China court rules sharing family disputes in chat is domestic violence after dad embarrasses son

A Chinese court issued a personal protection order to restrict a man’s behaviour after he repeatedly posted arguments with his wife in his son’s school chat groups.The Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court took this action after determining that the father’s behaviour constituted domestic violence. This case was recently publicised, igniting heated online discussions.The Shanghai man, surnamed Lin, had been estranged from his wife for an extended period. His son lived with his mother and had long been enduring the conflicts between his parents.Since November last year, Lin had repeatedly used “extremely emotional and derogatory” language in communications within his son’s class chat group, the parents’ group, and a neighbourhood group.In those messages, he accused his wife and parents-in-law of destroying their family and alienating his son from him.As the messages circulated, Lin-junior" class="entity-link entity-person" data-entity-id="172871" data-entity-type="person">Lin junior began to feel ashamed in front of his classmates, teachers, and neighbours.Ultimately, Lin-junior" class="entity-link entity-person" data-entity-id="172871" data-entity-type="person">Lin junior requested a court order prohibiting his father from continuing to post defamatory and threatening messages, as well as from harassing and stalking him and other close relatives.After repeatedly using derogatory language, the father’s chat messages made the son feel embarrassed in front of peers and community members. Photo: ShutterstockLin senior expressed his anger towards his wife for not allowing him to see his son.The court concluded that his behaviour had exceeded acceptable boundaries for expressing normal family conflicts, and that posting family matters in his son’s chat groups – which are public cyberspaces – violated Lin-junior" class="entity-link entity-person" data-entity-id="172871" data-entity-type="person">Lin junior’s personal dignity and right to privacy.The ruling stated that Lin senior’s actions caused psychological harm to his family and constituted domestic violence.Consequently, the court issued a personal protection order prohibiting Lin senior from harassing his son and other close relatives through phone calls, messages, or online posts.Further ReadingHowever, it also upheld the father’s legal right to visit and supervise his son, thus denying Lin-junior" class="entity-link entity-person" data-entity-id="172871" data-entity-type="person">Lin junior’s request for a “no contact” order.China’s Anti-Domestic Violence Law, enacted in 2015, stipulates that victims of domestic violence can apply for a personal protection order.The order lasts no more than six months, and applicants can request to revoke, modify, or extend it before its expiration date.In 2022, a court in eastern China’s Jiangsu province issued a personal protection order against a husband who had inflicted physical violence on his wife, mandating the man to undergo psychological rehabilitation during the six-month validity of the order.Many online commenters applauded the court’s decision, reinforcing the principle that every child deserves a safe and nurturing environment. Photo: ShutterstockThe Shanghai case has sparked intense online discussions, with many praising the court for recognising online posts as a form of mental abuse.“Parents should never bring their conflicts into their children’s chat groups; cyberspace is not exempt from the law. I hope all parents prioritise communication over confrontation, allowing their children to grow up in peace,” one comment read.“Children should not be used as weapons by their parents, and the impact of emotional abuse must not be overlooked. Kudos to the court’s decision,” remarked another.“Psychological abuse can leave deeper scars than physical violence,” stated a third commenter.The Anti-Domestic Violence Law recognises psychological harm among family members, including verbal abuse, as a form of domestic violence.However, legal experts have pointed out that the covert nature of psychological harm makes it challenging to collect evidence and identify. They have advised that judicial interpretation and reference cases should be established and utilised in judicial practice.