Application of Equity in Cases of Compensation for Childcare Costs

Application of Equity in Cases of Compensation for Childcare Costs

Application of Equity in Cases of Compensation for Childcare Costs

Application of Equity in Cases of Compensation for Childcare Costs

Minh Quan

Equity is acknowledged under Clause 2, Article 6 of the 2015 Civil Code and Clause 3, Article 45 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. Equity is based on fairness as recognized by societal norms, adhering to principles of humanity, impartiality, and equality in the rights and obligations of the parties involved in civil matters.

The application of equity is crucial in ensuring that civil cases are resolved promptly and flexibly, safeguarding the legal rights and interests of the parties. Furthermore, applying equity in civil cases upholds the fundamental principle of civil procedure that “Courts shall not refuse to resolve civil cases on the grounds that there are no applicable legal provisions” (Clause 2, Article 4 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code).

In the Judgment No. 04/2021/DS-ST dated May 28th, 2021, by the People’s Court of Thanh Ba District, Phu Tho Province, regarding the case “Compensation for Non-Contractual Damages” between the plaintiff, Mr. Dinh Hong V, and the defendant, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H, the plaintiff claimed that the child born during their marriage was not his biological child. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit demanding compensation from the defendant for childcare, nurturing costs, and mental anguish. This claim, not explicitly provided for by law, custom, or precedent, could not be addressed through analogous legal provisions, thus necessitating the application of equity.

The trial court accepted Mr. V’s claim, ordering Ms. H to compensate for childcare costs and mental anguish. This approach aligns with international judgments such as the Rodwell case and the Gerard Bradbury case in the UK, as well as with laws in other countries, such as Section 143 of the Child Support Act 1998 in Australia.

Hence, I propose developing the aforementioned judgment into a precedent.

Case Details:

In his lawsuit, subsequent statements, and at trial, the plaintiff presented:

I married Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H in 2009. During our marriage, we had two children, Dinh Thi Hong G, born March 1st, 2010, and Dinh Tung L, born December 15th, 2015. After marriage, I worked in the forestry product trade and as a driver. Ms. H stayed home to care for the children, remaining unemployed until our divorce.

Due to Ms. H’s infidelity, L is not my biological child, as confirmed by a DNA test. As human activities are purposeful, my intention in marrying and having children was to benefit emotionally and rely on them in old age. However, since L is not biologically mine, I had to raise him from birth in December 2015 until March 2020, totaling 51 months. I request Ms. H reimburse me VND 121,000,000 for raising L, itemized as follows:

– Food: VND 40,000/day (VND 1,200,000/month);

– Milk: VND 10,000/day (VND 300,000/month);

– Diapers: VND 450,000/month (for two years);

– Clothing: VND 3,000,000/year (VND 250,000/month);

– Medicine: VND 2,000,000/year (VND 166,000/month);

– Delivery costs for Ms. H: VND 15,000,000;

– Kindergarten fees from age three: VND 7,000,000/year (VND 600,000/month).

At trial, I additionally request VND 2,000,000/month for caregiving labor.

The defendant countered:

During my marriage to Mr. Dinh Hong V, I engaged in trade and had an extramarital affair resulting in pregnancy. However, Mr. V accepted raising L, knowing he wasn’t the biological father, as a charitable act. I refuse to pay compensation, citing mutual infidelities and Mr. V’s acceptance of the situation by registering L’s birth and raising him.

Regarding income for child rearing, Ms. H stated:

“From October 2009 to November 2011, I stayed home, cared for the children, and helped my in-laws without any income while Mr. V served in the military. From December 2011 to July 2015, we jointly traded cinnamon, earning VND 20,000,000/month. From August 2015 to May 2016, I stayed home for childbirth and supervised the construction of our home, without income. From June 2016 to February 2020, I ran a clothing store, then a beer bar, earning VND 6,500,000/month while Mr. V making ends meet as a driver.

During my employment, Mr. V did not contribute to household expenses, only paying interest of the bank loan for the house and electricity bill. During my unemployment, he provided VND 3,000,000/month for living expenses.

For L’s birth via cesarean section, Mr. V paid VND 10,000,000 to the hospital. Monthly childcare costs included VND 1,000,000 for food, milk, and diapers (at home and school). School fees were VND 2,200,000/year. Clothing expenses were VND 2,000,000.

Mr. V’s claim for VND 2,100,000 is unfounded, as he accepted raising L despite knowing he wasn’t the biological father, supported by birth registration and upbringing. I also participated in childcare. I refuse all reimbursement requests.”

At trial, Ms. H agreed to pay VND 50,000,000 for L’s upbringing and confirmed VND 12,000,000 in birth costs.

The People’s Procuracy representative of Thanh Ba District stated: The Judge and Clerk adhered to procedural rules throughout the case, from initial handling to evidence collection and trial proceedings. I propose accepting Mr. Dinh Hong V’s claim and ordering Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H to compensate between VND 70,000,000 and 76,000,000 for childcare and mental anguish.

COURT FINDINGS:

[1] After reviewing the case files, examining evidence at trial, and considering trial arguments, the Court finds:

[2] Procedural compliance:

[3] According to Clause 2, Article 4 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code (CPC), “Courts shall not refuse to resolve civil cases on the grounds that there are no applicable legal provisions”. This is stipulated from Article 26 to 33 of the CPC. Courts have jurisdiction over all civil disputes and requests unless otherwise specified by law.

[4] As the plaintiff’s claim is not addressed by any other agency, the Thanh Ba District Court shall handle the case per the defendant’s residence under Article 43 CPC and general principles in Clauses 2 and 3, Article 45 CPC.

[5] As for the nature of the dispute, jurisdiction, and applicable law:

[6] The dispute concerns compensation for nurturing costs due to the defendant’s deception, as L is not his biological child, and for mental anguish. Although there is no legal precedent for this, and current law lacks provisions for such cases, it is determined that:

[7] Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H and Mr. Dinh Hong V were married (divorced on February 6th, 2020). During their marriage, Ms. H violated clause 1, Article 19 of the Law on Marriage and Family: “Husbands and wives are obliged to love, be faithful, respect, care for, and assist each other; to share and perform family tasks together”. This breach led to the current case.

[8] In her statement on December 10th, 2020, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H admitted to infidelity and that L is not Mr. Dinh Hong V’s biological child. She claimed Mr. V knew this during her pregnancy but accepted to raise L as a charitable act, though no evidence was provided. Therefore, Mr. Dinh Hong V’s claim for mental anguish due to damaged honor, dignity, and reputation is justified.

[9] Mr. Dinh Hong V’s material and emotional damages are universally recognized, necessitating Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H’s responsibility for compensation.

[10] Legal basis for compensation: Beyond Clause 1, Article 584 of the Civil Code, the Court applies general provisions under Article 3 of the Civil Code and equity principles under the Civil Code to mandate compensation. Article 6 of the Civil Code states: “1. In cases where a civil law relationship arises that the parties have not agreed upon, the law has no provisions for, and there is no applicable custom, then similar legal provisions shall apply. 2. If it is impossible to apply similar legal provisions as stipulated in Clause 1 of this Article, the basic principles of civil law stipulated in Article 3 of this Code, precedents, and equity principles shall apply.”

[11] Human activities are purposeful, and Mr. Dinh Hong V’s intention in raising L was to benefit emotionally and rely on him in old age. This goal was unmet, making compensation from the party causing harm consistent with general legal provisions and equity.

[12] Compensation amount: During L’s upbringing (51 months), Mr. Dinh Hong V claimed Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H was unemployed and without income. Ms. H stated she engaged in trade and earned income. Despite differing accounts, under the Law on Marriage and Family, household labor is considered remunerative work, thus, Mr. Dinh Hong V’s income and childcare responsibilities are attributed to both parties. Therefore, childcare costs are calculated at half the total expenses.

[13] According to the declaration of Mr. Dinh Hong V, the total cost amounts to 121 million VND. According to the confirmation by the People’s Committee of My Lung Commune, the cost of raising a child from 0 to 5 years old ranges from 2,000,000 VND to 2,200,000 VND per month. The Court uses an average amount of 2,100,000 VND as the basis for compensation.

[14] Regarding the cost of childbirth for Dinh Tung L: Mr. Dinh Hong V declared the cost to be 15 million VND, and Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H acknowledged that the cost was 12 million VND paid by Mr. V. This amount should be split equally, and Ms. H should reimburse Mr. Dinh Hong V for half.

[15] Regarding compensation for mental anguish: Mr. Dinh Hong V requested the maximum compensation of 10 months of basic salary; the Trial Council decided on a compensation equivalent to 8 months of basic salary.

[16] Regarding the care expenses: In practice, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H spent more time caring for Dinh Tung L, hence Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H should compensate Mr. Dinh Hong V for a portion of this care.

[17] Regarding court fees: Since the plaintiff’s claim is accepted, the defendant must bear the court fees.

Because of the above reason,

THE COURT DECIDES THAT:

Applying: Article 3; Article 6; Clause 1, Article 584; Article 585; Article 592 of the 2015 Civil Code; Article 43; Clauses 2 and 3, Article 45; Clause 1, Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Code; Clause 2, Article 26 of Resolution 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30th, 2016, of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on court fees and charges, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management, and use of court fees and charges.

Judgment: The claims of Mr. Dinh Hong V are accepted.

Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H is required to pay (compensate) Mr. Dinh Hong V the following amounts:

  1. Childcare expenses: For raising Dinh Tung Lfor 51 months at 1,050,000 VND/month = 53,550,000 VND (excluding care expenses).
  2. Mental anguish compensation: Mr. Dinh Hong V is compensated for the equivalent to 8 months of basic salary x 1,490,000 VND = 11,920,000 VND.
  3. Childbirth costs: 6,000,000 VND.
  4. Care expenses: 500,000 VND/month x 51 months = 25,500,000 VND.

Total (1+2+3+4) = 96,970,000 VND (ninety-six million, nine hundred seventy thousand VND).

From the date the judgment takes legal effect, if the obligated party delays payment, they must also pay interest according to the rate specified in Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code for the delayed period at the time of payment.

In case the Judgment is enforced under Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the judgment creditor and judgment debtor have the right to negotiate judgment enforcement, request enforcement, voluntarily enforce, or be coerced to enforce the judgment under Articles 6, 7, and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement; the statute of limitations for judgment enforcement is in accordance with Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.

Regarding court fees: Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H must bear 4,848,500 VND in first-instance civil court fees. Refund Mr. Dinh Hong V the advance court fee of 300,000 VND (three hundred thousand VND) according to the receipt of advance court fee No. AA/2016/0001605 dated December 7, 2020, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Thanh Ba District.

The parties present have the right to appeal the judgment within 15 days from the date of pronouncement.

CASE LAW CONTENT

“[6] The nature of the dispute as requested by the plaintiff is: Compensation for the cost of raising Dinh Tung L because the plaintiff was deceived, as Dinh Tung L is not his biological child, and compensation for mental anguish. Although there is no case law for a similar situation and the law does not fully provide for this case, it is considered:

[7] Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H and Mr. Dinh Hong V were spouses (divorced on February 6th, 2020). During their marriage, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H violated Clause 1, Article 19 of the Law on Marriage and Family: “Husband and wife have the obligation to love, be faithful, respect, care for, and help each other; share and perform family tasks together.” This violation led to the current court case.

[8] In her self-declaration on December 10th, 2020, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H admitted to being unfaithful and that Dinh Tung L is not Mr. Dinh Hong V‘s child. She claimed that when she became pregnant, Mr. Dinh Hong V knew Dinh Tung L was not his child but agreed to raise him out of kindness. However, she provided no evidence. Therefore, Mr. Dinh Hong V‘s claim for mental anguish compensation due to harm to his dignity, honor, and reputation caused by Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H is well-founded.

[9] The material and mental damages of Mr. Dinh Hong V are naturally acknowledged by society; therefore, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh H must be responsible for compensation.”

If you need more consulting, please Contact Us at TNHH NT International Law Firm (ntpartnerlawfirm.com)

You can also download the .docx version here.

Rate this post

“The article’s content refers to the regulations that were applicable at the time of its creation and is intended solely for reference purposes. To obtain accurate information, it is advisable to seek the guidance of a consulting lawyer.”

LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES

090.252.4567
HÃY CLICK ĐỂ LẠI SĐT CHÚNG TÔI SẼ GỌI NGAY CHO BẠN MIỄN PHÍ

NT INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM