Typical Cases of Family and Marriage Disputes (Shandong)

catalogue

1. Property Dispute Case between Zhang and Zhao's Marriage Agreement

2. Marriage Property Dispute Case between Liu and Feng

3. Yang and Liu Divorce Dispute Case

4. Divorce dispute between Chen and Lv

5. Chen Mou and Chen Jia, Xu Yi, and Xu Bing's Maintenance Dispute Case

6. Zhou, Xiao, Ni Jia, and others in a dispute over maintenance

7. Ding, Jiang Jia, Jiang Yi, and others in a dispute over maintenance

8. Geng, Zhao, and Geng Jia, Geng Yi, and Geng Bing's Maintenance Dispute Case

9. Case of Wang and Zhang Changing Their Parental Relationship

10. Wang Moumou and Wang Jia's Support Fee Case

1、 Property Dispute Case between Zhang and Zhao's Marriage Agreement

（1） Basic facts of the case

In May 2013, plaintiff Zhang and defendant Zhao met through the introduction of Shao. On July 13, 2013, through witness Shao, the plaintiff paid the defendant 40000 yuan in cash and four pieces of jewelry as betrothal gifts. Later, the plaintiff sent two boxes of wine, two cigarettes, two boxes of tea, and several bags of sugar to the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant were unable to register for marriage, and the defendant did not return the aforementioned dowry. Therefore, the original complaint was brought to the court. During the trial, the defendant returned four pieces of jewelry to the plaintiff in court.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jining High tech Zone held in the first instance that the plaintiff and defendant met through introduction, but were unable to register for marriage. The plaintiff paid the defendant the dowry, and the defendant should return it. Witness Shao is an introducer for both the plaintiff and the defendant, and the witness actually participated in the process of paying the dowry. Moreover, the witness has no interest in either party, and his testimony has high credibility. Moreover, the witness's statement also conforms to local customs and habits, so his testimony is accepted by the court. The testimony of witness Gao is not contradictory to that of witness Shao, and also confirms the fact that the plaintiff was engaged to pay the dowry. Therefore, the court also confirmed his testimony. The court believes that witness Shao's appearance in court only proves that the plaintiff paid the defendant 40000 yuan in cash, and the defendant should refund the 40000 yuan to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to later pay the defendant 2000 yuan for purchasing clothes, but did not submit corresponding evidence to the court. Therefore, the court did not support its request for a refund of the 2000 yuan. The defendant has returned the jewelry to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has also accepted it. Therefore, the plaintiff claims that the jewelry cost 12000 yuan, and the defendant does not need to return it again. The plaintiff requested a refund of 3000 yuan for the purchase of the item, but did not provide an invoice for the purchase, and the value of the purchased item cannot be determined. Therefore, the court does not support the plaintiff's request. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant Zhao would refund the plaintiff Zhang with a dowry of 40000 yuan within five days from the effective date of the judgment, rejecting the plaintiff Zhang's other litigation claims.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical marital property dispute case. The plaintiff and the defendant got to know each other through an introduction. The plaintiff gave the defendant a dowry according to local customs, but the plaintiff and the defendant were unable to register for marriage afterwards. Regarding how to handle this situation, the Interpretation (2) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that if both parties have not completed the marriage registration procedures, the court should support the parties' request for the return of the dowry. Although dowry has the appearance of a gift, its legal consequences are vastly different from ordinary gifts. The court should not support the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's act of giving him a dowry was a gift.

2、 Marriage Property Dispute Case between Liu and Feng

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Liu met the defendant Feng through an introduction and registered their marriage on January 30, 2012. They had no children after marriage. On February 2, 2012, Liu was hospitalized for 22 days due to illness, and both parties have been separated since discharge. Due to emotional breakdown, the plaintiff Liu filed a divorce lawsuit with the court. Feng agreed to divorce, but requested that the other party return the dowry and medical expenses appropriately. During the period of living together, both parties did not purchase common property, had no common debt or debt, and had a deposit of 20000 yuan in Liu's hands. Liu's dowry property includes household appliances and blankets at Feng's place.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Chiping County, Liaocheng City held in the first instance that based on the actual situation of Liu and Feng's long-term separation and the unwillingness of both parties to maintain the marriage, it should be considered that the marital relationship has indeed broken down. Regarding deposits, Liu recognizes a joint deposit of 20000 yuan. Regarding Liu's dowry property, it belongs to his personal property before marriage. Regarding Feng's pre marriage dowry, it is a conditional gift with the purpose of marriage. If both parties have already married and the conditions have been met, it should be treated as a gift. Regarding the cost of hospitalization after Liu's marriage, Feng requested Liu to return it. As he was living together at the time, Feng had an obligation to seek medical treatment for his wife Liu. Finally, the court granted the plaintiff Liu a divorce from the defendant Feng. The plaintiff Liu paid the defendant Feng a joint deposit of 10000 yuan within ten days from the effective date of the judgment, and the defendant Feng returned the plaintiff Liu's dowry property to the plaintiff Liu within ten days from the effective date of the judgment.

（3） Typical significance

One of the main focuses of controversy in this case is the issue of whether to return the pre marriage dowry after divorce, which is quite typical in rural areas. A considerable number of parties believe that the dowry is paid for marriage and should be returned upon divorce. Actually, this is a misunderstanding. In Interpretation 2 of the Marriage Law, the Supreme People's Court stipulates that only when the following circumstances are met can the people's court support the return of the dowry: firstly, if both parties have not completed the marriage registration procedures; The second is that both parties have gone through marriage registration procedures but have not yet lived together; The third issue is premarital payment, which leads to difficulties in the payer's life. If these three situations are not met, the court does not support the return of the dowry. In this case, although the two parties did not live together for a long time, they were already married and living together. The defendant's claim for the return of the dowry was not supported by the court, as it was not due to the payment of the dowry that caused great difficulties. We hope that families, especially rural families, will pay special attention to this issue. When divorcing, we should treat this issue with caution and exercise our rights and fulfill our obligations in accordance with the law.

3、 Yang and Liu Divorce Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In December 2010, the plaintiff Yang and the defendant Liu were introduced and registered for marriage, with a short marriage period and no children. After marriage, the two parties often had conflicts due to household chores, making it difficult to live together. Yang filed a divorce lawsuit twice with the court, and Liu agreed to divorce. Before marriage, Liu purchased a commercial house and a Buick Hyatt sedan. After marriage, the two signed a "marriage guarantee" agreement, which stipulated that the above-mentioned house and vehicle were the joint property of the couple, and stated that if Yang filed for divorce, the agreement would be invalid. One year after the agreement was signed, Yang sued for divorce and demanded the division of the couple's common property.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Bincheng District People's Court of Binzhou City believes that the marital relationship between the plaintiff and defendant has indeed broken down, and approves the divorce of both parties. The parties to the lawsuit agree that the property and vehicles involved in the case are common property, which is a true expression of the parties' intentions and does not violate legal provisions, and should be supported. The court shall divide the joint property of Yang and Liu after their marriage in accordance with the law. Finally, the court ruled: 1. Allow Yang and Liu to divorce; 2、 Yang's personal property before marriage at Liu's place, one new day electric vehicle, belongs to Yang personally; The 42 inch Hisense TV and one TV cabinet in the joint property of Yang and Liu after marriage belong to Yang, while one Aucma refrigerator and one dining table with four chairs belong to Liu; 3、 A house located in Room 302, Unit 1, Building 42, Mingri Xingcheng Community, Bohai 22nd Road, Huanghe Fifth Road, Bincheng District, Binzhou City, belonging to the joint property of Yang and Liu after marriage, belongs to Liu (the remaining loan of about 160000 yuan will be repaid by Liu), and Liu will pay Yang a severance payment of 60000 yuan for the property; One of the LuMKR236 Buick Excelle sedans in the joint property after marriage belongs to Yang, who pays Liu 22500 yuan for the division of the property; After deduction, Liu is required to pay a property division fee of 37500 yuan to Yang; The above payment matters shall be paid in full within ten days after the judgment takes effect; 4、 Reject other litigation requests from Yang and Liu.

（3） Typical significance

This is a case involving the effectiveness of marital property agreements. Currently, many people sign a "marriage guarantee" document before marriage, and the phrase "whoever proposes divorce will leave the house clean" often becomes a promise of love in the marital property agreement, enabling both parties to dispel the idea of divorce and manage the marriage wholeheartedly. However, are these agreements effective or not. According to Article 19 of the Marriage Law, "Both husband and wife may agree that the property obtained during the period of marriage and premarital property shall belong to their respective, joint, or partial ownership, and joint ownership. The agreement shall be in writing. If there is no agreement or unclear agreement, the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of this Law shall apply. The agreement between husband and wife regarding the property obtained during the period of marriage and premarital property shall be binding on both parties. The "Agreement" in this case was signed and recognized by both parties, and signed by witnesses. After the agreement was signed, both parties lived together for more than one year. In the absence of evidence to the contrary that Yang had engaged in fraud or coercion, the content of the "Agreement" should be regarded as the true intention of both parties, which does not violate legal provisions, and the court should support it. The agreement that "if one party proposes divorce, the agreement shall be invalid" attached to the Agreement shall be invalid due to restricting the freedom of others to divorce, violating legal provisions and public order and good customs. Its invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions of the Agreement.

4、 Divorce dispute between Chen and Lv

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Chen and the defendant Lv met through an introduction in 1980, and both parties began living together without going through marriage registration procedures. On June 4, 1983, she gave birth to her eldest son Lv Jia, on May 30, 1986, she gave birth to her second son Lv Yi, and on December 28, 1988, she gave birth to her third son Lv Bing. All three children are now adults and living independently. The plaintiff, Chen, is a patient with severe schizophrenia and is unable to live independently after falling ill. The defendant, Lv, fails to fulfill the obligation of support between husband and wife. Therefore, the plaintiff Chen filed a lawsuit requesting a divorce from the defendant Lv, dividing the marital property equally, and demanding that Lv return 33000 yuan in salary and provide him with 60000 yuan in economic assistance. In this case, Chen is the sister of the plaintiff Chen and is the guardian of the plaintiff.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Shanting District, Zaozhuang City found that the plaintiff, Chen, was a mentally ill person who could not recognize his own behavior and was a person without civil capacity. The guardian of the plaintiff, Chen, acting as the legal representative in litigation, complies with legal provisions. Although the plaintiff and defendant did not complete the marriage registration procedures, they began cohabiting in 1980 and by February 1, 1994, both parties had met the substantive requirements for marriage, indicating a de facto marriage. The plaintiff, Chen, is unable to take care of himself due to mental illness, and the defendant, Lv, has not fulfilled his obligation to support the couple. Now, the plaintiff, Chen, requests a divorce, which meets legal requirements and should be granted. The plaintiff, Chen, requested equal distribution of common property, but did not provide a property list and relevant evidence to support it. After the right holder has evidence, they can make a separate claim. The plaintiff Chen requested the defendant Lv to repay his salary of 33000 yuan from 2005 to 2013, but the evidence is insufficient and the court does not support it. The plaintiff Chen requested the defendant Lv to provide him with an economic assistance amount of 60000 yuan. According to Article 42 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China and taking into account the actual situation of this case, the court believes that it is appropriate for the defendant Lv to provide the plaintiff Chen with an economic assistance amount of 20000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

One of the key issues in this case is whether Chen, the sister of plaintiff Chen, can file a divorce lawsuit on his behalf. During the existence of a marital relationship, the husband or wife may experience a state of incapacity or limited civil capacity due to illness or external injury. The divorce of ordinary people can be resolved through various means such as negotiation and litigation, but for this special group of people, their divorce can only be resolved through litigation. A person without civil capacity is a person who cannot express their true intention. In divorce cases, whether a person without civil capacity is the plaintiff or the defendant, their first order guardian is their spouse. If they are entangled in the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, there may be cases where the legitimate rights and interests of the person without civil capacity are infringed upon by their spouse. As long as their spouse does not request a divorce, they will never be able to divorce. In order to protect the rights and interests of individuals without civil capacity, divorce proceedings should be initiated by guardians other than their spouses. In this case, the plaintiff Chen was unable to take care of himself due to mental illness, and the defendant Lv did not fulfill his marital maintenance obligations. The plaintiff Chen's sister, as the guardian, applied for divorce on behalf of him, which meets legal requirements and should be allowed.

5、 Chen Mou and Chen Jia, Xu Yi, and Xu Bing's Maintenance Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Chen and Zhu registered their marriage in 1986, and Zhu remarried. In 1987, Zhu brought Xu Yi (born on June 8, 1975) and Xu Bing (born on February 10, 1978) to live with the plaintiff Chen in Dacaoling Village, Wentuan Town, Junan County, Linyi City. On May 13, 1990, Chen and Zhu gave birth to a son named Chen Jia. In 1991, defendant Xu Yi left home to work, and in 1993, defendant Xu Bing left home to work. In February 2012, Zhu passed away. The plaintiff Chen has basic living difficulties due to his advanced age and lack of livelihood. Due to the refusal of the three defendants to fulfill their maintenance obligations, the plaintiff Chen filed a lawsuit with the court requesting resolution.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Junan County, Linyi City found that according to Chinese law, children have the obligation to support and assist their parents, and the rights and obligations between stepparents and stepchildren who receive their upbringing and education are consistent with the relationship between biological parents and children. Defendants Xu Yi and Xu Bing lived together with their mother Zhu and plaintiff Chen for a long time, receiving upbringing and education from the plaintiff. They formed a stepparent child relationship with the plaintiff and had an obligation to support the plaintiff Chen. The plaintiff is currently suffering from illness and living difficulties, and all three defendants have reached adulthood and have the ability to support themselves. The plaintiff's claim is clear in facts and sufficient in evidence, and the court supports it. The standard for the plaintiff's alimony in this case should be based on the annual average living expenses of local farmers released by the statistical department in the previous year. Considering the living time and emotional factors of the defendants Xu Yi, Xu Bing, and the plaintiff Chen, as well as the current economic situation of the two defendants, the court has decided that the amount of alimony borne by the defendants Xu Yi and Xu Bing should be 1500 yuan per person per year. The defendant Chen Jia is the biological son of the plaintiff Chen, and he has a natural obligation to support the plaintiff Chen. He voluntarily bears the maintenance fee of 3600 yuan per year according to the plaintiff's request, which is confirmed by the court. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant Chen Jia would pay the plaintiff Chen's annual alimony of 3600 yuan before June 1st of each year starting from 2014. Defendants Xu Yi and Xu Bing have been paying the plaintiff Chen's annual alimony of 1500 yuan each year before June 1, 2014.

（3） Typical significance

Supporting the elderly is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, and doing a good job in supporting the elderly in rural areas is a long-term and arduous task. The issue of supporting stepparents is even more complex. There are many relationships between stepparents and stepchildren in rural areas, and this relationship issue is a relatively sensitive social issue. It is of great social significance to have a correct understanding of the nature of the relationship between stepparents and children, and to apply relevant laws to comprehensively adjust the relationship between stepparents and children. According to the law, if there is a foster relationship between stepparents and stepchildren, the stepchildren must bear the obligation to support the stepparents. In response to the special group of supporting stepparents, it is necessary to increase publicity efforts in rural areas, guide society to form a correct understanding, timely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of rural elderly people, ensure that the elderly live their old age in peace, and truly achieve a harmonious settlement of the case.

6、 Zhou, Xiao, Ni Jia, and others in a dispute over maintenance

（1） Basic facts of the case

Plaintiff Zhou (female) remarried with her son defendants Xiao and Ni (who passed away in 2013) in 1960, and after marriage, they had two sons and one daughter, namely defendants Ni Jia, Ni Yi, and Ni Bing. Zhou, who is elderly, weak, unable to work, and living in difficulties, sued Xiao in 2007 to demand payment of alimony. After mediation by the court, it was agreed that the defendant Xiao should pay the plaintiff and Ni 350 yuan per year for living expenses, 100 kilograms of wheat, and 7.5 kilograms of peanut oil; Defendants Ni Yi and Ni Bing, through out of court mediation, have determined to pay the plaintiff and Ni an annual living allowance of 500 yuan, 250 kilograms of wheat, and 20 kilograms of peanut oil. After Ni's death, as the plaintiff grew older, became ill, and the price level continued to rise, the above-mentioned alimony was not enough to sustain the plaintiff's daily needs. Plaintiff Zhou and the four defendants, including Xiao, failed to negotiate and filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that each of the four defendants pay an annual alimony of 2192 yuan starting from 2015.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Rongcheng City in Weihai believed that respecting and supporting the elderly is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation. According to relevant laws and regulations in China, supporting parents is also an obligation that every child should fulfill. Parents who are unable to work or have financial difficulties when their children fail to fulfill their maintenance obligations have the right to demand that their children pay maintenance fees. Children should respect, care for, and take care of the elderly, and fulfill their obligations of providing financial support, daily care, and spiritual comfort to the elderly. Supporters should also provide timely treatment and care for elderly people who are sick, and provide medical expenses for elderly people in financial difficulties. In this case, the plaintiff has reached the age of 78, is elderly and sickly, lacks the ability to work, and has difficulties in living. They demand that their four biological children pay alimony and bear the necessary expenses for future hospitalization, which is in accordance with legal regulations and is supported by the court. For the amount of alimony, based on the per capita living expenses of farmers in Shandong Province in 2014, which were 7962 yuan and supported by four people, the plaintiff requested that the amount of 2192 yuan per person per year be slightly higher, and that the appropriate amount should be 1990 yuan per person per year (7962 yuan/4 people). The plaintiff requested that the expenses incurred in the future hospitalization due to illness be borne equally by the four defendants, which is supported by the law. Defendant Xiao argued that compared to the other three defendants, he still needs to support his biological father, with a large number of dependents. He should not share the plaintiff's maintenance costs equally with the other three people, and requested that according to the original mediation plan, he only bear 17.5%. The plaintiff does not recognize the defendant Xiao's above request, and the plaintiff's claimed alimony is calculated based on the plaintiff's individual living needs. The defendant Xiao needs to support his biological father, but it cannot affect the support for his mother. His defense has no legal basis and the court does not support it. Therefore, the judgment was made: firstly, the four defendants shall pay the plaintiff 1990 yuan in maintenance fees for 2015 within ten days from the effective date of the judgment; Secondly, starting from 2016, the four defendants shall respectively pay the plaintiff's alimony of 1990 yuan before December 30th of each year; Thirdly, if the plaintiff incurs expenses for hospitalization due to illness in the future, each of the four defendants shall bear a quarter of the expenses based on the documents.

（3） Typical significance

The obligation to support and support is a legal obligation that children should fulfill towards their parents. The term "children" refers to biological and adopted children, as well as stepchildren who form a foster relationship. Children born in wedlock and children born out of wedlock have the same legal status, and children cannot choose whether to support their parents based on their own views on their parents' likes and dislikes, nor can they refuse to support their biological parents on the grounds of wanting to support them. With the development of urbanization, maintenance disputes caused by demolition have gradually increased. Many remarried elderly people, their children, in order to obtain demolition funds, not only do not support the elderly, but also turn them away. This behavior will not only be morally condemned, but also subject to legal sanctions. When a child forms a foster relationship with their stepparents, whether they are biological or not, they have the obligation to support them. Article 21 of the Marriage Law also clearly stipulates that "parents have the obligation to raise and educate their children; children have the obligation to support and assist their parents." Therefore, when a child fails to fulfill their maintenance obligations, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their child pay maintenance fees.

7、 Ding, Jiang Jia, Jiang Yi, and others in a dispute over maintenance

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Ding gave birth to the defendants Jiang Jia, Jiang Yi, and Jiang Bing. At present, Ding has suffered from a decline in physical strength, illness, long-term bed rest, inability to take care of himself, loss of labor ability, and lack of financial resources, resulting in a difficult life. From August 2014 to January 2015, Ding was hospitalized due to illness and spent a total of 7042.35 yuan on medical expenses during his hospitalization. Ding is currently living with defendant Jiang Jia, and defendant Jiang Yi has not fulfilled his maintenance obligations to Ding on the grounds of not cultivating the plaintiff's land. On January 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court requesting the three defendants to fulfill their maintenance obligations and pay monthly maintenance fees. The medical expenses already paid and future medical expenses shall be shared equally among the three defendants.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Sishui County, Jining City, held in the first instance that supporting the elderly is not only a legal obligation that adult children should fulfill, but also a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation. The current plaintiff, Ding, has suffered from a decline in physical strength, illness, long-term bed rest, inability to take care of oneself, loss of labor ability, lack of financial resources, and financial difficulties. The three defendants have the most basic obligation to support the plaintiff. Defendants Jiang Jia and Jiang Bing have fulfilled some of their maintenance obligations to the plaintiff, which is commendable, but the three defendants have not fully fulfilled their obligations to support and take care of their mother. The three defendants should take good care of the plaintiff's elderly life, provide material guarantees, and provide spiritual comfort. Therefore, the three defendants fulfill their maintenance obligations and pay monthly maintenance fees. The claim that the medical expenses already paid and future medical expenses should be shared equally by the three defendants is supported by the law. Thus, the defendants Jiang Jia, Jiang Yi, and Jiang Bing were sentenced to pay the plaintiff Ding a maintenance fee of 2464.33 yuan each year before April 30, 2015; Defendants Jiang Yi and Jiang Bing respectively paid 2347.45 yuan in actual medical expenses to the plaintiff before April 30, 2015; The medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff Ding since March 2015 shall be borne by the defendants Jiang Jia, Jiang Yi, and Jiang Bing each by one-third based on official receipts. These expenses shall be paid by the defendants Jiang Jia, Jiang Yi, and Jiang Bing before June 30th of each year. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a maintenance dispute case. Currently, there are frequent cases of support disputes in rural areas. How to better protect the rights and interests of the elderly, enhance social care for the elderly, and provide them with better material and spiritual care has become the responsibility of the whole society, and it is also the starting point and foothold for courts to hear support cases. The Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that when a child fails to fulfill their maintenance obligations, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their child pay maintenance fees. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly stipulates that caregivers shall fulfill their obligations to provide economic support, provide daily care, and provide spiritual comfort to the elderly, and take care of their special needs; Supporters should provide timely treatment and care for the elderly who are ill; For elderly people with financial difficulties, medical expenses should be provided. For elderly people who cannot take care of themselves, their caregivers should bear the responsibility of taking care of them; Those who cannot take care of themselves can be entrusted to others or elderly care institutions according to the wishes of the elderly. Supporting the elderly is not only a legal obligation that adult children should fulfill, but also a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation. With the continuous progress of social rule of law, it is particularly important and urgent for the elderly to use legal means to protect their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law.

8、 Geng, Zhao, and Geng Jia, Geng Yi, and Geng Bing's Maintenance Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiffs Geng and Zhao have three sons, namely the eldest son Geng Jia, the second son Geng Yi, and the third son Geng Bing. The two plaintiffs are now old and have no labor capacity, and need to be supported. Therefore, Eryuan informed the court and demanded that each of the three defendants pay a monthly alimony of 200 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Yanggu County, Liaocheng City believes that supporting parents by children is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation and an obligation stipulated by law. Children cannot refuse to fulfill their maintenance obligations for any reason. If their children fail to fulfill their maintenance obligations, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in life have the right to demand that their children fulfill their maintenance obligations. Both plaintiffs are elderly and have lost their ability to work. Defendants Geng A, Geng B, and Geng B are the sons of the second plaintiff, who currently reside in the defendant's family. Defendant Geng Jia's failure to fulfill his maintenance obligations under the circumstances of the second plaintiff being elderly and losing their ability to work is obviously unreasonable. The second plaintiff requested that each of the three defendants pay a monthly alimony of 200 yuan, which is in line with the living standards of local rural residents and legal regulations. The court supports this request. Thus, it was ruled that the defendants Geng Jia, Geng Yi, and Geng Bing would each pay a monthly alimony of 200 yuan to the plaintiffs Geng and Zhao starting from October 2014, with a limit of paying off the current year's alimony before December 31 each year.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical alimony dispute case. The reason for this is the lack of legal awareness among people. We should not only advocate for moral norms to constrain people's behavior, but also pay attention to the ultimate protection of the law. When moral constraints fail, there should be sound legal provisions to protect them. At the same time, the law also needs someone to uphold it, otherwise it's just a blank sheet of paper. Especially when facing the infringement of the rights and interests of vulnerable groups, it is particularly important for the court to play a fair trial function. This case tells us that supporting the elderly is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, and doing a good job in supporting the elderly in rural areas is a long-term and arduous task.

9、 Case of Wang and Zhang Changing Their Parental Relationship

（1） Basic facts of the case

Plaintiff Zhang and defendant Wang got married in 2002 and gave birth to a boy named Wang Jia on June 13, 2004. Later, the two parties agreed to divorce in 2007 and agreed that Wang Jia would be raised by Wang. In September 2010, Wang and Wang Yi formed a separate family. During the period of living together with their father and Wang Yi, Wang Jia was subjected to corporal punishment, hunger, and mental abuse by his stepmother Wang Yi. In November 2011, during Zhang's visit, he discovered that his child had been injured and reported the case to the public security organs. After identification, Wang Jia had more than ten injuries to his body, which constituted minor injuries. On November 21, 2011, Zhang filed a lawsuit in court, requesting a change in the custody relationship and requiring the other party to bear the custody costs.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yanggu County, Liaocheng City held that after divorce, the issue of raising children born in wedlock should be conducive to the healthy growth of minors. In this case, after the divorce agreement between Wang and Zhang, although the agreement stipulated that Wang Jia, the illegitimate son, would be raised by Wang, during their upbringing process, based on Zhang's evidence, as well as the statements of the minor Wang Jia in court, witnesses' testimony, and forensic identification, it can be proven that since 2010, they have been subjected to corporal punishment, hunger, and mental abuse by their living together, which is significantly detrimental to their future healthy growth. Therefore, their upbringing relationship should be changed, And according to the law, Wang shall pay the maintenance fees. Wang filed an appeal, but after a second instance, the Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

According to the specific opinions of the Supreme People's Court on the handling of child rearing issues in divorce cases, if one party living together with their children fails to fulfill their child rearing obligations or engages in child abuse, and one party requests to change the child rearing relationship, support should be given. Divorce is free, but children are innocent. The blood relationship between parents and children is an unchangeable fact. When both parents remarry, they should objectively and realistically consider the child's actual situation and emotions, and should start from a perspective that is conducive to the child's life and learning, providing a healthy and stable growth environment for the child. In this way, children's happiness will not be diminished by the separation of their parents.

10、 Wang Moumou and Wang Jia's Support Fee Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Wang's mother Guo and the defendant Wang Jia registered their marriage on September 27, 2011. The plaintiff Wang was born on July 14, 2012. On November 20, 2014, Guo and defendant Wang Jia agreed to divorce at the Civil Affairs Bureau of Ningyang County, Tai'an City, and signed a divorce agreement. The agreement stipulates that Wang, the son born in marriage, will be raised by his mother Guo, and the defendant will not pay the maintenance fee. Due to the plaintiff's mother taking care of the plaintiff and her family after marriage and not having a stable work income, she barely managed to support the mother and son after divorce by doing odd jobs. The plaintiff now needs to pay tuition fees, living expenses, and other expenses to attend kindergarten. The defendant has a stable job for a long time and has also worked as a foreign affairs worker with high economic income. In 2013, she purchased a building in Ningyang County. After the plaintiff's parents divorced, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff maintenance fees. In order to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court on March 20, 2015, demanding that the defendant pay the plaintiff an annual living allowance of 7200 yuan starting from January 1, 2015, until the plaintiff can live independently.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Ningyang County, Tai'an City found that the plaintiff Wang is the legitimate child of his mother Guo and the defendant Wang Jia, and both parties have the obligation to raise the child. The plaintiff has reached the age of entering kindergarten, and the plaintiff's mother has no fixed work income. Defendant Wang Jia once worked in Singapore and purchased property in Ningyang County in 2013. The defendant claims that both the plaintiff and the defendant have rural household registration and should pay maintenance fees based on the per capita net income of rural residents from the date of filing the lawsuit. However, the plaintiff currently resides in Ningyang County and the defendant also has good economic capacity. Therefore, the court does not accept the defendant's claim that the per capita net income of rural residents should be paid. The defendant's claim to pay maintenance fees from the date of prosecution is in accordance with legal provisions and is accepted by the court. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's alimony starting from April 1, 2015. After the judgment, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a child custody dispute, in which the relationship between the two parties is special. Therefore, when dealing with such cases, it is necessary to consider this particularity and try to coordinate mediation and close the case as much as possible. If mediation is indeed impossible, such cases should be adjudicated as soon as possible in accordance with the law. In addition, consideration should also be given to the living environment of the plaintiff. Sometimes, if the plaintiff's household registration is inconsistent with their habitual residence, then it is necessary to consider how to maximize the protection of children's rights. In this case, although the plaintiff has a rural household registration, they have been living in the county town since birth and have been living and studying there. In addition, the defendant has also purchased housing in the county town. Considering these circumstances, the court ultimately ruled that the defendant should pay the plaintiff's maintenance fees based on the per capita net income of urban residents.