A marriage that falls apart at the first sign of trouble

Child support that is long overdue

Will the statute of limitations leave children unprotected?

Ordered to pay child support in divorce, 

yet has been in arrears for over a decade

In 1997, Wang Dong (a pseudonym) and Li Yang (a pseudonym) registered their marriage and had a son and a 

daughter. Later, due to the breakdown of their relationship, they were divorced by court judgment in 2008. It was 

determined that both children would be raised by the mother, Li Yang, and that the father, Wang Dong, would pay 

child support to the two children on a monthly basis starting from 2008 until they reached adulthood.

In 2024, the mother, Li Yang, filed an application for enforcement with the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing, 

demanding that the father, Wang Dong, pay the overdue child support. It turned out that, apart from receiving partial 

child support through court-enforced execution in the first few years, the mother had not received any child support 

from the father since then.

In response, the father, Wang Dong, filed an objection to the execution, arguing that according to Article 250 of the 

Civil Procedure Law, the period for applying for enforcement is two years. Since the mother had not applied for 

court-enforced execution for over a decade, the relevant child support payments had exceeded the two-year 

enforcement limitation period, and the court should dismiss the mother's application for enforcement.

The mother, Li Yang, however, argued that from the nature of child support, the limitation period for enforcement 

does not apply. Even though the two children are now adults, this does not mean that the mother has lost her right to 

claim child support from the father for the period when the children were minors.

Court: Statute of limitations does not apply to enforcement of child support

According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, the period for applying for enforcement is two years. However, regarding the application for enforcement of child support, relevant laws and judicial interpretations do not explicitly stipulate whether the statute of limitations should apply.The Civil Code explicitly stipulates that claims for child support, maintenance, or support are not subject to the statute of limitations.

Therefore, in the absence of explicit provisions in relevant laws and regulations, this case shall be reviewed by 

reference to the provisions and spirit r the statute of limitations in the Civil Code. Given that the payments claimed by 

Li Yang in this case are child support determined by effective judicial decisions, and in reference to the provisions e 

Civil Code, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law regarding a two-year statute of limitations for applying for 

enforcement shall not apply to this case; that is, Wang Dong is still oblito pay child support.

However, for the rights holder, child support is a right with personal attributes arising from a status relationship and 

possesses a nature of personal protection. Therefore, the actual rts holder of child support should be the minor child 

who cannot live independently. In judicial practice, for the convenience of managing and using child support, courts 

usually rule that the parent not directlyng the child shall pay support to the parent directly raising the child, but this 

does not alter the essential characteristic that child support is used to secure the child's daily life, educatmedical care, 

and other needs. Therefore, in this case, the parties entitled to claim child support from Wang Dong are not Li Yang, 

but the two adult children.

Ultimly, the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing ruled to dismiss part of the objections raised by Wang Dong in 

this case and to dismiss part of Li Yang's enforcement application. After thing was made, Wang Dong applied for 

reconsideration to the higher court. Upon review, the higher court made a ruling to uphold the first-instance ruling of 

the Haidian District Pee's Court of Beijing.

Judge: The duty of support cannot be evaded; the rights holder must be clearly identified.

This case involves a dispute over the enforcement of child support, with two core points of contention: first, whether 

the enforcement of cd support is subject to the statute of limitations for enforcement; and second, who is the rightful 

claimant for child support after the child reaches adulthood. Clarifying these two issues is of great ificance for 

upholding judicial dignity, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of minors, and regulating the order of child 

support enforcement.

Regarding the first point of contention, namely whether the app enforcement of child support is subject to the statute 

of limitations for enforcement. The Civil Code explicitly excludes child support from the scope of application of the 

statute of limitations. Child support rom ordinary debts; it arises from the identity relationship between parents and 

children, possessing personal and public welfare attributes, with the core purpose of safeguarding the basic right to 

survival and developmet of minors. Minors lack the capacity to independently assert their rights before reaching 

adulthood. If the two-year statute of limitations for enforcement is applied mechanically, it may lead to some parents 

eg their duty to support by invoking the statute of limitations, making it difficult to obtain relief for the legitimate 

rights and interests of minors after they reach adulthood, which runs counter to the legislative intent of the child 

support system.

Furthermore, the payment of child support often has the characteristics of being continuous and performed in 

installments. If the parent with direct custody is required to immedly apply for enforcement upon the expiration of 

each installment, it would not only increase the litigation costs for the parties but also waste judicial resources. In this 

case, although Li Yang applied for enfont more than ten years later, the unpaid child support was all determined by an 

effective judgment to be necessary expenses for ensuring the basic living needs of the child during his minority, and 

basis of his rights has always been legally valid.

Regarding the second point of contention, namely the claimant for child support after the child reaches adulthood. 

The essence of child support is economic rity for the basic needs of minors, such as living, education, and medical 

care; therefore, the corresponding claimant must necessarily be the minor child. In this case, the court explicitly determined that Li Yang is currently not a qualified party to claim child support, and that the true right holders are the two aduildren; this finding does not negate Li Yang's relevant rights, but rather clarifies the origin of the rights.。

This judicial approach effectively prevents the abusing party from directly abusing their rights, while safeguarding the 

right of adult children to independently assert their legitimate rights and interest their minor years after reaching full 

civil capacity, which aligns with the principles of legality and rationality in rights protection.

This article is reprinted from the WeChat official acnt "Shandong Higher People's Court"; thanks are expressed!