案情

王某的丈夫去世后，公公、婆婆对其恶言相向，拳脚相加，致使其不得不离开在哺乳期的儿子，不堪受辱回到娘家。此后，王某本人不但不能抚养自己的儿子，而且根本见不到自己的儿子。王某无奈向椒江区人民法院起诉，要回自己对亲生儿子抚养权。法院审理后认为,未成年人的父母是未成年人第一序位的法定监护人，王某丈夫虽已死亡，但王某作为儿子的生母，仍系第一序位的法定监护人，根据《中华人民共和国婚姻法》规定,父母都有保护和教育未成年子女的权利和义务,王某公婆的行为虽无主观恶意,但客观上已侵犯了王某对儿子应行使的监护权,故判决王某抚养儿子,并履行监护职责。

律师观点

依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第十六条第一款规定，“未成年人的父母是未成年人的监护人。”及《妇女权益保障法》第四十九条规定，“父亲死亡、丧失行为能力或者有其他情形不能担任未成年子女的监护人的，母亲的监护权任何人不得干涉。”本案两被告的儿子虽已死亡，但原告王某作为儿子的生母，是当然的法定监护人，依法享有对亲生未成年儿子的监护权利，并受法律保护。本案应为侵犯监护权纠纷，不仅在于生母的监护人资格是当然取得，无需设置，还在于两被告的监护人资格依法未得到任何方面的确认，即将被监护人藏匿，使监护人不能实际行使监护权利；两被告人也未得到原告的同意或临时委托，就擅自将被监护人藏匿并不予归还，不能不说是侵犯了原告依法享有的监护权。

未成年人的父母是未成年人的监护人，未成年人父母死亡或没有监护能力的，可由祖父母等人担任监护人。而原告王某并未丧失监护能力，所以，祖父母不能直接抚养孙子。

case

After Wang's husband passed away, his father-in-law and mother-in-law spoke ill of him and punched him, forcing him to leave his breastfeeding son and return to his mother's house unbearable humiliation. Afterwards, Wang himself was not only unable to raise his own son, but also could not see his own son at all. Wang had no choice but to file a lawsuit with the People's Court of Jiaojiang District to reclaim his custody of his biological son. After the trial, the court held that the parents of the minor were the legal guardians of the minor's first order. Although Wang's husband had passed away, Wang, as the biological mother of his son, was still the legal guardians of the minor's first order. According to the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, both parents have the right and obligation to protect and educate their minor children. Although Wang's mother-in-law's behavior was not subjective and malicious, But objectively, it has infringed on Wang's right of guardianship over his son, so it is decided that Wang should raise his son and fulfill his guardianship duties.

Lawyer's viewpoint

According to Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, "the parents of a minor are the guardians of the minor." And Article 49 of the Law on the Protection of Women's Rights and Interests stipulates that "if the father dies, loses capacity, or is unable to serve as the guardian of a minor child under any other circumstances, no one shall interfere with the mother's guardianship." Although the son of the two defendants in this case has passed away, But the plaintiff Wang, as the biological mother of his son, is the natural legal guardian and enjoys the right to guardianship of his biological underage son in accordance with the law, and is protected by law. This case should be a dispute over the infringement of guardianship rights, not only because the guardianship qualification of the biological mother is naturally obtained and does not need to be established, but also because the guardianship qualifications of the two defendants have not been confirmed in any aspect according to law, and will be hidden by the guardians, making it impossible for the guardians to actually exercise their guardianship rights; The two defendants, without the consent or temporary authorization of the plaintiff, concealed their guardians and refused to return them, which cannot be said to have infringed on the plaintiff's legal guardianship rights.

The parents of minors are guardians of minors. If the parents of minors die or have no guardianship ability, grandparents and others can serve as guardians. However, the plaintiff Wang has not lost his guardianship ability, so his grandparents cannot directly raise his grandson.