SPC decries child abuse by families

China's top court has reiterated that rejecting violence is the cornerstone of family education, citing a landmark case involving a teenage girl physically abused by her parents and calling for stronger social support to protect minors.

The Supreme People's Court recently reaffirmed a "zero tolerance" policy toward violence against children, stressing that the well-being of minors must be prioritized in family education and judicial handling.

According to the case disclosed by the court on Sunday, a 15-year-old girl identified by the pseudonym Xiao Yu lost her father at a young age and her mother later remarried. Xiao Yu contacted local police to report that she had been beaten by her parents.

Police investigations found that the girl had a disagreement with her mother and stepfather over domestic matters, during which the couple restrained her. Further inquiries revealed that the couple had repeatedly used the pretext of "disciplining and educating" the child to exert violent control, causing Xiao Yu to show signs of depression.

To protect her physical and mental health, police applied to a local court for a personal safety protection order on her behalf.

After issuing the order, the court barred the couple from harming the girl and required police and the neighborhood committee to monitor the situation. The stepfather was also ordered to move out of the residence.

In addition, the court, working with police and local prosecutors, ordered the mother to undergo six months of specialized family education guidance.

"Xiao Yu is in her adolescence and, combined with the loss of her father at a very young age and her mother's remarriage, she is in urgent need of emotional support and proper guidance," the court said.

However, it noted that the mother lacked awareness and the ability to communicate effectively and failed to pay attention to the psychological changes experienced by the child. This, the court said, prevented the stepfather from establishing a healthy guardianship relationship with the teenager and gradually intensified family conflicts.

"The stepfather's physical violence over trivial matters such as phone usage reflects his mistaken belief that violence is a legitimate means of family education," the court said. "The mother's indifference, and even participation in the violence, also demonstrates her failure to fulfill her duties in family education."

The SPC highlighted the case as an example of the importance of promptly issuing personal safety protection orders. But it emphasized that such measures alone are not enough.

"It is more crucial to develop a coordinated approach to uncover the root causes of family disputes and provide guidance to parents or guardians to help them correct their behavior, as protection orders often offer only temporary relief from violence," the court said.

"People raised in families where violence is the default way to resolve problems often repeat the cycle, either inflicting violence or becoming victims," added the SPC. "These roles may shift depending on circumstances."

Children raised under excessively harsh discipline, the court said, are more likely to use similar methods when raising their own children.

The court also disclosed five other significant cases in which judicial measures were used to promote family education, including cases involving school bullying and assistance for children of criminals facing difficulties in daily life. The cases, it said, demonstrate the judiciary's firm commitment to protecting minors and strictly enforcing laws such as the Family Education Promotion Law and the Law on the Protection of Minors.