Relevant Legal Provision

Civil Code Article 1084, Paragraph 2：Parents have the rights and duties to protect and educate their minor children.

Civil Code Article 1115, Paragraph 3：When there are multiple persons obligated to provide support, the person responsible for fulfilling such obligation shall be determined in the following order: 3. The head of the household.

Civil Code Article 1119：The extent of support shall be determined in accordance with the needs of the person entitled to support, as well as the financial capacity and social status of the person obligated to provide support.

Facts and Reasons

The plaintiff (i.e., our client) and the defendant have two sons, and the plaintiff has long served as the children’s primary caregiver. In contrast, the defendant showed no intention of assisting with the care of the children. The marital relationship between the parties had already lost emotional foundation; nevertheless, the plaintiff continued to maintain the marriage for the sake of the children. Unexpectedly, the plaintiff later discovered that the defendant was having an affair with a third party. Although a settlement agreement was subsequently signed, the defendant still failed to perform the agreed conditions. Seeing that the defendant had no intention of maintaining the family, the plaintiff left home with the children and later filed a lawsuit seeking custody of the minor children, child support, and division of the marital residual property.

Judgment

The rights and obligations regarding the minor children born to both parties shall be exercised and assumed solely by the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay monthly child support until the day before each minor child reaches adulthood.

Based on the assessment in the investigation report prepared by personnel dispatched by the Social Affairs Department of the New Taipei City Government at the Court's request, the plaintiff possesses parental capability, has sufficient time for parenting, and is able to provide a favorable caregiving environment. Having been the primary caregiver for both children since their early years, the plaintiff shares a deep emotional bond with them, and the children have also expressed their wish to be cared for solely by the plaintiff. Although the defendant has superior financial capacity compared to the plaintiff, the defendant lacks comparable time and experience in caring for the children and has relatively limited emotional connection and interaction with them. Considering that the minor children are already capable of clearly expressing their views, their willingness in selecting the custodial parent should be respected. Furthermore, given the current adversarial and conflictual relationship between the parties, effective communication is unlikely; joint custody could risk delays in handling matters concerning the minor children. Accordingly, the Court appointed the plaintiff as the sole custodial parent, as this arrangement best serves the interests of both minor children.
 

(Note: To protect the client's interests, certain case details and judgment images have been redacted and modified. For a full review of the case, please refer to  Judicial Yuan's judgment database)