Ningbo was robbed of children and harassed. Can I apply for a "ban on infringement of personality rights"- Zhiheng Law Firm

When handling family and marriage cases in Ningbo, the two most frequently asked questions from clients are: “The other party has taken the child away,” and “The other party is harassing me by constantly loitering downstairs.” Many people’s first reaction is: apart from calling the police, what other legal measures can be taken to make the other party stop immediately? The answer is yes—namely, a personal rights infringement injunction. It operates as a parallel mechanism to the personal safety protection order: seizing or hiding a child, stalking or harassing, threatening or intimidating, unauthorized disclosure of private information, or being violently prevented from exercising visitation rights can all serve as grounds for applying for it. Its most distinctive feature can be summed up in one word: speed. In principle, the court must issue a ruling within seventy-two hours of accepting the case; in urgent cases, it must do so within twenty-four hours. This article clearly addresses each of the following points: whether an application can be made, under what circumstances it may be needed, how to apply, what the consequences are for non-compliance, and how it affects child custody rights.

What is the prohibition of 1. personality right infringement

Its direct legal basis is Article 997 of the Civil Code: “Where a civil subject has evidence proving that another person is engaging in or is about to engage in unlawful acts that infringe upon their personality rights, and failure to promptly stop such acts would cause irreparable damage to their legitimate rights and interests, the former shall have the right, in accordance with law, to apply to the people’s court for measures ordering the other party to cease the relevant conduct.”"

Let’s break it down and see how many key points there are. First, it constitutes a remedy for “ceasing the infringement,” targeting unlawful acts that are “in progress” or “about to be committed.” It can both halt ongoing infringements and intervene preemptively to prevent them from occurring. Secondly, it is based on personality rights as its legal foundation and constitutes an independent substantive law injunction; unlike measures for preserving evidence or preliminary enforcement, it takes effect immediately upon issuance. Third, it serves as an “expedited channel”: by employing a relatively simplified procedure, the court can promptly determine whether to first halt the relevant conduct, thereby preventing harm from occurring or escalating.

To apply for it is generally required to satisfy: there is evidence to prove that the perpetrator is committing or is about to commit an illegal act against the personality right; the act will indeed infringe the applicant's personality right (or refer to the protected identity right); if it is not stopped in time, it will cause irreparable damage to the legitimate rights and interests; the obligee will apply to the court. The standard of proof does not need to be as high as in ordinary civil litigation; it is sufficient if the existing evidence enables the court to find that “the existence of the relevant facts is more likely than not.”

Some people may ask: robbing and hiding children infringe upon "custody" and "guardianship". Does this belong to personality right? The key lies in Article 1001 of the Civil Code: "the protection of the identity rights of natural persons arising from marriage and family relations shall be subject to the relevant provisions of Part I, Part V and other laws of this Law; if there are no provisions, the relevant provisions on the protection of personality rights in this part may be applied by reference according to their nature. The parental rights of custody, visitation, and direct care belong to the category of personal rights; when there are no specific provisions for the protection of such personal rights, they may be governed by analogy under the section on personality rights, which includes the injunction against infringement set forth in Article 997. Precisely for this reason, the act of snatching or concealing children can be stopped through a personal rights infringement injunction, and the Supreme People's Court has also codified this as an explicit rule in the "Interpretation (II) of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code."

2. When will it be useful?

It is not exclusive to parties in divorce cases; as long as one’s personality rights (including status rights subject to analogous protection) are being or are about to be infringed, it may be applicable. The following categories are commonly encountered in the field of family and marital law.

Snatch and hide minor children. The most common and also the most typical. After separation or divorce, one parent—or even their close relatives such as parents—may take the child away and hide them, preventing the other parent from seeing, calling, or video‑calling the child, and may even move the child to another city or arrange a school transfer, thereby severing all contact.
Stalking harassment, threats and intimidation. Repeatedly calling and sending messages, staging protests or following the other party to their residence or workplace, and even threatening retaliation or harm against the other party or their family members. Continuous and repeated harassment and intimidation constitute an infringement upon one’s right to personality.
Unauthorized disclosure of privacy. Posting both parties’ private chat logs, intimate photos, medical conditions, or family information ingroup of relatives and friends, Moments, or even on online platforms to humiliate and expose them.
Visits were violently blocked. When visiting their child, they are verbally abused, shoved, assaulted, or even have their child forcibly taken away on the spot by the other party or individuals organized by them.

Whether it will be supported hinges not on the “formal designation,” but on whether the evidence can demonstrate that an unlawful act is occurring or is about to occur, and whether failure to intervene would result in irreparable harm. In cases of “child‑snatching,” if it involves only brief disputes over pick‑up and drop‑off and the parties are still able to communicate, the court may not deem the situation serious enough to issue a restraining order. Conversely, if a child is taken away and remains out of contact for an extended period, hidden from view, or prevented from attending school or receiving medical care, the urgency of the situation is markedly different.

3. Relationship with the Personal Safety Protection Order

When “stopping the other party’s actions” is mentioned, many people think of a personal protection order. The two are closely related, but they are not the same thing.

Personal safety protection order is a special anti-domestic violence system established by Article 23 of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law-"If a party applies to the people's court for personal safety protection order because of domestic violence or facing the real danger of domestic violence, the people's court shall accept it...", which can be said to be the specialization of the prohibition of personality right behavior in the field of domestic violence; the prohibition of infringement of personality rights is a general system established by Article 997 of the Civil Code. Both have preventive protective functions and may be brought independently of divorce proceedings. The difference lies in:

The legal basis is different. The protection order is based on the Domestic Violence Act; the prohibition of infringement of personality rights is based on articles 997 and 1001 of the Civil Code.
The applicable situations differ. The protection order is aimed at suffering from domestic violence or facing the real danger of domestic violence; the prohibition of infringement of personality rights is aimed at the violation of personality rights (including the right to identity with reference to protection), and requires that "irreparable damage will be caused if it is not stopped in time".
The scope of protection is different. A protection order typically applies between family members or persons living together; however, the scope of subjects to whom a personality rights injunction may be issued is not so limited.
The reviews focus on different aspects. The focus of the review of the protection order is "whether there is a real danger" and adopts the standard of "greater possibility"; the prohibition also examines "irreparable damage", which is relatively more detailed.

In practice, the choice is roughly as follows: the core contradiction is domestic violence, especially when children suffer or witness violence, and the personal safety protection order is given priority, which is "tailor-made" for domestic violence, and the procedure is the fastest; the core contradiction is robbing and hiding children, or harassing, privacy, visiting the victims of violence, and taking the prohibition of infringement of personality rights; when the two are in competition, you can also use a protective order to protect personal safety first, and then use the ban when the effect is insufficient. Article 12 of the "Interpretation (II) of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code" explicitly sets out these two pathways in parallel.

It should also be noted that, at present, there is still a lack of supporting judicial interpretations for injunctions against infringement of personality rights. In practice, procedural issues such as the review period and the duration of validity are often handled by reference to the rules governing personal safety protection orders.

4. How to apply

The court of jurisdiction. Referring to the practice of protection order, it can generally be submitted to the basic people's court of the place of residence of the applicant, the place of residence of the respondent or the place of infringement. The abduction or concealment of children often occurs across different jurisdictions, and the court in the place where the act took place (e.g., where the child was taken) generally has jurisdiction as well.

Application materials. It usually includes: an application stating the basic information, contact information, specific requests, facts and reasons of both parties; Materials proving the existence of illegal acts; Specific instructions on "untimely stopping will cause irreparable damage to rights and interests"; Other materials that the court considers necessary.

Evidence requirements. The review does not require the strict standards of ordinary litigation, as long as it is initially established that the respondent is committing or is about to commit an act of aggression. Common evidence includes: alarm receipt, alarm record and on-site disposal record; The other party's letter of guarantee and repentance; WeChat, SMS, call records, audio and video recordings; The child's birth medical certificate, household registration and student status materials; Testimony of teachers or neighbors; Previous help-seeking registration, mediation records, etc. It is best to confirm and form a chain between the evidence.

Review procedures and deadlines. Generally, the judge alone will review; because the ban will restrict the respondent's freedom of behavior, the court should generally question the applicant and the respondent, and hold a hearing if necessary. After acceptance, the court shall, in principle, make a ruling within 72 hours. If the situation is urgent, it must be made within 24 hours. The ruling shall take effect immediately after it is made.

Validity and Remedies. The prohibition typically has a validity period of no more than six months, taking effect from the date it is issued, and may be subject to an application for revocation, modification, or extension prior to its expiration. If the respondent is not satisfied with the injunction, or the applicant is not satisfied with the application for rejection, he may apply for reconsideration once within five days from the effective date of the ruling, and the execution shall not be suspended during the reconsideration period.

In addition, due to the lack of special rules, courts in different places may have slight differences in jurisdiction, list of materials and time limit, so it is better to confirm with the court to be accepted before starting work.

Consequences of 5. Violations

The ban is not a piece of paper, and violations have real consequences.

Fines, detention. If the respondent violates the prohibition on infringement of personality rights, the court may impose a fine or detention in accordance with Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law, without the applicant having to sue separately.
Criminal Liability. If the circumstances of refusal to perform are serious and comply with the provisions of Article 313 of the Criminal Law, they may be convicted and punished for the crime of refusal to execute the judgment or ruling; if other crimes are also constituted, they shall be dealt with in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law.
Adverse evaluation of custody. Violating the ban and continuing to rob and hide will be considered by the court in the subsequent custody and custody decisions as an unfavorable factor for the other party's "suitability for direct child rearing.

About enforcement: if the content of the ban is only "prohibited as a certain behavior" (such as prohibition of contact and harassment), there is no content that can be directly enforced; but if the respondent is required to "take the initiative as a certain behavior" (such as sending the child back within the time limit, assisting guardianship and cooperating with visiting), there is content that can be enforced, and the other party fails to perform, the Court may promote implementation through, for example, alternative enforcement. This is also the reason why the "request should be specific" is repeatedly emphasized in the practical recommendations.

The influence of 6. robbing children on custody

Many people are concerned about: if they rob a child, will they take advantage of custody because "the child is already here with me"? The answer is just the opposite. The (II) of Interpretation of the Marriage and Family Section of the Civil Code regulates this with three articles.

Article 12-Quick Stop. If one of the parents or their close relatives snatch or hide their minor children, and the other applies to the people's court for the personal safety protection order, or applies for the injunction of infringement of personality right by referring to Article 997 of the Civil Code, the people's court shall support it according to law. The second paragraph of the same article also stipulates that if one party claims that there are "reasonable reasons" for the robbery or concealment on the grounds that the other party has serious violations of the rights and interests of minor children, such as gambling, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc., the court shall inform them to solve the problem by revocation of guardian qualification, suspension of visit or change of custody relationship; if there is no evidence and no corresponding request within a reasonable time limit, the court still upholds the other party's application in accordance with the preceding paragraph.
Article 13-Temporary Determination of Maintenance. During the period of separation between husband and wife, if one party or its close relatives snatch and hide the minor children, which makes the other party unable to perform the guardianship duties, and the other party requests it to bear civil liability, the people's court may refer to the provisions of Article 1084 of the Civil Code on the custody of children after divorce, temporarily determine the custody of the minor children, and make it clear that the temporary direct custody party has the obligation to assist the other party.
Article 14-Disadvantage in Divorce Proceedings. In divorce proceedings, both parents request to directly raise the minor children who have reached the age of two. If one party has the behavior of snatching and hiding, while the other party does not have the situation of serious infringement on the rights and interests of minor children such as domestic violence, abuse and abandonment, the court should give priority to the direct support of the other party according to the principle of being most beneficial to the minor children.

What needs to be clarified is that "giving priority" does not mean "necessarily awarding to the other party". The state of custody formed by snatching and hiding is an "illegal state of fact" and will not be legalized due to time duration: on the one hand, the court will not accommodate the fait accompli and "reward" the custody to the snatching party; On the other hand, the ownership still needs to return to the general standard of "most beneficial to minor children", combining the comprehensive judgment of both sides' rearing conditions, the children's age and real wishes, and life stability.

There is already a precedent in this regard. In a custody case in Chongqing, the court held that one party robbed the children and obstructed visits during the separation period, which violated the other party's guardianship rights, violated public order and good customs, and was not suitable as a direct supporter. Therefore, the court ruled that the children should be directly raised and visited by the other party during the separation period. In a custody case in Beijing, the court issued a ban on infringement of personality rights when one party took the child away without authorization and refused to return it, and it not only "prohibited infringement", but also clarified the respondent's obligation to cooperate and assist the other party in exercising custody., Let the ban move from "passive defense" to "positive recovery" and avoid idling.

7. Common Difficulties and Countermeasures

Although the rules are clear, there are still many difficulties in practice. Here are some of the most common ones.

What if the child is unaccounted. Call the police as soon as possible and ask the public security organs to assist in the search; at the same time, apply to the court for investigation and evidence collection, or apply to the court to ask the other party to report the location and condition of the child. Clues can also be learned through the school the child attended and the community he or she visited.
What about hiding in different places. You can apply for an injunction from the court of the respondent's current place of residence or the place of infringement; if you cross provinces or cities, you can first get a ruling in one court and then promote cooperation in another place.When necessary, simultaneous filing of custody, custody disputes, the use of litigation to the child's whereabouts and support status fixed.
What if it is difficult to execute. Write down the request in detail-not only request "prohibition of robbery and hiding", but also request "return the child to his original residence within a time limit", "assist in visiting", "cooperate with guardianship" and other matters with practical executable contents. If the other party still fails to perform, it shall report to the court in a timely manner, apply for a fine or detention, and promote criminal responsibility if the circumstances are serious.
What to do if it is difficult to identify. The other side often said, "I didn't hide it, but the child didn't want to go back". This kind of case pays attention to evidence, and needs to use chat records, alarm records, school feedback, etc. to fix the facts of "unable to contact" and "unable to visit. If the two parties have a great dispute over the basic facts and are beyond the scope of the quick procedure, the court may also reject the application and inform it to be settled through ordinary litigation-this does not mean that the rights and interests cannot be protected, but the channel has been changed.

8. Practical Recommendations

Report to the police immediately and keep a record. After calling the police, take the initiative to ask for the receipt of the case, the police record or the on-site disposal record; If personal injury is involved, seek medical treatment in time and keep medical records, diagnosis and payment vouchers; If necessary, the public security organ shall issue a warning letter on domestic violence. These are the basis for subsequent applications for injunctions, protection orders and even custody litigation.
Injunctions and protective orders run concurrently. The two are not in conflict and can be applied for at the same time or claimed separately according to different circumstances. Protection orders for domestic violence and personal safety; Prohibition on infringement of personality rights for child robbery, harassment, privacy and visiting victims of violence.
Secure the evidence. Chat records, total conversation recordings, on-site video recordings (evidence collection methods should be legal), testimony of relatives, friends and teachers, school feedback, previous help-seeking and mediation records can all be used. Scattered screenshots are less effective than systematic, mutually corroborating evidence.
Requests should be specific and actionable. In addition to "prohibition of infringement", try to state what you want the other party to do, such as "send the child back within a time limit", "cooperate with weekly visits", "do not belittle the other party in front of the child", etc., to avoid getting a ban on idling.
Seek professional advice as soon as possible. By systematically organizing the evidence, clearly defining the claims, and selecting the appropriate procedural route, one can often avoid unnecessary detours. When necessary, initiate guardianship and custody disputes concurrently or subsequently, thereby aligning interim relief with the final resolution.

9. Frequently Asked Questions

1. The people who rob the children are grandparents and other close relatives. Can they apply for a ban?

Sure. Article 12 of the (II) of interpretation clearly includes "one parent or his close relatives" in the scope of regulation. In the case where the grandparents take the child away and hide it, the other party can also apply for an injunction, and if necessary, list the close relatives who committed the act as the respondent.

2. Not yet divorced, just separated—can I still apply?

Sure. An injunction for the protection of personality rights does not require that the parties have already divorced. During the period of separation, the other party snatches, hides children or continues to harass or threaten, can also apply. Article 13 of the (II) of interpretation also provides for the temporary determination of the maintenance of a child in the case of robbery during separation.

3. Do I need to pay a fee and hire a lawyer to apply for an injunction?

Referring to the practice of protection orders, many courts charge no or only very low fees for such applications. Whether to entrust a lawyer is up to the parties themselves. If the facts are simple and the evidence is clear, you can apply on your own. If it involves jurisdiction selection, evidence organization and request design, it is safer to consult professional opinions.

4. How long can I get the ban and how long can I manage it?

In principle, a ruling shall be made within 72 hours after acceptance, and within 24 hours in case of emergency. The ruling generally has a validity period of not more than six months, effective from the date of making, before the expiration of the application can be revoked, modified or extended.

5. What can I do if the other party violates the restraining order?

report to the police in time, and inform the court that made the ruling of the violation, and the court can fine and detain them; if the circumstances are serious and meet the legal conditions, they can also be investigated for criminal responsibility. At the same time, violations of the restraining order will be considered as an adverse factor in decisions regarding child custody and guardianship.

6. If I obtain a restraining order, does that mean the child is awarded to me?

No. The prohibition of infringement of personality rights is an urgent and temporary relief. The purpose is to stop the infringement and restore order as soon as possible, and does not ultimately determine the ownership of custody. In the end, custody is still judged according to the principle of "most beneficial to minor children", but the other party's robbery and harassment will be considered as a disadvantageous factor whether it is suitable for direct support.

10. Practical Legal Insights

For things like robbing children, blocking doors and harassing, the first reaction of most parties is to call the police, but there is a faster and more specialized way besides calling the police-to apply to the court for an injunction to stop the infringement. Its value is fast, and the court will make a ruling within a short period of time after accepting it, aiming at the infringement that is occurring or about to occur. Therefore, what needs to be done is not to file a divorce in a hurry, but to classify the current infringement first: whether the other party takes the child away and hides it from meeting, or whether it repeatedly follows, intercepts, intimidates, or spreads your privacy without authorization. Once the categories are clearly defined, you’ll know what requests to make and in which direction to seek evidence.

Next are the evidence and supporting materials. The threshold for applying for such a ban does not require the certification level of ordinary litigation, as long as the existing materials can make the court believe that the possibility of infringement is relatively high. Therefore, the alarm receipt, alarm receiving records, chat and call records, audio recording, the process of refusing visits, and the materials of children being transferred or moved to other places should be compiled into a book in chronological order. You may simultaneously apply for a personal safety protection order; the two are not mutually exclusive. It should be reminded that the ban is for time. The more you want to wait and see, the easier it is for the other party to fix the fact that the state is unfavorable to you. You should mention it as soon as possible.

A restraining order remains a powerful card in custody disputes. The other party's behavior of robbing and hiding the child will itself affect the court's evaluation of its willingness and way of raising the child. However, you must not rob and hide yourself in turn, which will offset your advantage. Negotiations can tie the ban to follow-up litigation, so that the other party understands the cost of continuing to make trouble-violating the ban will face corresponding consequences, especially for those who care about their work and reputation. As for the specific concessions on property and upbringing, stay in the normal channels and don't take the ban as an emotional outlet.

Back to the original question: in Ningbo, if the children were robbed and harassed repeatedly, could they apply for the injunction of infringement of personality right? The answer is yes. In parallel with the personal safety protection order, it is a quick tool prepared by the law for the emergency situation of "too late to file a lawsuit". Its core function is to "let the behavior stop first" and buy time for the normal life of children and adults.

But we should also put the expectation right: what the ban solves is to "stop the encroachment and restore the order", not to "fix the ownership in one step". Who will eventually raise the child directly still has to return to the general standard that is most beneficial to the minor children. Robbing children, hiding children, harassment and intimidation will instead become the other party's reduced sub-item in custody. Therefore, parties who encounter such situations are advised to grasp three things: to report to the police in time to leave traces, to apply for an injunction and a protection order in parallel, to make the evidence and request specific and solid, and to assess whether it is necessary to file custody and custody disputes simultaneously.