2026.01. 06 本文字数：1459，阅读时长大约2分钟 作者 | 第一财经 李攻 封图 | 来自网络 近日，最高人民法院梳理总结2022年以来人民法院贯彻落实《家庭教育促进法》适用"家庭教育指导 令"的经验做法，并发布6个典型案例。其中一个案例重申了拒绝暴力是家庭教育底线的原则。 "棍棒之下出孝子"绝不是一种良性的家庭教育方式。真正好的教育，是有尺度、有原则地引导孩子端 正言行，而非暴力施压、宣泄情绪。 很多家长/监护人在对未成年人施暴之后，往往以为了孩子好、孩子不打不听话等理由为自己辩解。 其实，除了一些极特殊情况，他们大多内心知道做错了，只是不敢承认，而这种逃避又会助长下一次 家庭暴力，并且形成习惯，对未成年人造成更大伤害。 最高人民法院在公布这个案例时表示，成长在习惯于通过暴力方式解决问题和争议的家庭环境中的个 体，容易形成"实施暴力或被暴力对待"的关系模式。个体的具体角色和功能定位并非一成不变，会根 据关系对象的强弱不同在"施暴者"和"被暴力对待者"两者间切换。 该案例中，未成年人小雨幼年丧父，与其母孟某某和继父唐某某一起生活。某日，小雨报警称被父母 打了。公安机关调查了解到，小雨与母亲、继父 ...

对父母或者其他监护人侵害未成年子女的暴力行为坚决"零容忍"。 很多家长/监护人在对未成年人施暴之后，往往以为了孩子好、孩子不打不听话等理由为自己辩解。其 实，除了一些极特殊情况，他们大多内心知道做错了，只是不敢承认，而这种逃避又会助长下一次家庭 暴力，并且形成习惯，对未成年人造成更大伤害。 最高人民法院在公布这个案例时表示，成长在习惯于通过暴力方式解决问题和争议的家庭环境中的个 体，容易形成"实施暴力或被暴力对待"的关系模式。个体的具体角色和功能定位并非一成不变，会根据 关系对象的强弱不同在"施暴者"和"被暴力对待者"两者间切换。 也就是说，在父母"棍棒"下成长的孩子，将来也很有可能用这种方式继续"教育"他们的子女。因此，我 们对父母/监护人侵害未成年子女的暴力行为应坚决采取"零容忍"的态度。 最后要强调的是，家庭教育绝不仅仅是家庭的事，它也是国事。这次最高人民法院公布6个典型案例， 其中一个指向就是强调家庭教育从"家事"到"国事"的法律地位升级。既然是"国事"，就意味着家庭教育 将日益受到法律更严格的约束，无论是具有强制效力的家庭教育指导令，还是治安管理处罚与刑事追 责，都将在必要时刻为孩子的成长护航。 为 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the issue of domestic violence in the context of parental discipline, emphasizing that violent methods of education are legally recognized as domestic violence and detrimental to the mental and physical health of minors [1][2]. Summary by Sections Case Background - Li Fang (pseudonym) and Pang Zhen (pseudonym) were previously married, and after their divorce, their daughter Xiao Li (pseudonym) born in 2013 lived with Pang Zhen. Pang Zhen frequently scolded and physically punished Xiao Li. In March 2023, he hit her mouth with a slipper, causing facial bleeding, leading Li Fang to report to the police. In September 2024, he used a belt to hit her on various body parts, resulting in multiple bruises diagnosed as severe depression with psychotic symptoms [1]. Court Judgment - The court found that Pang Zhen's actions constituted domestic violence, as he inflicted physical harm and psychological distress on Xiao Li, who was diagnosed with severe depression. His parenting methods were deemed inappropriate and exceeded the limits of normal parental discipline. The court ruled that Xiao Li should live with her mother, Li Fang, due to Pang Zhen's failure to address his daughter's emotional needs and his continued neglect of her mental health after her diagnosis [2]. Legal Interpretation - The ruling establishes that violent discipline should be classified as domestic violence. Parents cannot justify violent actions under the guise of love and education, as such behavior poses significant risks to the mental and physical well-being of minors. The case reinforces that minors are not the private property of their parents, and guardians must respect their dignity and development. Frequent verbal abuse and physical punishment of minors exceed reasonable educational limits and violate the intent of family education, as prohibited by anti-domestic violence laws [2].

掀起了不小波澜 最高检在新闻发布会上的一句话 最近 "婚前同居认定属于家庭成员" 不少人疑惑 这难道意味着同居就要"被结婚"？ 分手也要"分家产"？ 最高检为什么要提出这样的认定？ 11月25日，最高检在主题为"依法惩治家庭暴力犯罪"发布会上明确提出： 将具有共同生活事 实的婚前同居关系，认定为家庭成员关系。 最高检党组成员、副检察长、全国妇联副主席葛晓燕介绍，随着社会交往方式的多样化，检察 机关依据刑法、反家庭暴力法等法律规定精神， 将具有共同生活基础事实的婚前同居关系认 定属于家庭成员关系，并将家庭成员身体伤害以外的精神虐待认定为家庭暴力行为，对受害者 的保护更加立体全面。 长期以来，同居关系中的暴力行为处于法律保护的"灰色地带"。比如轰动一时的"包丽案"，正 是因为缺乏"家庭成员"的身份认定，施暴者一度难以被追究刑事责任。 如今，这一认定填补了法律空白， 让精神虐待、情感操控等隐形暴力，也能被认定为家暴， 让施暴者不再逍遥法外。 同居要承担婚姻中的全部权利义务吗？ 这一认定仅限于反家暴领域，并不等同于承认"事实婚姻"。 在财产分割、法定继承、离婚补偿等问题上，法律依然严格区分"婚姻"与"同居"。比如，同 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Procuratorate's statement that "cohabitation before marriage is recognized as a family member" aims to enhance the protection of domestic violence victims and clarify the legal status of cohabiting partners in cases of domestic abuse [3][5][7]. Summary by Sections Legal Interpretation - The recognition of cohabitation as a family relationship is based on the need for comprehensive protection against domestic violence, allowing for the classification of psychological abuse as domestic violence [3][11]. - The statement aligns with recent cases, such as the Ma case, which included stable cohabitation and psychological abuse under the definition of domestic violence [3][7]. Public Reaction and Misunderstandings - Many public concerns regarding the implications of this recognition, such as the potential downgrading of serious offenses to domestic violence, stem from misunderstandings of the legal definitions and the seriousness of domestic violence [4][10]. - Experts suggest that the public's confusion is partly due to past leniency in handling domestic violence cases, leading to a perception that such cases are treated lightly [12][14]. Judicial Practice and Challenges - There is a noted discrepancy in how domestic violence cases are handled in practice, with some judges and law enforcement treating them as minor disputes rather than serious crimes [12][13]. - The lack of clear standards for recognizing cohabitation in judicial practice raises concerns about consistent application of the law [8][11]. Legislative Context - The current legal framework does not include a specific "domestic violence crime," and the measures for addressing domestic violence primarily involve protective orders and educational interventions [11][14]. - Recent statistics indicate that over 500 domestic violence offenders have received severe penalties, including life sentences, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to addressing serious cases [9][11]. Recommendations for Improvement - Experts advocate for better training and awareness among law enforcement and judicial personnel regarding the severity of domestic violence to prevent misclassification of cases [12][14]. - There is a call for legislative adjustments to increase the maximum penalties for domestic abuse offenses to reflect the seriousness of the crime [14][15].

不久前，最高人民法院也将一起旧案——牟某翰虐待案作为反家暴的典型案例公开发布。2018 年，牟某翰与被害人建立恋爱关系，并于2019年起持续精神折磨被害人，2020年被害人不堪虐待 自杀身亡。法院认为，牟某翰与受害人处于同居状态，已形成事实上的家庭关系，故认定二者为家 庭成员，解决了未结婚但受虐待却不适用虐待罪的问题。 至此，最高检、最高法通过典型案例——马某某虐待案和牟某翰虐待案，旗帜鲜明地将虐待罪中的 家庭成员进行了符合立法本意和时代背景的解释和适用。 案件推动了刑法与反家庭暴力法、妇女权益保障法的有效衔接，它向社会传递出明确信号：在追究 虐待罪、遗弃罪等涉及"家庭成员"的刑事责任时，家庭成员不以结婚证为必要条件，只要构成稳 定共同生活关系的，就属于家庭成员。这回应了当下多元化婚恋模式下家暴维权的需求，也使得女 性在婚姻之外同样享有不受家庭暴力侵害的平等保护，我国在"家暴零容忍"的道路上又前进了一 步。 刑法第260条规定的"虐待罪"，以家庭成员为构成要件，即行为人和受害人为同一家庭里共同生 活的成员。为什么他们生活在同一屋檐下？一般基于婚姻关系、血缘关系或者收养关系。因此，夫 妻、子女、父母、祖父母、兄 ...

记者丨王俊 编辑丨肖潇 11月21日，最高法发布2025年中国反家暴典型案例，其中包含此前备受关注的牟林翰PUA 案，最高法强调， 不仅殴打等身体暴力属于家庭暴力，精神暴力也是家庭暴力，持续采取凌 辱、贬损人格等手段，自残威胁等行为属于精神暴力。 本次典型案例中 还包括一起离婚案中，该案肯定了家务劳动价值，弥补受暴妇女因长期承担 家庭义务而牺牲的职业发展机会，给予受暴家庭妇女双重保障。 自残威胁行为构成家庭暴力中的精神暴力 2018年8月，牟某与陈某（化名，女）确立恋爱关系。2018年9月至2019年10月，二人在北京 市某学生公寓以及牟某的家中、陈某的家中共同居住。2019年1月至2月，牟某、陈某先后到广 东及山东与对方家长见面。 2019年1月起，牟某因纠结陈某以往性经历，心生不满，多次追问陈某性经历细节，与陈某发 生争吵，高频次、长时间、持续性辱骂陈某，并表达过让陈某通过人工流产等方式换取其心理 平衡等过激言词。同年6月13日，陈某与牟某争吵后割腕自残。同年8月30日，陈某与牟某争吵 后吞食药物，医院经洗胃等救治措施后下发了病危通知书。 2019年10月9日中午，陈某在牟某家中再次与牟某发生争吵，并遭到 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme Court of China has released eight typical cases related to domestic violence, emphasizing that domestic violence is a violation of personal rights and should not be considered merely a family dispute. The cases highlight the recognition of both physical and psychological abuse as forms of domestic violence [3][4]. Group 1 - Domestic violence is defined as illegal or criminal behavior that infringes on personal rights, regardless of whether it occurs inside or outside the home. Psychological abuse, such as humiliation and degradation, is also recognized as domestic violence [3][4]. - The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of accurately assessing the characteristics of domestic violence cases and allows for expert testimony to aid in evidence evaluation. This includes cases where the victim's statements are central to the evidence chain [4]. - Special attention is given to the judicial protection of vulnerable groups, particularly minors, reinforcing the principle of maximizing the interests of minors in domestic violence cases [4].

Group 1 - The Supreme Court of China emphasizes that both physical and psychological violence are considered domestic violence, highlighting that actions such as humiliation and self-harm threats fall under psychological abuse [1][3] - A notable case involves the PUA incident where the perpetrator's continuous verbal abuse led to the victim's suicide, establishing a causal relationship between the abuse and the tragic outcome [2][3] - The court's ruling in this case recognized the victim's mental state deterioration due to prolonged psychological abuse, which was a decisive factor in the victim's suicide risk [2][3] Group 2 - Another case illustrates that self-harm threats can constitute psychological violence, as demonstrated by a husband threatening self-harm, which instilled fear in his wife, thus qualifying as domestic violence [4][5] - The Supreme Court's interpretation indicates that psychological control through threats, even without direct physical harm, is a form of violence that can severely impact the victim's mental health [5] - A case involving a full-time housewife who suffered domestic violence was resolved in her favor, recognizing her contributions to the household and awarding her compensation for her labor and damages [6][7]

Group 1 - The Supreme Court of China has released a set of typical cases related to domestic violence, including the widely publicized Liu Linhan case, to highlight the legal framework and judicial approach to such cases [1] - The Supreme Court emphasizes that domestic violence is not merely a family dispute and includes psychological abuse, asserting that all forms of violence, whether physical or mental, are illegal [1] - The essence of domestic violence is control, which encompasses both physical acts like beating and psychological acts such as verbal abuse and intimidation [1] Group 2 - The Supreme Court stresses the importance of accurately assessing the characteristics of domestic violence cases and allows for expert testimony to aid in evidence evaluation [2] - In cases involving minors, the judiciary focuses on protecting vulnerable groups and adheres to the principle of maximizing the interests of minors, recognizing that violent discipline constitutes domestic violence [2] - The court acknowledges the value of domestic labor and provides dual protections for women who have sacrificed career opportunities due to long-term domestic responsibilities [2]