Core Viewpoint - The recent cases highlighted by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Supreme People's Court signify a shift in the legal interpretation of "family members" in domestic violence cases, recognizing stable cohabiting partners as family members under the law, thus expanding protections against domestic violence beyond marriage [1][2][3] Legal Framework and Implications - The cases of Ma and Miao demonstrate the effective integration of criminal law with anti-domestic violence laws and women's rights protection laws, indicating that stable cohabitation qualifies individuals as family members without the necessity of a marriage certificate [2][3] - Article 260 of the Criminal Law defines "abuse" as actions between family members living together, traditionally limited to those in marriage or blood relations, but now includes stable cohabiting partners, reflecting the evolving social dynamics [2][3] - The Anti-Domestic Violence Law and the Women's Rights Protection Law broaden the scope of protection against domestic violence, emphasizing the need for legal recognition of non-marital intimate relationships [3][4] Social Perception and Misunderstandings - There is a common misconception that recognizing cohabiting partners as family members may lead to leniency in punishment for domestic violence; however, the definition of domestic violence encompasses a wide range of abusive behaviors, ensuring that all forms of violence are addressed [4][5] - Some individuals question the emphasis on "family members" in the context of domestic violence, arguing that violence should be treated uniformly regardless of the relationship; however, the concept of domestic violence is crucial for protecting women's rights and allowing legal intervention in private matters [4][5] Ongoing Challenges and Future Directions - The term "family" in the context of domestic violence does not imply leniency from the state; rather, it highlights the hidden and controlling nature of such violence, which can lead to ongoing harm and societal instability [5][6] - Addressing domestic violence requires more than just legal repercussions; it necessitates fostering equitable gender relations and societal consensus that violence is unacceptable in any form [6]

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 ...