Cản trở thăm nom con sau ly hôn. Ranh giới giữa vi phạm hành chính và truy cứu hình sự (Luật sư Lê Bình Phương phân tích)Obstructing Child Visitation After Divorce — The Line Between an Administrative Violation and Criminal Prosecution (Analysis by Lawyer Lê Bình Phương)

Reference translation for convenience. The Vietnamese version is the authoritative text.

Overview

After a divorce, one of the most persistent and painful disputes concerns visiting the child. The parent directly raising the child — or a relative living with them — deliberately makes things difficult: not opening the door, switching off the phone, taking the child elsewhere whenever the day to see the child comes around. The obstructed parent asks: “What can I do? Will they go to prison?”

The answer is not a simple yes or no. Vietnamese law deals with this issue through three tiers of sanctions, and the obstructed parent needs to understand them correctly in order to take the right path — both to protect their own rights and to avoid harming the very interests of the child.

---

Relevant Legal Provisions

1. The Law on Marriage and Family 2014 — the foundation of civil rights

Clause 3 of Article 82 provides: “After divorce, the parent not directly raising the child has the right and the duty to visit the child, and no one may obstruct this. Where the parent not directly raising the child abuses visitation to obstruct or adversely affect the looking-after, care, nurturing, and education of the child, the parent directly raising the child has the right to request the court to restrict that person’s right to visit the child.”

Clause 2 of Article 83 provides: “The parent directly raising the child, together with family members, may not obstruct the parent not directly raising the child in visiting, caring for, nurturing, and educating the child.”

These two provisions establish a clear civil legal obligation, but in themselves they are not a basis for criminal liability.

2. Decree 144/2021/NĐ-CP — the only applicable administrative sanction

Article 56 provides for a fine of VND 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 for the act of obstructing the right to visit and care between grandparents and grandchildren; between parents and children; between husband and wife; and between siblings — except where a parent’s right to visit the child has been restricted by a decision of the court.

The key point to grasp: this decree falls within the framework for the prevention and control of domestic violence, led by the Ministry of Public Security — it is not a decree on marriage and family administered by the Ministry of Justice. This is why many people mistakenly look in Decree 82/2020 (administrative penalties in the field of marriage and family and civil status) and find no relevant provision.

3. The Penal Code — two criminal routes with hard conditions

Article 380 of the Penal Code — the offence of non-compliance with a judgment: This applies where there is a court judgment/decision establishing the right to visitation, the parent directly raising the child has the means to comply but deliberately fails to do so, and has already been subjected to coercive enforcement of the judgment or has already been administratively sanctioned for this conduct and still violates. Penalty range: imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years (Clause 1); imprisonment from 2 to 5 years where there are aggravating circumstances (Clause 2). Additional fine of VND 5 to 50 million.

Article 185 of the Penal Code — the offence of ill-treating or maltreating grandparents, parents, spouse, children, grandchildren, or a person who has rendered nurturing service to oneself: This applies where the obstruction of visitation is accompanied by abusive conduct that regularly causes physical or mental suffering to the child themselves — not to the obstructed parent — and the person has already been administratively sanctioned and still violates. Penalty range: a warning, non-custodial reform of up to 3 years, or imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years (Clause 1); from 2 to 5 years where the victim is a person under 16, a pregnant woman, an elderly and infirm person, or a person with a severe disability (Clause 2).

---

Analysis and Application

Three tiers of sanctions — no leapfrogging

The legal system addresses the obstruction of visitation in sequence, from the lightest to the most severe:

Tier 1 — Civil: Clause 3 of Article 82 and Clause 2 of Article 83 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014 provide the basis for requesting coercive civil enforcement of the judgment, or for suing to change the parent directly raising the child under Article 84.

Tier 2 — Administrative: Article 56 of Decree 144/2021 imposes a fine of VND 5 to 10 million. This is a mandatory step before any thought of criminal proceedings.

Tier 3 — Criminal: Article 380 or Article 185 of the Penal Code — triggered only after Tier 1 or Tier 2 has been gone through and the violator still continues.

Why can’t you push straight to criminal proceedings?

Article 380 of the Penal Code sets two hard conditions of the “has already been… and still violates” type: either the person has already been subjected to coercive enforcement of the judgment, or they have already been administratively sanctioned. Missing one of the two, the investigating authority will return the petition for want of the elements of the offence. An obstructed parent who goes straight to the police demanding prosecution without any prior administrative sanction will fall into a vicious circle.

Mapping the legal zones — a common mistake

Many people look up Decree 82/2020/NĐ-CP (penalties in the fields of judicial support, judicial administration, marriage and family, and civil judgment enforcement) and find no provision on obstructing visitation. The reason: that decree governs conduct relating to registration procedures, unlawful marriage, sham divorce, child adoption, and civil status — it does not cover post-divorce relations regarding visitation. The administrative sanction for obstructing visitation is in Decree 144/2021, within the field of domestic violence prevention and control led by the Ministry of Public Security.

(Note on validity: Decree 82/2020 and Decree 117/2024 ceased to have effect on 18/5/2026, replaced by Decree 109/2026 — but Decree 109/2026 likewise has no provision on visitation. Decree 144/2021, Article 56 remains in force as at the time of this article; verify before relying on it.)

---

Practical Example

Situation: Mr A and Ms B divorce. The divorce judgment provides that Ms B raises the child and Mr A has the right to visit at weekends. Ever since the divorce, every Saturday Ms B takes the child out without notice. After repeatedly being unable to see the child, Mr A asks: “What must I do?”

The correct procedure:

Step 1: Mr A records each instance of being obstructed — ignored messages, unanswered calls, no one home when he comes — by keeping a diary with dates and times, and screenshots of calls and messages.

Step 2: Request the civil judgment enforcement agency to issue a decision to enforce the divorce judgment as to visitation. When Ms B fails to comply, the enforcement agency will apply coercive measures.

Step 3: In parallel or as an alternative — report the matter to the commune-level police where Ms B resides for an administrative sanction under Article 56 of Decree 144/2021 (a fine of VND 5–10 million). This both creates a precedent and applies real pressure.

Step 4: If, after being administratively sanctioned or subjected to coercion, Ms B still continues to obstruct, Mr A may make a criminal report with sufficient evidence of the conduct occurring after the earlier sanction. Only then does the investigating authority have a basis to prosecute under Article 380 of the Penal Code.

A more effective option in many cases: Sue to change the parent directly raising the child under Article 84 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014, on the argument that the parent currently raising the child deliberately obstructs the right of visitation = failing to ensure the child’s overall interests, including the right to have a relationship with both father and mother.

---

Important Notes

First. Do not threaten criminal proceedings too early. Before the hard conditions of Article 380 are met (a prior administrative sanction or coercive enforcement of the judgment), a threat of criminal prosecution will be rejected by the investigating authority. Moreover, a harshly confrontational attitude worsens the relationship between the two sides, and the child is the one who bears the consequences. In custody disputes, courts tend to view unfavourably whichever side displays a hostile, uncooperative attitude that runs against the child’s interests.

Second. Building an evidence file is the top priority. Each instance of obstruction must be recorded immediately: date and time, the form of obstruction, witnesses (if any), messages, or recordings of calls (within the limits the law allows). Without evidence, no procedure can work.

Third. A special case: the court has restricted the right of visitation. If the court itself has issued a decision restricting or prohibiting visitation (under Clause 3 of Article 82, where the visiting parent abuses it in a way harmful to the child), Article 56 of Decree 144/2021 does not apply. This is a clear exception written into the provision.

Fourth. Check the validity of the instrument before citing it. Decree 144/2021, Article 56 currently remains in force, but after the Law on Domestic Violence Prevention and Control 13/2022/QH15 took effect on 01/7/2023, it is realistic that a new decree may replace this part. Each time this provision is used to advise or to draft a petition, it should be re-checked.

Fifth. Judicial practice shows that criminal cases are very rare. A review of judicial practice shows that 99% of visitation disputes are resolved at the civil tier (coercive enforcement) or the administrative tier (a penalty under Decree 144/2021), or by a request to change the parent raising the child. A prosecution under Article 380 of the Penal Code arising from obstruction of visitation is very rare; an Article 185 case occurs only where there is an element of direct violence against the child.

---

Related Articles

• Who gets custody of a child under 36 months after divorce, and what to prepare when the court requests evidence

• When is a husband barred from filing for divorce?

• If the husband commits adultery, does the wife receive a larger share of property on divorce?

• Divorce and child custody: issues of visitation and support

Conclusion

The act of obstructing visitation of a child after divorce is not automatically a criminal offence. It begins as a breach of a civil obligation under Articles 82–83 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014, escalates into an administrative violation punishable by a fine of VND 5–10 million under Article 56 of Decree 144 of 2021, and can become a criminal offence under Article 380 of the Penal Code only when the violator, having already been subjected to coercive enforcement of the judgment or an administrative sanction, still continues to re-offend. Article 185 of the Penal Code on maltreating a child applies only where there is direct violence against the child.

The right strategy: prioritise the civil and administrative tiers first, build a methodical evidence file, and give serious consideration to suing to change the parent directly raising the child where the parent currently raising them obstructs systematically — this is often the most effective path to protect both the right of visitation and the long-term interests of the child.

---

Legal sources used: Clause 3 of Article 82, Clause 2 of Article 83, and Article 84 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014; Article 56 of Decree 144/2021/NĐ-CP; Article 380 and Article 185 of the Penal Code (consolidated 2025).