1. Client's Crisis

During the divorce process, the client was accused by the other party of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse). In addition, the other party petitioned the Seoul Family Court for a protective order for the victim child, putting the client at risk of being subjected to no-contact and communication restrictions. A temporary measure had already imposed no-contact restrictions, and even after that temporary measure was revoked, the other party filed for another protection order, leaving the client in a serious situation where the relationship with the child could be completely severed.

2. Key Issues

There were three major complex issues to be contested in this case. First, whether the alleged child abuse claimed by the other party was substantiated. Although the prosecutor had already issued a non-prosecution disposition for insufficient evidence, the other party separately petitioned for a victim child protection order, arguing that the prosecutor's decision not to indict was improper. Second, the issue was whether a prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition binds the court in victim child protection order proceedings. Even where there is a non-prosecution disposition, the court can independently determine whether a protection order is necessary. Third, because the matter arose in the course of a divorce dispute, it was necessary to clearly determine whether a protection order was warranted in a situation where the line between child abuse and marital conflict was blurred.

3. Strategy

Attorney Shin Mi-jin devised a multi-layered strategy to prove that the child abuse allegation against the client was untrue.

First, although a prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition does not bind the court, concrete grounds were presented to show that the prosecutor's assessment in this case could not be considered unreasonable. It was pointed out that the victim children’s statements were made voluntarily and that the main parts were consistent and credible in light of common experience, and that the statement analysis conducted by the Forensic Science Division of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office also confirmed specific information about the abuse circumstances. At the same time, it was argued that the prosecutor's denial of the charges solely on the basis of a lack of logic and clarity in some statements, despite the statement analysis results, was itself unreasonable, thereby highlighting the problems with the prosecution's decision to decline indictment even though the child abuse was sufficiently established.

In addition, the thorough findings of the court investigator were actively cited so that the court could directly verify the facts of the case. In child protection cases, family court investigators conduct professional fact-finding with the best interests of the victim child as the top priority, and based on those findings, the court was asked to determine whether a protection order was necessary.

4. Result and Recovery

The Seoul Family Court decided in January 2025 that "after reviewing this case, the necessity of a victim child protection order is not recognized," and dismissed the petition for a victim child protection order. The client escaped the risk of no-contact and communication restrictions stemming from unfounded child abuse allegations and regained a basis for maintaining the relationship with the child.

Attorney in charge: Attorney Shin Mi-jin

For confidentiality, this case has been partially anonymized to the extent that it does not undermine the substance of the case.