Can an ex-husband get his children back if he treats them badly?

▼ After the 697th divorce, the support conditions have not changed. Can one party advocate changing the child support relationship?

Du Lili married Xu Qiang and gave birth to a son named Xu Xiao Qiang. When the baby was just two months old, Du Lili and Xu Qiang agreed to divorce. They agreed that Xu should be raised by his father and pay alimony every month.

A few months after the divorce, Du Lili appealed to the court to change the maintenance relationship. She said that after the divorce, Xu, who was an infant, was raised by relatives in Mentougou. She was busy with her work and went to visit her children for a long time, failing to fulfill her obligations to her children, which caused serious psychological and physical harm to her children. At the time of divorce, Du Lili was ill and unfit to raise children. Now she has recovered. In order to give the child a good and healthy growth environment, she asked the court to order permission to be raised. Xu Qiang, on the other hand, thinks that when Du Lili and Xu Qiang divorced, the two sides had reached an agreement that their children would be raised by Xu Qiang, and there was no legal basis for asking to change the custody relationship of Du Lili.

The court of first instance held that the agreement on child support in the divorce agreement between the two parties was in compliance with the law, and it was the true expression of both parties, and both parties should abide by it. At present, there is no definite evidence in Du Lili to prove that there are legal reasons that are not conducive to Xu Qiang's continued child support, so the court of first instance does not support Du Lili's claim to change the child support relationship, and decides to reject Du Lili's claim.

Du Lili appealed to the Intermediate People's Court again. She was breast-feeding when she appealed. Xu Cai is just eight months old, and growing up with his mother is more conducive to the child's physical and mental health. Both sides have the same income and housing conditions. Xu Qiang often travels on business, so he has no fixed time to take care of his children. He left the child in the care of his non-immediate relatives in Mentougou and failed to fulfill his obligations as a guardian.

Another detail is that in the first trial, Xu Qiang said that he could change the custody of the children, but refused to pay alimony. Du Lili also mentioned one thing when she divorced, that is, the divorce agreement was because she suffered from domestic violence and postpartum depression. On the premise that her mother is allowed to raise the child, she agrees to be allowed to raise it. Now, because Du Lili has recovered, she wants to change the custody.

After the Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court made a final civil judgment, it still rejected the plaintiff's claim and upheld the original judgment, that is, rejected the claim to change the dependency relationship.

Child support is based on the principle of benefiting children's physical and mental health and safeguarding children's legitimate rights and interests, and is comprehensively determined by combining the parenting ability and parenting conditions of both parents.

In this case, at the same time as the divorce, it was agreed that the child was raised by Xu. This agreement is in compliance with the law, and both parties shall abide by it. Now Du Lili advocates changing the child support relationship, because the time to get married is very short, and Du Lili has not provided strong evidence to prove that the economic situation and support conditions of both parties have changed significantly compared with the divorce. After the divorce, Xu lived with his father, and changing the maintenance relationship was not conducive to Xu's life stability. Because it could not be proved that there were legal reasons that were not conducive to continuing to raise children, her appeal lacked factual and legal basis, and the court rejected her claims one after another.

The law "depends" on the case-free compulsory consultation of legal experts and elite lawyers.