家庭婚姻纠纷典型案例（山东）

目录

1、张某某与赵某婚约财产纠纷案

2、刘某与冯某婚姻财产纠纷案

3、杨某与刘某某离婚纠纷案

4、陈某某与吕某某离婚纠纷案

5、陈某与陈甲、徐乙、徐丙赡养纠纷案

6、周某与肖某、倪甲等赡养纠纷案

7、丁某与蒋甲、蒋乙等赡养纠纷案

8、耿某、赵某与耿甲、耿乙、耿丙赡养纠纷案

9、王某与张某变更抚养关系案

10、王某某与王甲抚养费案

一、张某某与赵某婚约财产纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2013年5月，原告张某某与被告赵某经邵某介绍相识。2013年7月13日，通过证人邵某，原告给付被告现金40000元及首饰四件作为订婚的彩礼。后原告又向被告送了两箱酒、两条烟、两盒茶叶、几袋糖。后原、被告未能登记结婚，被告也未将上述彩礼退还。为此，原告诉至法院。法院在审理过程中，被告当庭将首饰四件退还原告。

（二）裁判结果

济宁市高新区人民法院一审认为，原、被告经人介绍相识，后双方未能登记结婚，原告给付被告的彩礼，被告应当予以退还。证人邵某是原、被告双方的介绍人，给付彩礼的过程证人也实际参与，且证人与原、被告双方均无利害关系，其证言可信度较高，并且证人陈述的情况也符合本地的风俗习惯，因此对其证言法院予以采信。证人高某的证言与证人邵某的证言，并不矛盾，也印证了原告存在订婚给付彩礼的事实，因此对其证言法院亦予以确认。法院认为，证人邵某出庭作证只证明原告给付被告现金40000元，该40000元被告应当予以退还原告。原告主张后来又给付被告2000元用于购买衣服，但没有向法院提交相应的证据，因此其要求退还该2000元，法院不予支持。被告已将首饰退还原告，原告也已经接受，因此原告主张的首饰钱12000元，被告不需再返还。原告要求退还购买物品的价款3000元，没有提供购买物品的发票，所购物品价值不能确定，因此对原告的该项请求，法院不予支持。最后，法院判决被告赵某于判决生效之日起五日内退还原告张某某彩礼款40000元，驳回原告张某某的其他诉讼请求。

（三）典型意义

本案是一起典型的婚约财产纠纷案件。原告与被告经人介绍认识，原告按照当地风俗习惯给予被告彩礼，但原告与被告之后未能登记结婚。关于此种情况如何处理，《最高人民法院关于适用＜中华人民共和国婚姻法＞若干问题的解释（二）》中作了明确规定，即双方未办理结婚登记手续的，法院应支持当事人要求返还彩礼的诉讼请求。彩礼虽具有赠与的外观，但法律后果与普通的赠与却大相径庭。被告关于原告给予其彩礼的行为为赠与行为的抗辩，法院不应支持。

二、刘某与冯某婚姻财产纠纷案

（一）基本案情

原告刘某与被告冯某经人介绍相识，于2012年1月30日登记结婚，婚后无子女。2012年2月2日，刘某因病住院22天，出院后双方一直分居。因感情破裂，原告刘某向法院提起离婚诉讼，冯某同意离婚，但要求对方适当返还聘礼及看病花费。双方共同生活期间，未购置共同财产，无共同债权债务，有存款20000元在刘某手中。刘某的陪嫁财产包括家电、被子在冯某处。

（二）裁判结果

聊城市茌平县人民法院一审认为，根据刘某与冯某两人长期分居的实际情况和双方均不愿维持该婚姻的意愿，应视为夫妻感情确已破裂。关于存款，刘某认可有共同存款20000元。关于刘某的陪嫁财产，属于其婚前个人财产。关于冯某所述婚前的聘礼，属于以结婚为目的的有条件赠与，双方已结婚，条件已成就，应按赠与处理。关于刘某婚后住院的花费，冯某要求刘某返还，因当时处于共同生活期间，冯某有义务给作为其妻子的刘某看病。最后，法院判决准予原告刘某与被告冯某离婚，原告刘某于判决生效之日起十日内支付给被告冯某共同存款折款10000元，被告冯某于判决生效之日起十日内将原告刘某的陪嫁财产返回给原告刘某。

（三）典型意义

本案争议的一个主要焦点是离婚后婚前彩礼是否返还的问题，这在广大农村是比较典型的。相当多的当事人认为彩礼是为结婚而给付的，离婚了就应返还。其实，这是个误解。最高人民法院在《婚姻法》解释（二）中规定，只有符合以下情况，人民法院才支持返还彩礼：一是双方未办理结婚登记手续的；二是双方办理结婚登记手续但确未共同生活的；三是婚前给付并导致给付人生活困难的。如果不符合这三种情况，法院不支持返还彩礼。像本案这种情况，尽管双方共同生活时间不长，但毕竟已经结婚并共同生活，被告非因给付彩礼而导致非常困难，所以其要求返还彩礼的主张，法院没有支持。这一点，希望广大家庭特别是农村家庭予以特别关注，离婚时要审慎对待这个问题，应依法去行使权利，履行义务。

三、杨某与刘某某离婚纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2010年12月，原告杨某与被告刘某某经人介绍登记结婚，结婚时间较短且未生育子女。婚后双方因家务琐事经常发生矛盾，难以共同生活，杨某两次向法院起诉离婚，刘某某表示同意离婚。婚前，刘某某购买了商品房一套，别克凯越轿车一辆。婚后二人签订了一份“保婚”协议，约定上述房子和车辆为夫妻共同财产，并注明若杨某提出离婚，协议无效。协议签订一年后，杨某起诉离婚，要求分割夫妻共同财产。

（二）裁判结果

滨州市滨城区人民法院经审理认为，原、被告双方夫妻感情确已破裂，准予双方离婚。诉讼双方约定涉案房产、车辆为共同财产，系双方当事人真实意思表示，不违反法律规定，应予支持。对杨某、刘某某婚后共同财产，法院依法予以分割。最后，法院判决：一、准予杨某与刘某某离婚；二、杨某在刘某某处的婚前个人财产新日电动车一辆归杨某个人所有；杨某、刘某某婚后共同财产中的42寸海信电视一台、电视柜一个归杨某所有，澳柯玛冰箱一台、餐桌一张带四把椅子归刘某某所有；三、杨某、刘某某婚后共同财产中位于滨州市滨城区黄河五路渤海二十二路明日星城小区42号楼1单元302室的住房一套归刘某某所有（剩余贷款16万元左右由刘某某偿还），刘某某给付杨某该项财产分割款60 000元；婚后共同财产中的鲁MKR236别克凯越轿车一辆归杨某所有，杨某给付刘某某该项财产分割款22 500元；折抵后，刘某某需支付杨某财产分割款37 500元；以上过付事项于判决生效后十日内付清；四、驳回杨某、刘某某其他诉讼请求。

（三）典型意义

这是一起涉及婚内财产协议效力的案件。当前，许多人在婚前婚内签订一纸“保婚”文书，而“谁提离婚，谁便净身出户”，往往成为婚内财产协议中的恩爱信诺，以使得双方打消离婚念头，一心一意的经营好婚姻。但是，这些协议究竟有没有效力。根据婚姻法第十九条“夫妻双方可以约定婚姻关系存续期间所得财产以及婚前财产归各自所有、共同所有或部分各自所有、共同所有。约定应采用书面形式，没有约定或约定不明确的，适用本法第十七条、十八条的规定。夫妻对婚姻关系存续期间所得的财产以及婚前财产的约定，对双方具有约束力”。本案中的《协议书》由当事人双方签字认可，且有见证人签字，协议书签署后双方共同生活一年以上，在刘某某无相反证据证实杨某存在欺诈、胁迫的情形时，《协议书》内容应视为双方真实意思表示，不违反法律规定，法院应予支持。对于《协议书》所附“一方提出离婚，协议无效”的约定，因限制他人离婚自由，违反法律规定和公序良俗而无效，其无效不影响协议书其他条款的效力。

四、陈某某与吕某某离婚纠纷案

（一）基本案情

原告陈某某与被告吕某某于1980经人介绍相识，双方在未办理结婚登记手续的情况下开始同居生活。1983年6月4日生育长子吕甲，1986年5月30日生育次子吕乙，1988年12月28日生育三子吕丙，现三个孩子均已成年，并已独立生活。原告陈某某系重性精神分裂症患者，患病后无法独立生活，被告吕某某不履行夫妻间的扶养义务。因此，原告陈某某提起诉讼，请求判令与被告吕某某离婚，均分夫妻财产，并要求吕某某返还工资款33000元，并给予其经济帮助金60000元。本案中，陈某系原告陈某某的姐姐，并且是原告的监护人。

（二）裁判结果

枣庄市山亭区人民法院经审理认为，原告陈某某系不能辨识自己行为的精神病人，是无民事行为能力人。原告陈某某的监护人陈某作为作为法定代理人代为诉讼，符合法律规定。原、被告虽未办理结婚登记手续，但1980年即开始同居生活，至1994年2月1日双方已符合结婚的实质要件，属事实婚姻。原告陈某某因患精神疾病生活无法自理，被告吕某某不履行夫妻间的扶养义务，现原告陈某某请求离婚，符合法律规定，应予以准许。原告陈某某要求均分共同财产，但未提供财产清单及相关证据证明，不予支持，待权利人有证据后，可另行主张。原告陈某某要求被告吕某某偿还其2005年至2013年的工资款33000元，证据不足，法院不予支持。原告陈某某要求被告吕某某给予其60000元经济帮助金，根据《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第四十二条的规定，结合本案实际，法院认为被告吕某某给予原告陈某某20000元经济帮助金为宜。

（三）典型意义

本案中的一个焦点问题是原告陈某某的姐姐陈某，是否能代为提起离婚诉讼。夫妻关系存续期间，夫或妻一方可能会因疾病或外力损伤而出现无民事行为能力或限制民事行为能力状态。一般人的离婚可以通过协商、诉讼等多种方式解决，但对于这一类特殊的人群，他们的离婚只能通过诉讼来解决。无民事行为能力人属于无法表达真实意思的人。在离婚案件中，无民事行为能力人无论是作为原告还是被告，其第一顺序监护人系配偶，如果纠结于《民事诉讼法》的规定，则会出现无民事行为能力人的合法权益受到配偶侵犯时，只要配偶不提出离婚，则其永远也离不了婚。为了保护无民事行为能力人的权益，应由除其配偶外的其他监护人代为提起离婚诉讼。本案中，原告陈某某因患精神疾病生活无法自理，被告吕某某不履行夫妻间的扶养义务，原告陈某某的姐姐作为监护人代为请求离婚，符合法律规定，应予以准许。

五、陈某与陈甲、徐乙、徐丙赡养纠纷案

（一）基本案情

原告陈某与朱某于1986年登记结婚，朱某系再婚。1987年，朱某带徐乙（1975年6月8日出生）、徐丙（1978年2月10日出生）到临沂市莒南县文疃镇大草岭后村与原告陈某共同生活。1990年5月13日，陈某、朱某生育一子陈甲。1991年被告徐乙离家外出打工，1993年被告徐丙离家外出打工。2012年2月，朱某去世。原告陈某由于年事已高，且没有生活来源，基本生活困难。因三被告拒不履行赡养义务，原告陈某诉至法院，请求处理。

（二）裁判结果

临沂市莒南县人民法院经审理认为，根据我国法律规定，子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务，继父母和受其抚养教育的继子女之间的权利义务与亲生父母子女关系一致。被告徐乙、徐丙随其母朱某与原告陈某长期共同生活，接受原告的抚养教育，与原告之间形成继父母子女关系，对原告陈某负有赡养义务。现原告身患疾病、生活困难，且三被告均已成年，具有赡养能力，原告的诉讼请求事实清楚，证据充分，法院予以支持。本案原告的赡养费标准应以统计部门发布的上年度当地农民年均生活消费支出为基准，考虑被告徐乙、徐丙与原告陈某的共同生活时间、感情因素及二被告目前的经济状况，法院酌定被告徐乙、徐丙负担的赡养费数额以每人每年1500元为宜。被告陈甲系原告陈某的亲生儿子，其对原告陈某负有当然的赡养义务，其自愿按照原告的请求以每年3600元的标准负担赡养费，法院予以确认。最后，法院判决被告陈甲自2014年起，于每年的6月1日前支付给原告陈某当年度赡养费3600元。被告徐乙、徐丙自2014年起，于每年的6月1日前分别支付给原告陈某当年度赡养费1500元。

（三）典型意义

赡养老人是中华民族的传统美德，做好农村老人赡养工作是长期而艰巨的任务，而继父母的赡养问题更加复杂。当前农村存在很多继父母与继子女之间的关系，而这种关系问题是一个较为敏感的社会问题。正确认识继父母子女的关系性质，适用有关法律对继父母子女关系进行全面调整，具有重要的社会意义。法律规定，继父母与继子女之间有抚养关系的，继子女必须对继父母承担赡养义务。针对赡养继父母这一特殊群体，需在农村加大宣传力度，引导社会形成正确认识，及时维护农村老人合法权益，确保老人安度晚年，真正做到案结事了人和。

六、周某与肖某、倪甲等赡养纠纷案

（一）基本案情

原告周某（女）于1960年携其子被告肖某与倪某（2013年去世）再婚，婚后与其生育二男一女，即被告倪甲、倪乙、倪丙。周某年迈体弱、无劳动能力、生活困难，于2007年起诉肖某要求其支付赡养费，后经法院调解商定被告肖某每年付给原告及倪某生活费350元、小麦100公斤、花生油7.5公斤；被告倪乙及倪丙通过庭外调解确定每年付给原告及倪某生活费500元，小麦250斤、花生油20斤。倪某去世后，随着原告年龄增大，疾病缠身，物价水平的不断提高，上述赡养费根本不足以维持原告的日常所需。原告周某与肖某等四被告协商未果，诉至法院，要求判令四被告自2015年起每人每年支付赡养费2192元。

（二）裁判结果

威海荣成市人民法院经审理认为，尊重和赡养老人是中华民族的传统美德，依照我国相关法律规定，赡养父母亦是每个子女应尽的义务。子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。子女应当尊重、关心和照料老年人，履行对老年人经济上供养、生活上照料和精神上慰藉的义务。赡养人还应当使患病的老年人及时得到治疗和护理，对经济困难的老年人，应当提供医疗费用。本案中，原告已年满78周岁，年老多病，没有劳动能力，生活困难，要求其四名亲生子女支付赡养费，并负担日后住院所需费用，符合法律规定，法院予以支持。对于赡养费的金额，根据2014年山东省农民家庭人均生活消费支出7962元、赡养人为四人计算，原告要求每人每年2192元数额略高，应以每人每年1990元为宜（7962元/4人）。原告要求其日后因病住院所产生费用由四被告平均承担，于法有据，法院予以支持。被告肖某辩称，相对于其他三被告而言，其还需赡养亲生父亲，赡养人数较多，不应当与其余三人平摊原告赡养费用，要求按照原来调解的方案，只负担17.5%。对于被告肖某的上述要求，现原告不予认可，且原告主张的赡养费是根据原告一人生活需求计算的，被告肖某需赡养其亲生父亲，但不能以此来影响对其母亲的赡养，其辩解无法律依据，法院不予支持。遂判决：一是四被告自判决生效之日起十日内，分别支付原告2015年赡养费1990元；二是自2016年起，四被告于每年12月30日前分别支付原告赡养费1990元；三是原告日后如因病住院所支出费用，由四被告凭单据各承担四分之一。

（三）典型意义

赡养扶助义务是子女对父母应尽的法律义务，这里所指的“子女”包括亲生子女和养子女以及形成抚养关系的继子女。婚生子女和非婚生子女在法律地位上是相同的，子女不能以自己对父母的亲疏好恶等看法来选择是否赡养父母，也不能以要赡养亲生父母为由而拒绝赡养养父母。随着城市化的发展，因拆迁引起的赡养纠纷也逐渐增多，有不少再婚的老人，各自的子女为获得拆迁款，不仅不赡养老人，而且把老人拒之门外，这种行为既会受到道德的谴责，也要受到法律的制裁。当子女与继父母形成抚养关系后，无论是不是亲生子女，都具有赡养义务。《婚姻法》第二十一条也明确规定“父母对子女有抚养教育的义务；子女对父母有赡养扶助的义务。”因此，当子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女付给赡养费的权利。

七、丁某与蒋甲、蒋乙等赡养纠纷案

（一）基本案情

原告丁某生育被告蒋甲、蒋乙、蒋丙三人。现丁某已年迈力衰，身患疾病，长期卧床，生活不能自理，丧失了劳动能力，又无经济来源，生活窘迫。2014年8月至2015年1月，丁某因患疾病住院治疗，住院期间共计花费医疗费7042.35元。现丁某跟随被告蒋甲生活，被告蒋乙以未耕种原告土地为由，未对丁某履行赡养义务。2015年1月27日，原告诉至法院，要求三被告履行赡养义务，按月支付赡养费，对于已支付的医疗费及以后的医疗费由三被告均摊。

（二）裁判结果

济宁市泗水县人民法院一审认为，赡养老人不仅是成年子女应尽的法律义务，也是中华民族的传统美德。现原告丁某已年迈力衰，身患疾病，长期卧床，生活不能自理，丧失了劳动能力，无经济来源，生活窘迫。三被告对原告负有最基本的赡养义务。被告蒋甲、蒋丙对原告履行了部分的赡养义务，值得肯定，但三被告还未完全尽到对其母亲的赡养、照顾义务。三被告理应照顾好原告的晚年生活，在物质上提供保障，精神上给予安慰，故三被告履行赡养义务，按月支付赡养费，对于已支付的医疗费及以后医疗费由三被告均摊的诉讼请求，于法有据，法院予以支持。遂判决被告蒋甲、蒋乙、蒋丙自2015年于每年4月30日前分别向原告丁某支付当年的赡养费2464.33元；被告蒋乙、蒋丙于2015年4月30日前分别向原告支付其已实际花费的医疗费2347.45元；原告丁某自2015年3月起产生的医疗费，凭正式票据由被告蒋甲、蒋乙、蒋丙各承担三分之一，该项费用由被告蒋甲、蒋乙、蒋丙于每年6月30日前支付。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案系赡养纠纷案件。当前农村地区的赡养纠纷案件时有发生，如何更好地维护老年人权益，增进社会对老年人的关爱，给予老年人更好的物质与精神照顾，已成为全社会的责任，也是法院审理赡养类案件的出发点和落脚点。《中华人民共和国婚姻法》规定：子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有要求子女给付赡养费的权利。《中华人民共和国老年人权益保障法》规定：赡养人应当履行对老年人经济上供养、生活上照料和精神上慰藉的义务，照顾老年人的特殊需要；赡养人应当使患病的老年人及时得到治疗和护理；对经济困难的老年人，应当提供医疗费用。对生活不能自理的老年人，赡养人应当承担照料责任；不能亲自照料的，可以按照老年人的意愿委托他人或者养老机构等照料。赡养老人不仅是成年子女应尽的法律义务，也是中华民族的传统美德。随着社会法治的不断进步，老年人依法运用法律手段维护自身合法权益，显得尤为重要和迫切。

八、耿某、赵某与耿甲、耿乙、耿丙赡养纠纷案

（一）基本案情

原告耿某、赵某生育三个儿子，分别是长子耿甲、次子耿乙、三子耿丙。现在原告二人年龄已大，无劳动能力，需要赡养。为此，二原告诉至法院，要求三被告每人每月支付赡养费200元。

（二）裁判结果

聊城市阳谷县人民法院经审理认为，子女赡养父母是中华民族的传统美德，也是法律规定的义务。子女不能以任何理由拒绝承担赡养义务，子女不履行赡养义务时，无劳动能力的或生活困难的父母，有权要求子女履行赡养义务。二原告均年事已高，丧失劳动能力。被告耿甲、耿乙、耿丙系二原告的儿子，二原告现在被告耿乙家居住。被告耿甲在二原告年事已高并丧失劳动能力的情况下，不履行赡养义务，显系无理。二原告要求三被告每人每月支付赡养费200元，符合当地农村居民的生活水平，也符合法律规定，法院予以支持。遂判决被告耿甲、耿乙、耿丙于2014年10月起每人每月给付原告耿某、赵某赡养费200元，限每年的12月31日前付清当年的赡养费。

（三）典型意义

本案是一起典型的赡养纠纷案件。之所以发生，究其原因,在于人们法律意识的淡薄。我们不仅要提倡道德规范对人们行为的约束,更要注重法律的最终保障力。当道德约束失效时，应当有完善的法律规定予以保护。同时,法律也需要有人去维护，否则只是白纸一张。特别是面对弱势群体权益被侵害时，法院发挥公正审判职能显得尤为重要。该案告诉我们，赡养老人是中华民族的传统美德，做好农村老人赡养工作是个长期而艰巨的任务。

九、王某与张某变更抚养关系案

（一）基本案情

原告张某与被告王某于2002年结婚，2004年6月13日生一男孩王甲，后双方于2007年协议离婚，约定王甲由王某抚养。2010年9月，王某与王乙另行组成家庭，王甲随父及王乙共同生活期间，受到继母王乙体罚、饥饿、精神虐待。2011年11月，张某探视过程中，发现孩子身体存有受伤情形，遂向公安机关报案，经鉴定，王甲身体存有十几处伤，已构成轻微伤。2011年11月21日，张某诉至法院，要求变更抚养关系，并要求对方承担抚养费用。

（二）裁判结果

聊城市阳谷县人民法院审理认为，夫妻双方离婚后，针对婚生子女的抚养问题，应当有利于未成年人的健康成长。本案中，王某与张某协议离婚后，虽协议约定婚生子王甲由王某抚养，但在其抚养过程中，根据张某方举证以及涉案未成年人王甲当庭陈述、证人证言、法医鉴定，能够证明自2010年起与其共同生活人员对其存有体罚、饥饿、精神虐待等情形，对其今后健康成长明显不利，其抚养关系应当予以变更，并依法由王某支付抚养费用。王某不服提起上诉，聊城市中级人民法院经过二审审理，判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

根据最高人民法院《关于人民法院审理离婚案件处理子女抚养问题的若干具体意见》之规定，与子女共同生活的一方不尽抚养义务或者有虐待子女行为的情形，一方要求变更子女抚养关系的，应予支持。离婚是自由的，但孩子是无辜的。父母与子女间的血缘关系，是一个永远都无法改变的事实。父母双方再婚时，均要客观的、现实的考虑到孩子的实际情况和感情，均应从有利于孩子生活和学习的角度出发，给孩子一个健康、稳定的成长环境。这样，孩子的幸福才不会因为父母的分离而削减。

十、王某某与王甲抚养费案

（一）基本案情

原告王某某的母亲郭某与被告王甲于2011年9月27日登记结婚，原告王某某出生于2012年7月14日。2014年11月20日，郭某与被告王甲在泰安市宁阳县民政局协议离婚，并签订离婚协议书一份。协议约定婚生之子王某某由其母亲郭某抚养，被告不支付抚养费。由于原告母亲婚后一直照顾原告和家庭，没有稳定的工作收入，离婚后仅靠打零工勉强维持母子两人的生活，现原告需上幼儿园要缴纳学费、生活费等费用，而被告长期工作稳定，还曾到国外务工，一直有较高经济收入，且于2013年在宁阳县城购买楼房一处。原告父母离婚后，被告没有给付原告抚养费。为维护合法权益，原告于2015年3月20日诉至法院，要求被告从2015年1月1日起每年给付原告生活费7200元，至原告独立生活为止。

（二）裁判结果

泰安市宁阳县人民法院经审理认为，原告王某某系其母郭某与被告王甲的婚生孩子，双方都有抚养孩子的义务。现原告已达到入幼儿园年龄，原告的母亲无固定工作收入。被告王甲曾在新加坡务工，且于2013年在宁阳县城购买房产。被告主张原、被告均是农村户口，应按农村居民人均纯收入从起诉之日起支付抚养费，但原告现居住宁阳县城，被告也有较好的经济能力，因此，对于被告要求按农村人均纯收入的该项主张，法院不予采信。对于被告要求从起诉之日支付抚养费的主张，符合法律规定，法院予以采信。遂判决被告自2015年4月1日起开始支付原告抚养费。判决后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案是子女抚养纠纷，在这类案件中，双方当事人关系特殊。因此，在处理此类案件时，应考虑到这一特殊性，尽量协调调解结案。如果确实无法调解，对这类案件应尽快依法判决。另外，也应考虑到原告的生活环境，有时原告户口与经常居住地不一致，这时就应该考虑如何最大程度保护孩子的权益。本案中，原告虽是农村户口，但原告从出生起就生活在县城，并在县城居住上学，而且被告也在县城购买住房，考虑到这些情况，法院最终判决被告按照城镇居民人均纯收入的标准支付原告抚养费。

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.