Wang Dong (alias) and Li Yang (alias) were originally husband and wife. After their divorce, their children were raised by Li Yang, and Wang Dong was supposed to pay child support every month. Later, because Wang Dong long-term failed to pay child support, Li Yang applied to the court for enforcement. Wang Dong, on the other hand, argued that the child support had exceeded the statute of limitations for enforcement and that the enforcement application should be dismissed. Will Wang Dong's claim be supported by the court?



Case Brief

In 1997, Wang Dong and Li Yang registered their marriage and had a son and a daughter. Later, due to marital breakdown, they divorced through a court judgment in 2008, with the children both being raised by Li Yang. It was determined that starting from 2008, Wang Dong would pay child support to the two children on a yearly and monthly basis until the children reached adulthood.

In 2024, Li Yang submitted an application to the court for enforcement, requiring Wang Dong to pay the child support that had long been in arrears. In fact, except for the first few years when Li Yang obtained partial child support through court enforcement, she had not received any child support from Wang Dong thereafter.

Wang Dong filed an objection to the enforcement with the court, arguing that according to the first paragraph of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the period for applying for enforcement is two years. Since Li Yang had not applied for enforcement for the related amounts for more than a decade, this portion of the child support had exceeded the two-year statute of limitations for enforcement, and the court should dismiss Li Yang's enforcement application.

Li Yang, however, argued that in terms of the nature of child support, it is not subject to the statute of limitations for enforcement. Even though the two children are now adults, this does not mean that Li Yang has lost the right to claim the child support owed by Wang Dong for the period when the children were minors.

Court Trial

After trial, the Haidian Court held that Article 246, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: 'The period for applying for enforcement is two years. The suspension and interruption of the period for applying for enforcement shall be governed by the provisions of the law on the suspension and interruption of the limitation period.' However, for applications for enforcement of child support, relevant laws and judicial interpretations do not explicitly provide whether the limitation system should apply. Article 196, Item 3 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provides that claims for child support, spousal support, or maintenance are not subject to the limitation period system. Therefore, in the absence of clear provisions in relevant laws and regulations, this case should refer to and apply the provisions and spirit regarding the limitation period in the Civil Code for review. Considering that all the funds claimed by Li Yang in this case are child support amounts determined by effective court judgments, with reference to the above provisions of the Civil Code, the two-year application period for enforcement under the Civil Procedure Law should not apply in this case, which means Wang Dong still has an obligation to pay child support.

However, for the rights holders, child support is a personal right generated based on the identity relationship, possessing the attributes of personal protection; therefore, the actual right holders of child support should be the minor children who cannot live independently. In court trials, for the convenience of managing and using child support, the court usually orders the party who does not directly rear the children to pay child support to the party who directly rears the children, but this does not change the essential nature of child support, which is to ensure the daily life, education, and medical needs of the children. Therefore, in this case, the entitled parties to claim child support from Wang Dong are not Li Yang, but the two children who have already reached adulthood.

Ultimately, the Haidian Court ruled to dismiss part of Wang Dong's objection requests in this case and partially rejected Li Yang's application for enforcement. After this ruling was made, Wang Dong applied to the higher court for reconsideration. After review, the higher court issued a ruling maintaining the first-instance judgment of the Haidian Court.

Judge's Commentary

This case is a dispute over the enforcement of child support, with two main points of contention: one is whether the enforcement of child support is subject to a limitation period; the second is who has the right to claim child support after the children reach adulthood. Clarifying these two issues is of significant importance for maintaining judicial authority, protecting the lawful rights and interests of minors, and regulating the enforcement of child support.

Regarding the first dispute, namely whether the application for enforcement of child support is subject to the limitation period system, understanding this requires first understanding the purpose of the enforcement limitation system. Similar to the statute of limitations, the enforcement limitation system aims to urge the rights holder to exercise their rights in a timely manner, avoiding a situation where the debtor remains in a passive state due to uncertain obligations for a prolonged period, thereby maintaining transaction security and social economic order. If the enforcement limitation period has passed without special circumstances, the rights holder may lose the right to apply for compulsory enforcement by the court. In this regard, although China’s Civil Procedure Law stipulates a two-year period for the application of enforcement, this provision is a general clause.

For child support, Article 196 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China clearly excludes child support from the scope of application of the statute of limitations. Child support is different from ordinary claims, it is based on the identity relationship between parents and children, has personal and public welfare, and the core purpose is to protect the basic right to survival and development of minors. If the two-year limitation system is mechanically applied, some parents may evade their support obligations in the name of limitation, making it difficult for minors to obtain relief after they become adults, which violates the original legislative intention of the child support system.

In addition, the payment of child support is often characterized by continuous and installment performance, and if the direct dependant is required to apply for enforcement immediately after each period of support expires, it will not only increase the litigation costs of the parties, but also waste judicial resources. In this case, although Li Yang did not apply for enforcement until more than ten years later, the outstanding child support was determined by the effective judgment and was necessary to protect the basic life of the child during his minor period, and his rights were always legal and valid. Referring to the legislative spirit of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China on the non-application of the statute of limitations for child support, the two-year statute of limitations should not be applied in this case. Wang Dong's claim that he refused to pay child support on the grounds that the statute of limitations had exceeded the statute of limitations lacked sufficient legal basis and legal support.

For the second focus of dispute, that is, the subject of the right to claim child support when the child becomes an adult. The essence of child support is to provide economic security for the basic needs of minors such as life, education, and medical care, and the corresponding subject of rights must be minor children. The court usually rules that the party who does not directly raise the child pays child support to the direct parent for the convenience of the management, use and protection of the actual rights and interests of the minor. In this case, the court made it clear that Li Yang is not now the eligible subject of claiming child support, and the real subject of rights is his two adult children. This adjudication can effectively avoid the abuse of rights by the direct caregiver, and at the same time protect the adult children to independently claim their legitimate rights and interests during their minor years after having full civil capacity, which is in line with the principle of legality and reasonableness of rights protection.

Parents' obligation to support their children is a legal obligation, which has both moral and legal attributes, and cannot be exempted by divorce, let alone circumvented in the name of limitation. The trial results of this case strengthened the parents' obligation to support their minor children, conveyed the judicial orientation that "the obligation of support cannot be avoided", and effectively curbed the malicious arrears of child support by some parents. In addition, clarifying the rights of child support will help standardize the ways to claim such disputes and minimize unnecessary litigation disputes. When hearing cases, the court adheres to the principle of maximizing the interests of minors, strictly follows the legislative spirit of the Civil Code, and fully considers the personal exclusivity and social welfare of child support, so as to achieve the organic unity of legal and social effects.

(The characters in the article are all pseudonyms)

This article is reposted from the WeChat public account 'Beijing Haidian Court,' and we would like to express our gratitude!