Source: OT-Team(G), 上海广播电视台
A divorced couple of foreign nationals — a former husband from a Western European country and a former wife from a Baltic nation, with their nationalities anonymized — found themselves back in court in China three years after their divorce, locked in a dispute over their child's living expenses.
The names used in this report, Mark and Nana, are pseudonyms. Their nationalities have also been anonymized for privacy.
Mark and Nana divorced in 2022. According to their divorce agreement, their son, then just over 10 years old, would live alternately with each parent on a biweekly basis, with each party covering daily living expenses during their respective custody periods.
However, earlier this year, Mark filed an enforcement application with a local court, requesting that Nana pay child support. His claim totaled more than RMB 90,000 and consisted of three parts:
First, nanny and meal expenses. Mark argued that Nana was frequently absent from Shanghai, resulting in him caring for the child an additional 196 days over the past few years. He claimed Nana should bear the nanny and meal costs for those extra days.
Second, school bus transportation fees. While the divorce agreement stipulated that Mark would cover tuition and miscellaneous school fees and that extracurricular expenses would be split equally, Mark contended that the school bus fee should be categorized as an extracurricular expense.
Third, insurance premiums. During the marriage, Mark had purchased an insurance policy covering all three family members, with the child's portion paid by him. After the divorce, Mark argued that Nana should contribute half of their son's insurance costs.
Nana rejected all three claims.
She argued that during the additional days Mark cited, the nanny was providing services at Mark's residence, not hers. She also stated that she had previously requested to make up for missed custody time, but Mark had refused.
Regarding transportation, Nana maintained that the school bus fee should be considered part of standard school expenses, not extracurricular costs.
As for insurance, Nana pointed out that Mark continued purchasing the policy after the divorce without consulting her or obtaining her consent.
With neither side willing to compromise, tensions escalated. Behind the financial dispute lay deeper personal conflict. Nana believed that after Mark remarried, his new wife's strong personality placed significant pressure on the child, leading to resentment. Mark's new wife, in turn, accused Nana of showing disrespect toward their marriage and family.
Despite multiple rounds of court-mediated negotiations, the two sides remained entrenched. Mark subsequently filed a separate lawsuit seeking to modify custody arrangements, requesting sole custody instead of alternating care. Nana firmly opposed this request.
After further investigation, the court concluded that money was not the core issue. The real conflict centered on differing views of parenting responsibilities and how the child should be raised. In response, the court adopted a guiding principle: prioritize the best interests of the minor and listen to the child's wishes.
Psychological experts were brought in to communicate with the child over several sessions. Initially silent, the child eventually shared his true feelings: he wanted both parents and did not wish to live with only one of them.
Taking the child's wishes into account, the court renewed mediation efforts and proposed a revised arrangement. The parents ultimately reached an agreement to continue shared custody, but with each parent taking turns on an annual basis rather than every two weeks. During each custody period, the other parent would have fixed visitation rights.
With custody resolved, the most contentious issue was settled. The dispute over enforcement was also quickly resolved, with Nana agreeing to pay RMB 40,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment