{"id":6136,"date":"2024-10-18T11:01:33","date_gmt":"2024-10-18T04:01:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/?p=6136"},"modified":"2024-10-24T09:36:40","modified_gmt":"2024-10-24T02:36:40","slug":"tranh-chap-ly-hon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-ly-hon.html","title":{"rendered":"DIVORCE DISPUTE"},"content":{"rendered":"Dispute:<\/i><\/b> Both the plaintiff and the defendant are requesting to have direct custody of the child and are not seeking child support from the other party.<\/span><\/p>\n

Facts of the Case:<\/i><\/b> On February 23, 2010, Mr. T Yuji (a Japanese citizen) and Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q were married and were issued a marriage certificate by the People’s Committee of Province B. During their marriage, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q and Mr. T Yuji experienced irreconcilable differences and had been separated since 2017. In 2018, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q filed for divorce from Mr. T Yuji, and at the same time, she admitted to being pregnant with another man’s child. Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q did not request the court to divide the marital assets or debts. However, she requested to have direct custody of the child (Nguyen Nhat A, born in 2015) and did not request child support from Mr. T Yuji. Mr. T Yuji also agreed to the divorce and requested to have direct custody of the child.<\/span><\/p>\n

Client’s Request<\/i><\/b>: Mr. T Yuji agrees to divorce Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q and requests to have direct custody of the child. Mr. T Yuji requests that TAPHALAW provide legal advice on resolving this matter.<\/span><\/p>\n

Work Performed by the Attorney:<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

* At the Trial Court Level:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

(1) The attorney advised Mr. T Yuji to submit to the Court evidence demonstrating his stable monthly income, permanent residence in Vietnam, and a good relationship with his child. Mr. T Yuji fully complied with the lawyer’s recommendations.<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) The attorney represented Mr. T Yuji at the trial court hearing. In 2019, the trial court held a hearing, during which the lawyer presented a counterclaim, providing legal arguments and analyzing evidence to support the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q had a second child with another man, and Mr. T Yuji no longer had feelings for her, thus agreeing to the divorce. He did not dispute the division of joint assets and debts. However, Mr. T Yuji disagreed with Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q’s request for sole custody and sought custody himself.<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on Article 81 of the Marriage and Family Law at the time of the trial, and considering the child’s best interests, Mr. T Yuji’s request was entirely reasonable for the following reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n

– Financial circumstances: Mr. T Yuji was living and working stably in Vietnam. According to his employment contract with Company T and his monthly salary certificate, he held the position of Deputy Director and earned an average monthly salary of 100,000,000 VND. Although Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q claimed to have a stable residence and income, she provided no evidence to support this claim. In fact, she was residing at her brother-in-law’s house, indicating that she lacked the financial means and a suitable living environment to provide for the child.<\/span><\/p>\n

– Emotional bond: Mr. T Yuji had always maintained a good relationship with his child, regularly meeting, talking, and spending time with him. He had also provided for the child’s education, entertainment, and overall well-being. At the time of the trial, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q had just given birth to a second child with another man, indicating that she no longer had the time or emotional capacity to care for Nguyen Nhat A as well as Mr. T Yuji.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, the lawyer requested that the Court award custody of Nguyen Nhat A to Mr. T Yuji, as he was better equipped to provide for the child’s care, upbringing, and education.<\/span><\/p>\n

Outcome of the Dispute:<\/i><\/b> The Court accepted the counsel’s arguments and requests, and ruled as follows: (1) The divorce by mutual consent between Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q and Mr. T Yuji is recognized; (2) Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q’s request for primary custody and care of the child, Nguyen Nhat A, is denied; (3) Mr. T Yuji shall have primary custody and care of the child, Nguyen Nhat A, until the child reaches the age of majority; (4) Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q, who does not have primary custody, shall have the right and obligation to visit the child without hindrance.<\/span><\/p>\n

* At the appellate stage:<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Following the trial at the first instance, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q appealed, disagreeing with the trial court’s decision to award primary custody of the child, Nguyen Nhat A, to Mr. T Yuji. Ms. Q has also denied Mr. T Yuji access to the child, Nguyen Nhat A, and has obstructed Mr. T Yuji’s care, custody, and upbringing of the child.<\/span><\/p>\n

TAPHALAW continued to assign counsel to protect the lawful rights and interests of Mr. T Yuji at the appellate hearing. At the hearing, counsel maintained the same position as presented at the trial at first instance. Furthermore, counsel argued that Ms. Q’s obstruction of Mr. T Yuji’s exercise of his rights to care, custody, and upbringing of the child violates Articles 81, 82, and 83 of the current Marriage and Family Law, and fails to prioritize the child’s best interests. Therefore, counsel requested that the trial court uphold the original judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Outcome of the Dispute:<\/i><\/b> The Court decided to dismiss Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q’s appeal and upheld the original judgment of the trial court.<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dispute: Both the plaintiff and the defendant are requesting to have direct custody of the child and are not seeking child support from the other party. Facts of the Case: On February 23, 2010, Mr. T Yuji (a Japanese citizen) and Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Q were married and were issued a marriage certificate by […]\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6137,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[96,92,114],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6136"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6136"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6136\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6175,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6136\/revisions\/6175"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6137"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6136"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}