Extramarital affair triggers series of disputes with repeated losses; Zhiming lawyer turns the tide to win final appeal.
[Lead Attorney: Wang Tengfeng, Cao Guanghui] I. Case Background
A married man, Zhang XX, met and had a relationship with Huang XX in 1999, resulting in the birth of a son, Zhang Xlong, in 2001. During their relationship, Zhang XX paid substantial sums to Huang XX in the form of house purchase funds and cash. In spring 2004, Zhang XX and Huang XX reached an agreement to transfer custody of their illegitimate son, Zhang Xlong, to Zhang XX. Zhang XX brought Zhang Xlong home and entrusted him to his wife, Duan XX, who has raised him ever since. On May 25, 2009, Zhang XX passed away. Shortly after his death, Huang XX filed a lawsuit in court, seeking to regain custody of Zhang Xlong and submitted the 2004 agreement with Zhang XX. While sorting through Zhang XX's belongings, Duan XX discovered evidence that her late husband had improperly disposed of marital assets in favor of Huang XX. She then hired a lawyer to file two lawsuits for the return of property (including money, vehicles, and real estate). Subsequently, Huang XX filed a lawsuit over child custody disputes. This triggered a full-scale outbreak of serial property and child custody disputes arising from Zhang XX's extramarital affair. The two previous property return lawsuits and the first-instance child custody dispute all resulted in Duan XX losing. In desperation, Duan XX approached Wang Tengfeng, director of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, in May 2010. After a meticulous and precise analysis by Director Wang, Duan XX gained confidence and decided to entrust Director Wang Tengfeng with winning the case. Director Wang Tengfeng, along with his assistant attorney Cao Guanghui, accepted the commission as her litigation representatives and actively responded to the lawsuit.
II. Won the Second Instance
Since the client only completed the authorization procedures three days before the second-instance hearing, the firm's attorneys, upon accepting the case, promptly submitted a request to the first-instance court to revoke the previous attorney's authorization and urgently contacted the judge to review the case files before the hearing. After reviewing the files, the firm's attorneys conducted a comprehensive analysis and concluded that Huang XX was undoubtedly the biological mother of Zhang Xlong. The previous attorney's request for a paternity test would only serve to delay proceedings and would not benefit the client's claims. They decisively withdrew the paternity test request previously submitted by the former attorney. Based on the nature of the case as a custody dispute, the firm's attorneys adhered to the fundamental principle of promoting the healthy growth of Zhang Xlong. Considering that the client had raised Zhang Xlong for nearly ten years and that Zhang Xlong was willing to continue living with the client, they gathered evidence from schools, workplaces, and friends to demonstrate that continued custody by Duan XX would better support Zhang Xlong's education and development. During the second-instance hearing, the firm's attorneys not only provided substantial evidence but also requested the court to seek the wishes of Zhang Xlong in court, emphasizing that the client's custody was more conducive to the child's healthy growth. They also pointed out that the custody dispute was closely tied to Zhang XX's inheritance. In response to the first-instance court's erroneous application of general provisions in Article 16 of the General Principles of Civil Law regarding the biological mother's guardianship rights and the general conditions for "adopters" and "adoptees" under the Adoption Law, the firm's attorneys argued during court debate that this case involved a custody dispute, which is distinct from guardianship. If the client and Zhang Xlong were viewed as separate individuals, they would not meet the conditions for "adopters" and "adoptees" under the Adoption Law. However, the relationship between the client and Zhang Xlong was a stepmother-stepson relationship formed through the client's marriage to Zhang XX and Zhang XX's biological connection to Zhang Xlong, resulting in de facto care. Moreover, the client's care for Zhang Xlong was explicitly consented to in writing by his biological mother, Huang XX. In this case, the client's care for Zhang Xlong not only did not violate the Adoption Law but precisely fell under the special circumstance of Article 14 of the Adoption Law, which allows a stepmother to adopt a stepchild with the consent of the biological mother. Through a series of diligent and lawful efforts by the firm's attorneys, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court issued a ruling in December 2010 overturning the erroneous first-instance judgment, granting the client victory and allowing her to continue raising her stepson, Zhang Xlong.
III. Reflections on This Case
As a highly responsible professional lawyer, one must not only possess an indomitable and persevering professional spirit during case handling, but also be diligent in analyzing case materials, adept at discovering special case details, and capable of creatively applying and leveraging the law. Only in this way can one turn the tide and achieve victory against all odds, most efficiently safeguarding the legitimate rights of the client! Additionally, the client, Mr. Duan XX, has prepared a silk banner and will personally deliver it to Zhiming Law Firm on the 27th of this month, expressing gratitude for the firm's exceptional skills and professional dedication. The banner reads: "Righteous and upright, Zhiming sets a model; bold and resolute, a pioneer of the law."
