed to produce any evidence.
Second, the party subjected to fraud forms a mistaken belief. The defrauded party, based on the other party's concealment, has always believed that the child is his own biological child, thus forming a misunderstanding. This misidentification is persistent and rooted in the deception of the other party, rather than the fraud party's own gross negligence.
Third, there is the factual existence of actual support.The defrauded party, acting on a mistaken belief, has in fact assumed the obligation of support and has expended money, time, and effort. As long as there is a real fact of upbringing, property damage is formed; the longer the upbringing and the deeper the feelings invested, the greater the mental damage is usually. It should be noted that the raising of a person who has no legal obligation to raise is itself the basis for the occurrence of damage-if there is an obligation to raise (for example, a biological child or a legal relationship of adoption and stepparents), there is no problem of "being cheated to raise.
Three relief paths after the discovery of non-biological 2.
After discovering that the child is not biologically theirs, the course of action chosen directly determines whether the case can be filed and whether the claim will be upheld. There are three main ways in practice.
Path 1: Complaint of denial of parent-child relationship. Article 1073 of the Civil Code stipulates that if there is any objection to the parent-child relationship and there is a justifiable reason, the father or mother may file a lawsuit with the people's court to request to confirm or deny the parent-child relationship; if an adult child has any objection to the parent-child relationship and there is a justifiable reason, he may request to confirm the parent-child relationship. This is a special lawsuit in which the parties break the "presumption of legitimate children" and legally deny the parent-child relationship. Its significance is to first fix the basic fact that "I am not the father of the child" and pave the way for subsequent claims. In the Tian XX case, the party concerned first sued to confirm that he had no parent-child relationship with the child, and after the judgment came into effect, he sued separately for the return of alimony and compensation for spiritual comfort.
Path 2: Disputes over liability for damages after divorce. This is the most common cause of fraudulent maintenance claims. The Ninghai case, the Wu case, the Bu case, the Yu case, and the Du case all involve “disputes over liability for damages arising after divorce.” The legal logic is to characterize the concealment as a tort: the fraudulent party violates the duty of loyalty of the husband and wife, infringes on the spouse's right, personal dignity and other personal rights and interests of the fraudulent party, causing property damage and moral damage, and the fraudulent party has the right to claim compensation. The basis for the claim includes Article 1165, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code (a person who infringes upon another’s civil rights through fault shall bear tort liability) and Article 1183 (where the infringement of a natural person’s personal rights causes severe mental damage, compensation for mental distress may be claimed).
Path 3: Support refund. Judicial practice generally does not deal with alimony that has been paid in divorce cases, but rather in damages or in a separate claim for return. There are several theories on the theoretical basis of return-the theory of invalidity (the support caused by fraud is an invalid civil act against the true meaning and should be returned), the theory of no-cause management (the support without legal obligation constitutes no-cause management), the theory of unjust enrichment (the other party has no legal basis to obtain benefits and should be returned), and the theory of tort (evading the legal support obligation and deceiving the other party to support on its behalf constitutes infringement). Suining Yu's case adopted the idea of "invalid civil act" and determined that raising non-biological children "is an invalid civil act against its true meaning", thus supporting the return.
In addition, fraudulent maintenance needs to be distinguished from "divorce damages. Article 1091 of the Civil Code provides that if divorce is caused by bigamy, cohabitation with another person, domestic violence, abuse or abandonment of family members, or other serious misconduct, the party at no fault shall have the right to claim damages. Although fraudulent upbringing also occurs in marriage, the practice is more treated as a general tort (dispute over liability for damage after divorce), because the core of the damage is the property loss and mental pain caused by "fraudulent upbringing", rather than a simple marital fault. For the parts where the two may overlap, the parties tend to choose a more favorable path to claim.
The three paths are not mutually exclusive. In most cases, the parties can first do a paternity test to fix the facts, and then claim the return of alimony and spiritual comfort money together with the "dispute over liability for damage after divorce.
Scope and amount of 3. compensation
The compensation for fraudulent support usually includes three parts: return of support, compensation for mental damage, appraisal fee and other reasonable expenses.
How to calculate the (I) maintenance fee. The court generally does not accept the amount claimed by the plaintiff in full, but deals with it in two paragraphs and emphasizes the evidence. First, for the maintenance during the marriage relationship, many courts believe that the expenses that belong to the joint property of the husband and wife only support the return of half of them. In Du's case, the court made it clear that "the defendant should return 50% of the maintenance spent during the marriage relationship", while the expenses spent on continuing maintenance after divorce can be returned in full. The calculation method of Wei's case is more detailed: the 33 months of joint support are calculated by half, and the part of separate support after divorce is calculated in full, and then multiplied by the per capita consumption expenditure standard. Second, the court is usually willing to support the actual costs incurred during the period after divorce when the defrauded party is in sole custody, as long as there is evidence of transfer records, bills, etc. In Wu Mou's case, the plaintiff submitted a bank account to prove that he far exceeded the maintenance expenses claimed by his ex-wife, and the court decided to return 3000
00yuan accordingly.
What needs to be noted is that in many cases, the plaintiff can't come up with the supporting expenses one by one, and the court can only "decide". The Ninghai case court decided to return 30000 yuan "according to the child's age, local living standard, and the fact that both parties are jointly raising before divorce". In Yu's case, when the plaintiff was unable to prove the actual expenditure, the court decided to 25000 yuan in combination with the support ability of both parties and the local living standard. Du decided 60000 yuan in a case. This suggests that it is more advantageous to keep evidence of dependency expenses than to estimate them afterwards.
(II) compensation for mental damage. This is the most flexible piece of compensation, with obvious differences in local judgments: 20000 yuan in Ninghai case, 100000 yuan in Wu Mou case, 20000 yuan in Tian Mou case, 10000 yuan in Bu Mou case, 10000 yuan in Wei Mou case, 10000 yuan in Du Mou case and only 5000 yuan in Yu Mou case. The reason for the disparity in amount is mainly determined by the court based on the following factors: the length of the upbringing time (Tian Moumou has been upbringing for nearly 20 years and the spiritual consolation money is 20000 yuan; Step a certain upbringing time is short, and the discretion is 10000 yuan), the degree of emotional dependence and investment of the fraudulent party on the child, the severity of the damage consequences, the degree of fault of the fraudulent party, the economic ability of the infringer and the average living standard of the court. Notably, Judges Xiao Feng and Tian Yuan pointed out in their analysis that compensation for non‑pecuniary damage serves multiple functions—economic compensation, emotional solace, and deterrence of unlawful conduct—aiming not only to redress the harm but also to alleviate suffering, sanction tortfeasors, and uphold the stability of the societal child‑rearing system. This explains why, in some cases, even when the defrauded party has spent only a short time living with the child, the court still awards compensation for emotional distress—because what is being protected is the legal system itself, rather than merely individual feelings.
(III) Appraisal fees and other expenses. The cost of paternity testing belongs to the loss directly caused by infringement. As long as there is an invoice, the court generally supports it in full. In the Wu case, expert appraisal fees of RMB 6,000 were approved; in the Ninghai case, RMB 3,000 were approved; and in the Wei case, RMB 4,305 were approved. Furthermore, in the case of Wei, the court also ordered the reimbursement of pregnancy-related expenses, including prenatal examination fees, totaling RMB 4,593.91. However, in the case involving Mr. Wu, claims for prenatal care and nutrition expenses, advance payments for child support, and attorney’s fees were not upheld due to insufficient evidence or lack of legal basis.
4. How is a paternity test conducted, and what happens if one refuses to undergo the test?
Paternity testing is the “king of evidence” in cases involving fraudulent child support, but how to initiate the process and what to do when the other party refuses to cooperate are among the most challenging issues in practice.
First, the parties may independently engage a qualified appraisal institution to conduct an appraisal. In the case of Wu, even though the forensic examination was commissioned solely by the plaintiff, the court still accepted its findings as long as the examining institution possessed the requisite qualifications for forensic biological evidence examination, the conclusions were reliable, and the opposing party did not object.
Secondly, it is also the most critical point: if one party applies for identification and provides certain preliminary evidence, but the other party refuses to cooperate, the law stipulates the adverse consequences. Article 39 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Code of the the People's Republic of China Civil Code clearly states that if the father or mother files a lawsuit with the people's court to deny the parent-child relationship and has provided necessary evidence to prove it, and the other party refuses to do the paternity test without contrary evidence, the people's court may determine that the claim of the party denying the parent-child relationship is established; The prosecution requests confirmation of paternity and provides necessary evidence, if the other party refuses to make a paternity test without evidence to the contrary, the people's court may determine that the claim of the party confirming the paternity relationship is valid.
The case of Chen Mou is a typical embodiment of this rule. The plaintiff Chen provided preliminary evidence such as birth certificate, vaccination certificate, photos and videos. The defendant Feng even explicitly admitted in the lawsuit that the child was born during the cohabitation period, but still refused to do a paternity test. The court, in combination with the defendant's self-admission and the statement of the third person, finally confirmed the establishment of the parent-child relationship. It should be noted that the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Judicial Interpretation (III) of the Marriage Law was applied in the judgment of this case, and its rules are in line with Article 39 of the current Marriage and Family Interpretation (I). Evidence is presumption ". This rule is a constraint on the parties who refuse to identify-the refusal of identification cannot be "delayed", but may directly lead to the other party's claim being found to be established.
Key points of 5. proof and litigation
How should I select the cause of action? Formal divorce, divorce only found after the child is not biological, generally to "after divorce damage liability dispute" prosecution. Wei's case is cohabitation birth, the court according to the cohabitation relationship dispute, also found fraudulent support.
Be mindful of the statute of limitations. The limitation of action for damages for infringement of personal rights and interests shall be three years, counting from the date on which the obligee knew or should have known of the damage to the rights and the obligor. The key is that the starting point for calculation is “when one becomes aware that the child is not biologically one’s own,” rather than the child’s date of birth. Therefore, we should act as soon as possible after discovering the truth to avoid the risk of timeliness due to delay.
Points of evidence. The core evidence includes: first, the paternity test opinion issued by a qualified institution, second, the support expense voucher (bank transfer record, bill, payment voucher, etc.), and third, indirect evidence (birth medical certificate, chat record, recording, witness testimony, etc.) that can prove the other party's concealment and long-term misrecognition. It should be particularly noted that financial evidence demonstrating the “actual amount spent” often carries greater weight in shaping the court’s decision than mere estimates.
6. Empirical study of the Ningbo judgment
Back in my hometown of Ningbo. The Ninghai County People's Court heard the case of Wang Mou 1 and Tong Mou's dispute over liability for damages after divorce (case No. (2019) Zhejiang 0226 Min Chu No. 7254) is of great reference value. In this case, the two parties got married after being introduced in 2006. The woman gave birth to a daughter. In 2014, the divorce was mediated by the court, and the child lived with the woman. In September 2019, the man commissioned Ningbo Tiantong Judicial Identification Center to identify the conclusion that he was not supported as the biological father of the child.The man claimed fraudulent upbringing for up to 8 years, sued for compensation of 40000 yuan for mental damage and 3000 yuan for appraisal, and returned 112800 yuan for alimony based on 1200 yuan per month for a total of 8 years, totaling 1558
00yuan.
The court held that the judicial appraisal opinion could prove that there was no biological blood relationship between the two parties, and the woman also accepted it; the defendant gave birth to children who were unrelated to the plaintiff during the marriage relationship, which brought serious mental trauma to the plaintiff, and should compensate for the emotional damage compensation, but the 40000 yuan claimed by the plaintiff was too high, which was determined to be 20000 yuan; the appraisal fee of 3000 yuan was borne by the defendant; since the plaintiff has no biological blood relationship with the child and no other father-daughter relationship planned by law, he has no legal obligation to raise the child. He has the right to demand the return of the child's maintenance expenses during marriage. Finally, he will return 30000 yuan according to the facts such as the child's age, local living standard and joint support before divorce. The three transactions total 53,000 yuan. As for the relocation of household registration, the court held that it was not within the scope of acceptance of civil litigation and was dealt with separately by the parties. This case is very informative: it confirms the Ningbo court's discretionary range of spiritual comfort money, the method of "discretionary return" of alimony, and the boundary of separate treatment of household registration issues.
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can the child be sued if he is an adult?Sure. Whether or not you are an adult does not affect the fraudulent maintenance claim, as long as within the statute of limitations, you can still claim the return of maintenance and compensation for moral damage. In the Tian Moumou case, the party concerned raised the child for nearly 20 years and the child was an adult. The court still supported the request to return 80000 yuan and 200
00yuan for spiritual comfort.
question: must the spiritual comfort money be 50000 and 100000?Not necessarily. Judging from the local judgments, it ranges from 5000 yuan to 100000 yuan, depending on the time of upbringing, emotional investment, degree of fault and local living standards. The 20000 yuan in the Ninghai case is a representative median value in Ningbo.
Question: Can one request the return of all child support payments?It’s rare to get the full amount back. Expenditures during marriage are usually only supported by half, and only the part of separate support after divorce can be claimed in full, and they must be based on evidence, and those that cannot be proved can only be determined by the court.
Q: What if the other party refuses to acknowledge or identify? As long as one's own party provides necessary evidence and the other party refuses to identify and has no evidence to the contrary, the court can presume that one's claim is established, which has been clearly stipulated in Article 39 (I) the above interpretation.
8. Lawyer's Practical Insights
found that the child may not be his own, and the most likely mistake was to directly show his cards, make noise and even sign impulsively based on his emotions. As a result, he lost the opportunity of identification and evidence collection. The first step should be to fix the facts: do a paternity test through a qualified appraisal agency, or apply for a court-commissioned appraisal in a lawsuit. If the other party refuses to cooperate, the court can make a determination against it in combination with other evidence when the conditions are met, so don't give up this step just because you are worried that the other party will not cooperate. The appraisal conclusion is the foundation of all subsequent claims. Without it, there is no fulcrum for return and compensation.
After the facts are clear, choose the path of relief. For those still in marriage, it is usually more efficient to return the paid alimony, claim the spiritual damage solatium, require the other party to bear the appraisal expenses, and deal with divorce, property division and maintenance arrangements together. If you have divorced or do not want to pester your marriage relationship, you can claim it separately. No matter which way, we must first sort out the actual expenditure evidence of these years: transfer records, tuition bills, medical expenses, daily expenses, which can correspond to the priority of time and children. There is no uniform price for compensation. The longer the support time, the more solid the investment and the more sufficient the evidence, the more tenable the claim will be.
Timing and moderation are also very important. Before the conclusion of the appraisal comes out, don't rush to show all the cards to the other party, so as to prevent the other party from stringing up certificates or transferring property; if minor children are involved, try to separate the conflicts between adults from the situation of children, so as to avoid secondary injury to children in the process. If the other party in turn claims that you have already known and still voluntarily raised, you should prepare evidence that can reflect your misunderstanding all the time, such as the fact that father and son, mother and son are commensurate and actually bear the support. Straightening out facts and evidence before talking about money and relationships can protect yourself better than emotions first.
Fraudulent upbringing is, by its nature, a tort. If the concealer violates the duty of loyalty and deceives the other party into raising non-biological children, the defrauded party may not only demand the return of the maintenance paid, but also claim the moral damage solatium, and may also require the other party to bear the cost of appraisal. Although there is no uniform standard for the amount, the scope of compensation is clear. The 53000 yuan judgment in the Ningbo Ninghai case is a good reference.
There are three suggestions for the parties. First, get a paternity test as soon as possible. The appraisal conclusion is the basis of all claims, and the sooner the facts are fixed, the more active. Second, evidence of dependency expenditures is retained. Transfer records, receipts, and payment vouchers can all determine the amount of reimbursement at a critical moment. Third, select the appropriate cause of action and assert it in a timely manner. If the truth is discovered only after the divorce, the lawsuit shall be filed for "dispute over liability for damages after the divorce"; if the parent-child relationship is still controversial, the lawsuit shall be filed for denial first. If the other party refuses to identify, there is no need to worry too much, the law has set adverse consequences for it.