Precedent No. 88/2026/AL on authorization to participate in proceedings in child custody disputes was adopted by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on May 21, 2026, and announced under Decision No. 162/QD-CA dated May 29, 2026, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a Precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Court regarding a specific case, selected by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court and announced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to research and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:
– Clarifies legal provisions that are subject to different interpretations, analyzes and explains legal issues and events, and indicates principles, approaches, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrates fairness for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Is exemplary;
– Provides guidance for uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 88/2026/AL on authorization to participate in proceedings in child custody disputes
2.1. Source of the Precedent
First-instance Judgment No. 34/2023/HNGĐ-ST dated June 8, 2023, of the People’s Court of Long My Town, Hau Giang Province, regarding the family and marriage case “Dispute over divorce, child custody” between plaintiff Ms. Le Thai A and defendant Mr. Duong Van L.
Location of the precedent’s content:
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.
2.2. Overview of the Precedent’s Content
– Precedent’s Situation:
In a divorce case involving child custody disputes, a party authorizes another person to represent them in proceedings regarding the child custody dispute.
– Legal Solution:
In this case, the Court does not accept the party’s authorization of another person to participate in proceedings regarding the child custody dispute.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Article 25 Civil Code of Vietnam 2015;
– Clause 4, Article 68 Law on Marriage and Family of Vietnam 2014 (amended and supplemented in 2025);
– Clause 4, Article 85 Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Child custody dispute”; “Authorization to participate in proceedings”; “Personal rights”.
CASE CONTENT:
In the statement of claim and testimonies during the case resolution process, plaintiff Ms. Le Thai A stated:
Regarding the marital relationship: Ms. A and Mr. L lived together in 2015 and registered their marriage on January 30, 2020, at the People’s Committee of T commune, M town. After living together for a period, conflicts arose.
Reason for conflict: During their cohabitation, the couple had differing views, lacked sharing, and no longer cared for each other, affecting their daily family life, leading to their separation from around November 2021 until now. Realizing that their common life could no longer be harmonious and maintained, Ms. A requested a divorce.
Regarding common children: Ms. A and Mr. L have two common children named Duong Le An N, born on January 25, 2018, female, and Duong Minh K, born on July 20, 2019, male. Currently, the common children are living with Ms. A. After the divorce, Ms. A requested to raise the children and requested child support according to regulations.
Regarding common property, common debts: None, so no request for the Court to resolve.
During the case resolution process, defendant Mr. Duong Van L stated:
Mr. L agreed with Ms. A’s statement regarding the marriage registration date. Mr. Duong Van L agreed to divorce.
Regarding common children: There are two common children as stated by Ms. A. Currently, the common children have been living with Ms. A since the couple separated. Mr. L agreed to let Ms. A continue raising the two common children and agreed to provide child support according to regulations.
Regarding common property, common debts: None, so no request for the Court to resolve.
At the trial, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Long My Town, Hau Giang Province, expressed the following opinion:
Regarding procedure: During the process of accepting and resolving the case, as well as at the trial, the Trial Panel, Clerk, and parties complied with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Regarding the merits of the case: Proposed that the Trial Panel accept the plaintiff Ms. Le Thai A’s claim. Ms. A and Mr. L are granted a divorce. Regarding common children: Assign common children Duong Le An N, born on January 25, 2018, female, and Duong Minh K, born on July 20, 2019, male, to Ms. Le Thai A for continued upbringing. Mr. L has the obligation to provide child support for each common child at 745,000 VND/month. The child support period is calculated from the date of the first-instance judgment, June 8, 2023. Mr. L has the right and obligation to visit the common children, and no one may obstruct this. Regarding common property, common debts: None, so not mentioned for resolution. Regarding first-instance marriage and family court fees; child support court fees: The parties must bear them according to legal provisions.
COURT’S OPINION:
[1] After reviewing the evidence presented in the case file, examined and debated at the trial, and based on the results of the arguments at the Court, the Trial Panel made the following observations:
[2] Regarding order and procedure:
[3] This is a case of “Dispute over divorce, child custody”, and the defendant resides in M town, so the People’s Court of Long My Town, Hau Giang Province, has the correct jurisdiction to resolve it according to Clause 1, Article 28, Point a, Clause 1, Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Code.
[4] During the case resolution process, the People’s Court of Long My Town received a notarized power of attorney dated October 20, 2022, between Ms. Le Thai A (the authorizing party) and Ms. Pham Ngoc N1 (the authorized party). The content of the authorization states that the authorized party has the right to represent and act on behalf of the authorizing party to “Participate in proceedings, mediation, and work at People’s Courts of all levels (first instance, appellate) regarding the dispute over common child custody for child Duong Le An N, born on January 25, 2018, and child Duong Minh K, born on July 20, 2019”; concurrently, within the scope of the aforementioned authorization, the authorized party has full authority to decide all matters related to the authorized contents, and to exercise rights and obligations as stipulated by law related to the authorized act. Pursuant to Clause 4, Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, “An authorized representative as stipulated by the Civil Code is an authorized representative in civil proceedings.” Pursuant to Article 562 of the Civil Code 2015, “A power of attorney contract is an agreement between parties, whereby the authorized party is obliged to perform work on behalf of the authorizing party, and the authorizing party only has to pay remuneration if there is an agreement or if the law so stipulates.”
[5] It is observed that the authorization to request resolution of a common child custody dispute relates to personal rights in marriage and family, specifically the parent-child relationship as stipulated in Article 39 of the Civil Code 2015 as well as in the Law on Marriage and Family. Concurrently, pursuant to Clause 1, Article 25 of the Civil Code 2015, “Personal rights stipulated in this Code are civil rights attached to each individual, which cannot be transferred to others, unless otherwise stipulated by other relevant laws.” Therefore, although Clause 4, Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 only states, “Regarding divorce, a party may not authorize another person to represent them in proceedings,” as mentioned, the dispute over common child custody in a family and marriage case relates to an individual’s personal rights. Furthermore, Clause 4, Article 68 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014 stipulates, “All agreements between parents and children related to personal relationships… must not affect the legitimate rights and interests of minor children…” In addition, to resolve the issue of common children, during the case resolution process, the Trial Panel also needs to consider the attitudes, thoughts, and feelings of the parents and children. From the above analysis, the Trial Panel does not accept Ms. Pham Ngoc N1’s participation in proceedings, mediation, and work at the first-instance Court as the authorized party of Ms. Le Thai A regarding the dispute over common child custody for Duong Le An N and Duong Minh K, as stated in the content of the notarized power of attorney dated October 20, 2022, between Ms. Le Thai A (the authorizing party) and Ms. Pham Ngoc N1 (the authorized party).
[6] Plaintiff Ms. Le Thai A and defendant Mr. Duong Van L requested trial in absentia, and the Trial Panel, pursuant to Articles 227 and 228 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, tried the case in the absence of the plaintiff and defendant.
[7] Regarding the merits:
[8] Regarding the marital relationship: Ms. Le Thai A and Mr. Duong Van L voluntarily registered their marriage at the People’s Committee of T commune, M town, on January 30, 2020, so their marriage is legal. The couple lived together for a period, then conflicts arose, leading to frequent arguments and an unhappy common life. Ms. A requested a divorce, and Mr. L also agreed to divorce, so the Trial Panel agreed that Ms. A and Mr. L are granted a divorce.
[9] Regarding common children: Ms. A and Mr. L have two common children named Duong Le An N, born on January 25, 2018, female, and Duong Minh K, born on July 20, 2019, male, who are currently living with Ms. A. Ms. A requested to raise the two common children, and Mr. L also agreed to let Ms. A continue raising the two common children. Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 81 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014, “Spouses shall agree on the person directly raising the children…”. The Trial Panel observed that Ms. A and Mr. L have not lived together for more than 06 months, and during that time, Ms. A has been directly caring for, nurturing, and educating the common children. According to the confirmation from the Principal of B Kindergarten, E town, Soc Trang Province, An N and Minh K attend school regularly. Therefore, currently, An N and Minh K are accustomed to the living conditions and environment and are being raised by Ms. A, ensuring the best conditions. To avoid causing disruption and affecting the normal development of the common children, and their legitimate rights and interests in all aspects, the Trial Panel agreed to assign common children Duong Le An N, born on January 25, 2018, female, and Duong Minh K, born on July 20, 2019, male, to Ms. A for continued upbringing.
[10] Ms. A requested child support, and Mr. L also agreed to provide child support for the two common children. Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 82 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014, “Parents who do not directly raise their children have the obligation to provide child support.” Therefore, the Trial Panel agreed that Mr. L has the obligation to provide child support for each common child at 745,000 VND/month. The child support period is calculated from June 8, 2023, until the common children reach 18 years of age.
[11] Mr. Duong Van L has the right and obligation to visit the common children, and no one may obstruct this.
[12] Regarding common property and common debts: The parties declared none, so these issues are not addressed in this case.
[13] From the above observations, the Trial Panel found the Prosecutor’s request at the trial to be well-founded and therefore accepted it.
[14] Regarding court fees:
[15] Regarding first-instance marriage and family court fees: The plaintiff must pay 300,000 VND.
[16] Regarding child support court fees: Defendant Mr. Duong Van L must pay 300,000 VND.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to: Clause 1, Article 28; Article 39; Article 147; Article 227; Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015; Article 56; Article 57, Article 58, Article 81, Article 82, Article 83 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014; Article 27 of Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016, of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly stipulating the rates of collection, exemption, reduction, payment, management, and use of court fees and charges.
Adjudicates:
[1] Accepts the entire claim of plaintiff Le Thai A.
[2] Regarding the marital relationship: Ms. Le Thai A and Mr. Duong Van L are granted a divorce.
[3] Regarding common children: Ms. Le Thai A is to continue raising Le An N, born on January 25, 2018, female, and Duong Minh K, born on July 20, 2019, male.
Mr. Duong Van L has the obligation to provide child support for each common child at 745,000 VND (Seven hundred forty-five thousand dong)/month, to be paid monthly until An N and Minh K reach 18 years of age. The child support period is calculated from June 8, 2023.
Mr. Duong Van L has the right and obligation to visit the common children, and no one may obstruct this.
[4] Regarding common property and common debts: The parties declared none, so these issues are not considered for resolution in this case.
[5] Regarding court fees:
Regarding first-instance marriage and family court fees: Plaintiff Ms. Le Thai A must pay 300,000 VND (three hundred thousand dong), which is deducted from the 300,000 VND (three hundred thousand dong) advance court fee already paid according to receipt No. 0004476 dated November 7, 2022, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Sub-Department of Long My Town, Hau Giang Province, as court fees. Ms. Le Thai A has completed payment of court fees.
Regarding child support court fees: Mr. Duong Van L must pay 300,000 VND (Three hundred thousand dong).
[6] In cases where the judgment is enforced according to the provisions of Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the civil judgment creditor and civil judgment debtor have the right to agree on enforcement, the right to request enforcement, voluntarily enforce the judgment, or be compelled to enforce the judgment according to the provisions of Articles 6, 7, and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement; the statute of limitations for judgment enforcement shall be implemented according to the provisions of Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.
[7] Plaintiff Le Thai A and defendant Duong Van L have the right to appeal the judgment within 15 days from the date of receiving the judgment or the date the judgment is posted according to legal provisions.
CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT
“[4] During the case resolution process, the People’s Court of Long My Town received a notarized power of attorney dated October 20, 2022, between Ms. Le Thai A (the authorizing party) and Ms. Pham Ngoc N1 (the authorized party). The content of the authorization states that the authorized party has the right to represent and act on behalf of the authorizing party to “Participate in proceedings, mediation, and work at People’s Courts of all levels (first instance, appellate) regarding the dispute over common child custody for child Duong Le An N, born on January 25, 2018, and child Duong Minh K, born on July 20, 2019”; concurrently, within the scope of the aforementioned authorization, the authorized party has full authority to decide all matters related to the authorized contents, and to exercise rights and obligations as stipulated by law related to the authorized act. Pursuant to Clause 4, Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, “An authorized representative as stipulated by the Civil Code is an authorized representative in civil proceedings.” Pursuant to Article 562 of the Civil Code 2015, “A power of attorney contract is an agreement between parties, whereby the authorized party is obliged to perform work on behalf of the authorizing party, and the authorizing party only has to pay remuneration if there is an agreement or if the law so stipulates.”
[5] It is observed that the authorization to request resolution of a common child custody dispute relates to personal rights in marriage and family, specifically the parent-child relationship as stipulated in Article 39 of the Civil Code 2015 as well as in the Law on Marriage and Family. Concurrently, pursuant to Clause 1, Article 25 of the Civil Code 2015, “Personal rights stipulated in this Code are civil rights attached to each individual, which cannot be transferred to others, unless otherwise stipulated by other relevant laws.” Therefore, although Clause 4, Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 only states, “Regarding divorce, a party may not authorize another person to represent them in proceedings,” as mentioned, the dispute over common child custody in a family and marriage case relates to an individual’s personal rights. Furthermore, Clause 4, Article 68 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014 stipulates, “All agreements between parents and children related to personal relationships… must not affect the legitimate rights and interests of minor children…” In addition, to resolve the issue of common children, during the case resolution process, the Trial Panel also needs to consider the attitudes, thoughts, and feelings of the parents and children. From the above analysis, the Trial Panel does not accept Ms. Pham Ngoc N1’s participation in proceedings, mediation, and work at the first-instance Court as the authorized party of Ms. Le Thai A regarding the dispute over common child custody for Duong Le An N and Duong Minh K, as stated in the content of the notarized power of attorney dated October 20, 2022, between Ms. Le Thai A (the authorizing party) and Ms. Pham Ngoc N1 (the authorized party).”
* This precedent was proposed by the People’s Court of Can Tho City.
