Family Reunion Reversal: After Failing to Claim a House, the Teenager Sues His Biological Parents
Compiled from The Paper
Case review
A 17-year-old teenager from Xingtai, Hebei, Liu Xuezhou, after successfully finding his biological parents online, claimed to have been blocked by his biological mother due to housing issues. On January 18, Liu Xuezhou posted on Weibo, "Is it wrong for me to ask them for a home of my own?"
On January 19, Liu Xuezhou again stated on Weibo that he would sue his biological parents. That evening, Liu Xuezhou said he was preparing the legal procedures for suing his biological parents. During this time, he was staying in a rented room, and his next step was to report to the police, hoping that judicial authorities would pursue criminal charges against his biological parents, "hoping to file a public prosecution for the crime of child trafficking and abandonment."
Liu Xuezhou's biological mother said in a media interview that she and Liu Xuezhou's biological father each had their own families. After the reunion, Liu Xuezhou "forced" them to buy a house and posted recordings of their conversations online, leading to online harassment. She blocked Liu Xuezhou to seek a peaceful life.
Liu Xuezhou stated that he did not insist on his biological parents buying him a house; he only hoped they could provide a place to live. "At that time, I was asking for a place to stay because after I came back from them, I was walking on the street with my luggage and had no other option," Liu Xuezhou said. Even if his biological parents did not buy him a house, "renting a one-bedroom apartment, no matter where, would be fine."
So, did the actions of Liu Xuezhou's biological parents back then constitute a crime? What rights can Liu Xuezhou claim from his biological parents?
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 240
Whoever abducts and traffics in women or children shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined; under any of the following circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or have property confiscated; if the circumstances are especially serious, the offender shall be sentenced to death and have property confiscated:
(1) The ringleader of a gang engaged in trafficking women and children;
(2) Trafficking three or more women or children;
(3) Raping a trafficked woman;
(4) Luring, forcing a trafficked woman into prostitution, or selling a trafficked woman to others to compel her into prostitution;
(5) Kidnapping women or children by violence, coercion, or anesthesia for the purpose of selling them;
(6) Stealing infants or young children for the purpose of selling them.
(7) Causing serious injury, death, or other severe consequences to the trafficked women, children, or their relatives;
(8) Selling women or children abroad. Trafficking in women or children refers to any act of abducting, kidnapping, buying, selling, transporting, or transiting women or children for the purpose of selling them.
Article 261
Whoever, having a duty to support, refuses to support an elderly person, a minor, a sick person, or any other person who has no independent living ability, if the circumstances are flagrant, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention, or public surveillance.
[1] The author's perspective
First, let’s look at the crime of abandonment. It usually refers to failing to fulfill the duty of support, which is a passive omission. If Liu Xuezhou’s parents had sold the child to others back then, it would be equivalent to evading the duty of support in a disguised form, and in a broad sense, it also meets the elements of abandonment.
Next is the crime of child trafficking. If Liu Xuezhou’s biological parents intentionally sold him to others for profit, they would be suspected of child trafficking. However, if, as Liu Xuezhou’s biological mother claims, they only received a “nutrition fee” at the time, the amount must be considered. If it was merely a small economic compensation aimed at finding someone to raise the child, it may not necessarily constitute the crime of child trafficking. The key criterion is whether the parents acted for profit at the time, but this must be comprehensively assessed based on the context of that period, the transaction price, and other factors.
Based on the current situation, Liu Xuezhou’s biological parents may be suspected of child trafficking or abandonment. The author believes that abandonment is more evident, and the civil law status of abandonment is still ongoing. For example, since Liu Xuezhou is currently under 18 years old, his biological parents still have the duty to support him. Therefore, Liu Xuezhou can also file a civil lawsuit in court to demand that his biological parents fulfill their support obligation.
