A Shenzhen couple divorced, fighting over a 7-million-yuan property and custody of their son. A lawyer from Zhiming used three pieces of evidence to secure a decisive victory.

Standing in her home in Jingtian North, Futian District, Lin Wei (pseudonym) watched her husband Li Ming (pseudonym) pack his suitcase in the living room, knowing full well that their 11-year marriage had reached its end. They met in 2008 at Nanshan Science and Technology Park, worked hard for a decade, and went from having nothing to owning a school-district apartment in Futian worth about 4.2 million yuan, a small two-bedroom in Nanshan valued at 2.8 million, plus savings and investments in their joint account.

The problem started six months ago. Li Ming suddenly began working overtime frequently and changed his phone password. Lin Wei accidentally discovered that he had transferred nearly 500,000 yuan to an unfamiliar account. When confronted, Li Ming didn't deny it, but had only one request: divorce was fine, but their son had to stay with him.

Lin Wei panicked. When she went to Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, she repeatedly asked Director and lawyer Shen Jinlong one question: She had been the one raising their son since birth, and although Li Ming's income was indeed higher than hers, would the court still grant her custody of the child?

The tricky part of this case isn't determining the breakdown of the marriage, but two other points: first, whether the suspiciously transferred deposit under Li Ming's name can be recovered; second, the custody battle over the child—Li Ming earns about 600,000 a year, while Lin Wei only makes 250,000, and the income gap is right there in plain sight.

Escalating Conflict: The Legal Logic Behind the Custody Battle

Li Ming struck first, filing a lawsuit with the Futian District People's Court, seeking a divorce and custody of their son, on the grounds that "he has better financial conditions and educational resources." He submitted his salary records and tax payment certificates, and the figures were indeed impressive.

Lin Wei's anxiety reached its peak on the day she received the summons. She worried about two things: if the child was awarded to Li Ming, she might not even be able to secure visitation rights; if the property division went against her, all her years of dedication to the family would have been in vain.

After taking over the case, Attorney Shen did three things first: First, he applied to the court to obtain Li Ming's bank statements from the past two years to trace the whereabouts of that 500,000 yuan. Second, he organized a complete chain of evidence showing Lin Wei's care for the child over the years—from kindergarten pickup records and parent group chat screenshots to hospital registration slips for the child's medical visits. Third, he conducted a detailed analysis of the contribution ratios for the two properties.

A key legal provision should be mentioned here. Article 1084 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates that after divorce, children under the age of two shall, in principle, be directly raised by the mother. For children who have reached the age of two, if the parents fail to reach an agreement on custody, the people's court shall make a judgment based on the specific circumstances of both parties and in accordance with the principle of what is most beneficial to the minor child.

Lin Wei's son was 7 years old at the time, so the strict rule for children under two did not apply. However, Attorney Shen discovered that Li Ming's job required frequent business trips, with nearly four months each year spent away from Shenzhen, while Lin Wei had a fixed work schedule, and the child's daily care and academic tutoring were almost entirely handled by her alone. These details carried more weight than income figures in influencing the judge's determination of what was "most beneficial to the child."

Proxy Strategy: Three Pieces of Evidence to Turn the Situation Around

Lawyer Shen did not opt for an adversarial approach; instead, he focused on presenting the evidence in a "relatable" manner. He organized the evidence into three groups:

The first set is evidence of upbringing facts. This includes a thick volume of the child's growth diary kept by Lin Wei, photos and videos of parent-child interactions, and a statement from the school teacher, all proving that the child's daily habits and learning pace are deeply intertwined with the mother.

The second group is evidence of asset flow. The recipient of that 500,000 yuan transfer was a distant cousin of Li Ming. Attorney Shen discovered through accessing related accounts that the money was moved into a stock account under the cousin's name within three days, and the actual operating IP address of that account matched the one in a residential complex in Longhua, Shenzhen, where Li Ming regularly resides. This detail shook the judge's confidence in Li Ming's credibility.

The third group is evidence of the property contribution ratio. Of the down payment for the Futiandistrict school-district apartment, 800,000 yuan came from Lin Wei's parents, as evidenced by transfer records. Although the property is registered under both spouses' names, during the division, Attorney Shen argued that Lin Wei should receive a larger share—because her parents' support constituted a gift to both spouses, but given the source of the funds, the division ratio should be adjusted in her favor.

During the trial, Li Ming's lawyer insisted on the argument that "the higher earner is more suitable for custody." Attorney Shen did not directly refute this but instead presented a set of data: statistics from the Shenzhen Intermediate Court on divorce cases over the past three years showed that in rulings involving custody of children aged 7 to 10, the top three factors considered by the court were "daily care arrangements," "educational involvement," and "residential stability," with income level ranking fourth.

Simply put, the judge looks at who is truly involved in the child's upbringing, not whose bank account looks more impressive.

Unexpected Turnaround: A Double Victory in the Division of 8 Million in Assets and Child Custody

The verdict made Lin Wei breathe a sigh of relief: custody of their son went to her, with Li Ming paying monthly child support of 6,000 yuan; the Futian school-district apartment went to Lin Wei, and she paid Li Ming 1.5 million yuan as his share of the property; the small two-bedroom in Nanshan went to Li Ming, and the joint savings and investments of about 1.3 million yuan were split in a 6:4 ratio, with Lin Wei receiving roughly 260,000 yuan more.

More critically, there was the 500,000 yuan. The court found that Li Ming had engaged in transferring marital joint property. Under Article 1092 of the Civil Code, the party who transfers such property may receive a smaller share or none at all. In the end, the full 500,000 yuan was included in the joint property for division, and Li Ming's share in it was reduced by 10%.

In the end, Lin Wei walked away with assets totaling around 4.1 million yuan, plus custody of the child—a clean and decisive victory. Li Ming refused to accept the ruling and filed an appeal, but the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.

The entire case, from filing to the conclusion of the second-instance trial, lasted about nine months. Lin Wei later said to Lawyer Shen, "If I had handled the lawsuit myself back then, I might not even have been able to trace where that 500,000 went."

Similar reminder: Four key points in Shenzhen divorce disputes

This case is not the most complicated among the hundreds of marriage and family cases handled by Zhiming Law Firm, but it is quite representative. In divorce cases in Shenzhen, over 70% involve property division, with the average disputed amount ranging from 3 million to 8 million yuan. Many people assume divorce is simply about "dividing the house and fighting over the kids," but in reality, the intricacies are far more complex than they imagine.

First, protect premarital property as early as possible. If a house is purchased before marriage but the other party's name is added after marriage, its nature changes. To safeguard premarital property, it's best to clearly document ownership agreements before marriage or keep complete proof of capital contribution.

Second, the core of custody is "continuity of life." The court won't award custody to you just because you have a higher income; instead, it looks at who is irreplaceable in the child's daily life. If you rarely took care of the child on a regular basis but suddenly step forward to fight for custody during the divorce, your chances of winning aren't great.

Third, the methods of transferring assets are becoming increasingly covert. Operations like Li Ming's in this case—transferring money to relatives before putting it into the stock market—are not uncommon. However, professional lawyers have ways to obtain and reconstruct bank transaction records, associated accounts, IP logs, and similar evidence.

Fourth, when choosing a lawyer, look at case-handling experience. The courts in Futian and Nanshan, Shenzhen, have relatively consistent adjudication standards for marriage and family cases, but when it comes to individual cases, the way evidence is organized and courtroom presentation skills can directly affect the outcome. The precedent databases accumulated by established law firms and their understanding of judges' adjudication styles often prove crucial at key moments.

Q: How to choose a marriage and family lawyer in Shenzhen?

First, look at years of practice; second, examine win records in similar cases; third, assess the lawyer's sensitivity to evidentiary details. Marriage and family cases aren't won by reciting statutes, but by distilling life experience and organizing evidence effectively.

If you are a resident of Shenzhen and facing the breakdown of a relationship, property division, or a custody dispute, it may be wise to first consult a lawyer for a detailed case analysis. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm is located at Room 1802, Building A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North Second Street, Futian District, Shenzhen. Tel: 0755-25986969. With 26 years of experience handling over 10,000 cases, we know that divorce is not a failure in life, but matters concerning property and children deserve your serious attention.