Shanghai Court Rules Father's Social Media Rants Count as Domestic Violence

A Shanghai court has ruled that a father's repeated public posts about family disputes in his son's class and neighborhood groups amounted to domestic violence, Southern Metropolis Daily reported today.

The Pudong New Area People's Court recently concluded a case involving an application for a personal safety protection order, saying the posts caused mental harm to the boy, surnamed Lin.

Lin and his father had lived apart from the boy's mother for years because of marital disputes. The boy lived with his mother and had fewer opportunities to see his father.

Beginning in November 2025, father repeatedly used highly emotional and derogatory language in the boy's class group, parent group and residential owners' group. He accused his wife's family of damaging the marriage, taking control of the child and weakening his relationship with his son.

The posts spread quickly, leaving the boy distressed in front of classmates and teachers and under significant psychological pressure when dealing with neighbors, according to the court.

The boy asked the court to prohibit his father from committing domestic violence, insulting, defaming or threatening him and his relatives, and harassing, tracking or contacting them.

The father argued that the dispute arose from disagreements over the boy's education and living arrangements. He said his posts were an attempt to defend his rights after the marital breakdown and difficulties exercising visitation rights, rather than an attack on his son.

The court said his conduct went beyond a normal expression of family conflict. By ignoring the minor's mental health and exposing family privacy in public online spaces, the father infringed on the boy's dignity and privacy and seriously affected his studies, daily life and physical and mental health, the court said.

The court prohibited the father from harassing his son and his relatives by phone, text message, instant messaging, email or online posts. It rejected the request to prohibit contact, saying there was no evidence that the father posed a continuing risk of physical violence and that he retained legal rights to visitation and guardianship.