基本案情

Dai (the child's father) and Deng (the child's mother) registered their marriage after a free romance and had a son and a daughter, lia happy life. However, the good times did not last long, and they later divorced due to incompatibility. At the time of the divorce, they reached an agreement: "Bildren shall be raised by Dai; Deng shall pay 1,000 yuan per month in child support until both children reach the age of 18. Provided thats not affect the children's life and studies, Deng may visit the children once every weekend at the school or at Dai's home. Subject to the children's wishes, Deng may take children out for outings, but shall notify Dai in advance and negotiate the time and location."

In the initial period following the divorce, Deng paid child support as agreed, and Dai fulfilled the obligation 

to assist as agreed. However, relations between the deteriorated later, with Dai preventing Deng from visiting 

the child, and Deng subsequently refusing to pay child support. After failing to collect the child support from 

Deng, Dai filed a lawsuit gainst Deng, demanding payment of the overdue child support of over 22,000 yuan 

and the continued calculation of future child support.

During the trial, Deng argued that Dai breached the contract first by failing to fulfill the obligation to assist 

and preventing him from exercising his visitation rights in accordance with the law. Deng claimed that the 

current situation was caby Dai, that he was without fault, and therefore did not need to pay child support.

法院判决

After deliberation, the court held that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether Deng can refuse to pay child support on the grouat his visitation rights have been obstructed. According to Article 1084, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "After divorce, parents still have the rights and obligations to raise, educate, and protect their children." Article 1085 stipulates: "After divorce, if a child is directly ry one parent, the other parent shall bear part or all of the child support. The amount of the expenses and the duration shall be agreed upon by both parties; if no agreementreached, the people's court shall make a judgment." Article 1086, Paragraph 1 stipulates: "After divorce, the father or mother who does not directly raihe child has the right to visit the child, and the other party has the obligation to assist."

In this case, the "Divorce Agreement" signed by Dai and Deng upon their divorce represents the true intentions of both parties, and its content does not violate ay provisions of laws or administrative regulations; therefore, it is legally valid and binding, and both parties are obligated to perform their obligations as agreed. Deng's failure to pay chilrt as agreed constitutes a breach of contract, and he shall bear the responsibility to continue paying child support. Accordingly, the court supports Dai's claim for child support against Deng in accordance ith the law.

Deng claims that Dai obstructed his visitation rights, and therefore he should not be required to pay child support. Although Deng enjoys visitation rightsnd Dai has a duty to assist, visitation rights and the obligation to pay child support are two distinct legal relationships that are independent of each other and do not serve as prerequisites for one  The purpose of paying child support is to ensure the basic living needs and healthy growth of the minor child; it is an obligation arising from the parent-child relationship, not a bargaining chip the parents. Deng's defense on this basis is without legal basis and is therefore rejected by the court. If Deng believes that his visitation rights have been infringed, he mat his rights separately through legal channels.

In summary, the court ruled that Deng shall pay Dai over 22,000 yuan in overdue child support, with subsequent support calculated as agreed until both children reach the age of 18. After the judgment, Deng appealed, but the Shaoyang Intermediate People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

法官说法

In this case, due to the escalation of post-divorce conflicts, the duty to assist in visitation rights and the obligation to pay child support have become mutually ntagonistic. The core issue is whether one party can refuse to pay child support on the grounds that the other party fails to assist in the exercise of visitation rights, which is a most common misconception among parties in such family disputes.

From a legal perspective, child support is a child's "right to survival" and cannot be deprived. The relationship between parents and children is not terminated by divorce; after divorce, parents still retain the rights and obligations to raise, educate, and protect their children. This legal obligation is mandatory and personal in nature, cannot be subject to any conditions, and cannot be used as a defense or offset against other rights. Paying child support is the core manifestation of the non-custodial parent fulfilling their duty to support the child. The object of this obligation is the minor child, not the custodial parent. Even if the custodial parent fails to fulfill the obligation to assist with visitation, it cannot serve as a legitimate reason to refuse payment. Refusing to pay child support on this basis not only infringes upon the child's legitimate rights and interests but also entails corresponding legal liability.

Visitation rights are a statutory right granted by law to the parent who does not have direct custody of the child, and they also represent the child's emotional needs. The parent with direct custody bears a statutory obligation to assist and must not unjustifiably obstruct or refuse the other party's exercise of visitation rights. However, the obon of rights is not a statutory justification for breach of contract or refusal to pay child support; both parties should seek to protect their rights through legal channels rather than escalating conflicts by "fng fire with fire." If the parent with direct custody refuses to assist with visitation, the obstructed party may safeguard their visitation rights through negotiation, mediation, or filing a lawsuange custody. Conversely, if the parent obligated to pay child support refuses to pay for a long time, the parent with direct custody may also file a lawsuit to compel them to fulfilheir duty of support.

The Court reminds the parties that conflicts between parents should not be transferred to the children. Whether regarding the payment of child support or the exercise of visitation rights, the core objective is to safeguard the physical and mental health of the minor children. Both parties should adhere to the principle of acting in the best interests of the minor children, set aside adversarial sentiments, communicate rationally, cooperate with each other, and actively fulfill their obligations under the law and the agreement. Together, they should create a stable, warm, and loving environment for the growth of the minor children. This is not only the fundamental purpose of the law in regulating such disputes but also a warm protection for the minors.

This article is reprinted from the WeChat Official Account "Shandong Higher People's Court", and we express our gratitude!