Word-for-Word Translation: Family Court Response Brief No. 2 (Updated Version)

Regarding the divorce case between the two parties, respectfully submitting Family Court Response Brief No. 2:

1. Lin Huiya unilaterally decided to arrange for the child to attend private elementary school, and after making the decision unilaterally notified Cen Feishan, without seeking Cen Feishan's consent during the process, subsequently even using the child's right to meet with father as a weapon, threatening that Cen Feishan must bear the full tuition fees, otherwise would refuse to allow Cen Feishan to visit the child. Lin Huiya's behavior clearly violates the principle of friendly parenting, does not conform to the child's best interests, and she should bear the private school tuition fees herself, having no right to demand Cen Feishan pay for her personal decision:
   1. According to the conversation records submitted by Lin Huiya, it can be seen that Lin Huiya from beginning to end never asked for Cen Feishan's opinion, nor sought Cen Feishan's consent, merely unilaterally informed Cen Feishan after deciding on the school, and did not give Cen Feishan any room for discussion. Cen Feishan could only passively accept.
   2. Lin Huiya subsequently even used the child's right to meet with father as a weapon, threatening that Cen Feishan must bear the full tuition fees, otherwise cannot see the child, clearly conveying the position of "no payment = cannot see child". This has related audio recordings as evidence (Evidence 26, 27). Lin Huiya even threatened Cen Feishan in front of the child, instilling in the child concepts of hostility toward the father. This action not only harms the child's physical and mental health, but also undoubtedly uses the child as a weapon to threaten Cen Feishan, violating the principle of friendly parenting and disregarding the child's best interests.
   3. Therefore, Lin Huiya's behavior clearly violates the principle of friendly parenting, does not conform to the child's best interests, and she should bear the private school tuition fees herself, having no right to demand Cen Feishan pay for her personal decision.
2. Lin Huiya demanded that the child publicly take a stance in litigation to cooperate with the mother's claims, causing the child to bear the pressure of taking a stance. Her behavior clearly does not conform to the child's best interests:
   1. The child stated in the letter that Cen Feishan does not allow the child to talk with Lin Huiya, etc., which clearly does not conform to facts. In fact, when the child stays overnight at Cen Feishan's residence, Cen Feishan most of the time tries to arrange for the child to talk with Lin Huiya. There are conversation records as evidence (if Lin Huiya disputes this, Cen Feishan can present conversation records in court for the honorable court's inspection). It can be seen that the child's writing this way is publicly taking a stance to cooperate with the mother's claims at the mother's request, being forced to write content that does not conform to facts, therefore it is not admissible.
   2. Regarding recording during handover periods, this is because Lin Huiya has committed domestic violence against Cen Feishan, and repeatedly inflicts domestic violence on Cen Feishan during the child handover process (including insulting Cen Feishan as mentally ill, shameful, etc.). Therefore, during the domestic violence restraining order case proceedings, the judge has indicated that Cen Feishan may record during the child handover process for self-protection, with the purpose of preventing Lin Huiya from continuing domestic violence, and if there are domestic violence incidents, evidence can be collected immediately. However, Lin Huiya does not think to restrain herself, but repeatedly obstructs Cen Feishan's recording, which is nothing but the perpetrator's position obstructing the victim's evidence collection. Even when the child has such questions, she actually instills wrong concepts in the child, describing herself as the victim, and pushing all responsibility onto Cen Feishan, trying to turn right and wrong upside down. In fact, in recent months Lin Huiya repeatedly during child handover deliberately holds her mobile phone openly aimed at Cen Feishan himself or vehicles to film, but why did the child not mention Lin Huiya's filming situation? It can be seen that the child is substantially writing this way to cater to the mother's claims.
   3. Also regarding Lin Huiya's claim that Cen Feishan shares a room overnight with the opposite sex, etc., this does not conform to facts. Cen Feishan letting the child know his friends is all within appropriate范围, and has not exposed the child to inappropriate social environments. This is evidenced by the family investigation report stating "Assessment shows that the petitioner's parenting arrangements during visitation periods are still appropriate, and can also provide the child with appropriate living environment, with no situation of exposing the child to unfamiliar social environments" (see Evidence 12, page 4), and the child's interactions with Cen Feishan's friends and their children in Taiwan are all quite good.
   4. What needs more emphasis is that the child's opinions in both the social worker report and family investigation officer report are confidential, precisely to avoid the child falling into the dilemma of choosing sides, to be free from the suffering of stance pressure, to protect the child's best interests. Both social workers and family investigation officers have repeatedly emphasized that the child is caught in the difficult situation of loyalty conflict and is affected by the litigation of both parties. However, Lin Huiya does not think to protect the child from litigation, but instead demands that the child publicly take a stance in litigation to cooperate with the mother's claims, causing the child to bear stance pressure, guiding the child to write content that does not conform to facts as her litigation weapon. Her behavior clearly does not conform to the child's best interests.
3. The breakdown of the marriage cannot be attributed to Cen Feishan. The claims submitted by Lin Huiya are either not attributable to Cen Feishan or unrelated to the marriage breakdown:
   1. Lin Huiya claims that the marriage breakdown is because the two parties are separated and Cen Feishan has a criminal record, etc. However, in 2020 it was Lin Huiya who drove Cen Feishan out of the home. Although Lin Huiya claims it was peaceful separation, she has provided no evidence at all. Moreover, it is not the case that because one spouse has a criminal record, the marriage breakdown can be directly attributed to one party, otherwise wouldn't all spouses of criminal defendants in Taiwan be able to directly file for divorce? Especially in Cen Feishan's case, although Cen Feishan has criminal cases, his management of the marriage and dedication to the child have not decreased one bit, and he deeply regrets his behavior. Subsequently there have been no more traffic disputes, and he has stayed away from drugs (Cen Feishan can cooperate with testing). Also, due to his physical factors he cannot drink alcohol, therefore his criminal record does not belong to marriage breakdown.
   2. In fact, the marriage breakdown between the two parties stems from Lin Huiya's long-term domestic violence against Cen Feishan and driving him out of the home, see Evidence 1-1 to 9. Lin Huiya's long-term domestic violence behavior includes beating, intimidation, verbal abuse, threatening to spread rumors at the workplace, threatening to prevent Cen Feishan from seeing the child, etc. The earliest domestic violence evidence can even be traced back to 2016, which further proves that Lin Huiya's domestic violence truly exists long-term, and Cen Feishan is a victim of long-term domestic violence.
4. On November 9, 2024, Lin Huiya without first seeking Cen Feishan's consent, directly changed the handover time and location. This is what Lin Huiya herself admits. Her behavior clearly violates the temporary disposition agreement, reducing the child's meeting time with father. Her behavior is clearly detrimental to the child's best interests:
   1. Lin Huiya has admitted that she did not first seek Cen Feishan's consent before directly changing the handover time and location on November 9, 2024. Although she argues that day was a school fair, etc., the child's activities are not a reason for parents to arbitrarily make changes. Communication with the other party should still be conducted first and consent obtained before changes can be made.
   2. Otherwise, according to Lin Huiya's claim, could parents actually use the child's activities as a reason to directly change handover time and location without any communication, discussion, notification, or obtaining consent? This claim undoubtedly makes the temporary disposition meaningless. If this claim is allowed, then wouldn't any future school activities of the child become situations where Lin Huiya can arbitrarily change handover conditions? If Lin Huiya hopes to change handover time and location due to the child's school fair, she should naturally communicate with the other party first and obtain consent. If there is no prior communication, then should the handover time be advanced? Or should the handover location be changed to the school? Or should the visitation date be changed? All these specific situations need prior communication. There is absolutely no so-called automatic change logic, otherwise the other party has no way to judge.
   3. Actually, that day Cen Feishan arrived at the handover location on time early in the morning but did not see the child. After rushing to the school, Lin Huiya refused to hand over the child, and only handed over the child close to noon at 12 o'clock. If Lin Huiya claims she has the right to directly change handover time and location without communicating with, discussing with, notifying, or obtaining consent from Cen Feishan, then she should state what her legal basis is? And state why she refused to hand over the child after Cen Feishan arrived at the school, and even changed the handover time to after 12 noon?
   4. In summary, from Lin Huiya not first seeking Cen Feishan's consent before directly changing handover time and location, and refusing to hand over the child after Cen Feishan arrived at the school, etc., it can be seen that Lin Huiya intentionally violated the temporary disposition, deliberately reducing the child's meeting time with father. Her behavior is clearly detrimental to the child's best interests.
5. Lin Huiya has many behaviors that disregard the child's best interests. Therefore, Lin Huiya exercising parental rights unilaterally is insufficient to protect the child's best interests. Cen Feishan should have sole custody, or at least both parties should jointly serve as parents with parental rights:
   1. Lin Huiya claims that because Cen Feishan initiates litigation, he is not suitable to serve as joint parent with parental rights, etc. However, the domestic violence-related accusations submitted by Cen Feishan all have relevant factual basis and are not deliberate litigation abuse of protection orders (detailed later), so Lin Huiya's claim does not hold.
   2. Also because Lin Huiya claims she should have sole custody, however Lin Huiya has many behaviors that violate friendly parenting and cooperative parenting principles and ignore the child's physical and mental health, such as: refusing to inform about the child's health information, obstructing the child from receiving psychological counseling, demanding the child publicly take a stance in litigation to cooperate with the mother's claims, causing the child to bear the pressure of loyalty conflict stance-taking, violating the temporary disposition agreement's handover time and location, deliberately instilling in the child thoughts of alienating the father etc. Her behavior clearly disregards the child's best interests and is not suitable for exercising parental rights. Cen Feishan should have sole custody to truly protect the child's best interests.
   3. Regarding the part about refusing to inform about the child's health information, Lin Huiya once denied in court, stating that she always informs, etc. This part does not conform to facts. We respectfully submit email records proving that Cen Feishan indeed repeatedly inquired about the child's health information, but Lin Huiya refused to provide explanations (Evidence 28). From the emails it can be seen that regarding Lin Huiya's mention of the child having eczema and allergies, etc., Cen Feishan needs to understand the specific situation to provide more appropriate care, so he first inquired about current health information, including "medications being used or taken, allergies, wounds, recent medical treatment status, medical instructions" (see Evidence 28, pages 1-2), but regarding this important information, Lin Huiya only evaded the main issues (only saying wounds have not healed, try to provide original foods, pay attention to hygiene), refusing to provide specific explanations. Therefore later Cen Feishan raised specific questions (including: eczema medical treatment status, medical instructions, wound changes, etc.), hoping to give the child appropriate health care and help the child recover smoothly (see Evidence 28, pages 3-5), but never received any reply again. The above situation shows that Lin Huiya deliberately conceals the child's important health information, only because of personal preferences disregarding the child's health, intentionally not sharing important health information.
   4. Taking a step back, even if the honorable court considers it inappropriate for Cen Feishan to have sole custody (hypothetically), however, given that Lin Huiya has many behaviors that disregard the child's best interests, Lin Huiya exercising parental rights unilaterally is insufficient to protect the child's best interests. At least both parties should jointly serve as parents with parental rights to ensure the child receives proper care.
6. The domestic violence-related accusations submitted by Cen Feishan all have relevant factual basis and are not deliberate litigation abuse of protection orders. The determination of domestic violence behavior in the non-prosecution disposition also violates the spirit of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Cen Feishan has already applied for extension of the protection order, and the case is still under review by the honorable court:
   1. First, regarding the protection order between the two parties, Cen Feishan has applied for extension of the protection order, and the case is under review by the honorable court (Case No.: Year 114 Family Protection Application No. 41).
   2. Furthermore, the domestic violence-related accusations submitted by Cen Feishan all have relevant factual basis and are not deliberate litigation abuse of protection orders. Moreover, the determination of domestic violence behavior in the non-prosecution disposition also violates the spirit of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. That disposition's determination also does not bind the honorable court, detailed as follows:
      1. Although the non-prosecution disposition has determined that Lin Huiya can know Cen Feishan's real-time location and address by placing an AirTag, it failed to consider evidence such as Cen Feishan's address being under strict confidentiality, and failed to consider the seriousness of Cen Feishan's whereabouts being grasped by the defendant. Just because Lin Huiya has not yet appeared at Cen Feishan's residence, it allows her to grasp the petitioner's whereabouts, hastily determining that Cen Feishan has not suffered violence.
      2. Although the original non-prosecution disposition has determined the fact that Lin Huiya placed an AirTag and determined that she can know Cen Feishan's real-time location and address by placing an AirTag, it failed to consider that Lin Huiya has no legal reason for placing an AirTag. Simply because Lin Huiya is the primary caregiver, it allows her to arbitrarily place AirTags to grasp the petitioner's whereabouts, acquiescing to Lin Huiya using her status as primary caregiver as a get-out-of-jail-free card, using the daughter as an umbrella for illegal behavior, hastily determining that Cen Feishan has not suffered violence.
      3. Lin Huiya's threatening and insulting words on June 15, 2024, have been verified as true by the original disposition. Emotional agitation is not a legal reason for domestic violence, and the daughter is not an umbrella for parents' illegal behavior. However, the original disposition failed to consider that Cen Feishan's taking the child for medical treatment was appropriate handling, but Lin Huiya made unreasonable demands, forcing the petitioner to comply, then insulting and threatening Cen Feishan. It also failed to consider the cause of "Lin Huiya first having the daughter shout for help and deliberately creating panic," and ignored the principle that "even if Lin Huiya is emotionally agitated, her insults and threats are still illegal domestic violence behavior".
      4. Although the original disposition has confirmed Lin Huiya's threatening and insulting behavior, it hastily concluded with "the complainant subsequently ended the call on his own initiative using the doctor's request to hang up as a reason," directly determining "no evidence that the complainant actually felt threatened by spiritual violence," etc. This clearly has stereotypes about victims and fails to consider that when the doctor requested to hang up the phone, Cen Feishan ended the call on his own initiative. This actually proves that Cen Feishan felt quite afraid of what Lin Huiya did, hastily determining that Cen Feishan was not threatened.
      5. Therefore, since Cen Feishan has submitted much evidence proving the facts of "Lin Huiya tracking the petitioner's whereabouts" and "Lin Huiya insulting and threatening Cen Feishan," and has also submitted evidence proving "Cen Feishan's address has always adopted strict confidentiality measures," "Lin Huiya instigated the daughter to shout for help," "Lin Huiya forced Cen Feishan to hand over the child early through insults and threats." The above evidence was also determined to be true by the District Prosecutor's Office, but the District Prosecutor's Office ultimately relied only on stereotypes about victims and allowed Lin Huiya to use the child as a shield, making determinations that violate the spirit of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The honorable court should not refer to that disposition for determination.
   3. In summary, the domestic violence-related accusations submitted by Cen Feishan all have relevant factual basis. Although the above domestic violence behaviors were given non-prosecution dispositions by the District Prosecutor's Office, the determination of domestic violence behavior in the disposition also has many aspects that violate the spirit of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Therefore, Cen Feishan is not deliberately litigating by abusing protection orders, and this should not be determined as litigation behavior belonging to marriage breakdown.
7. Regarding the current visitation plan, the structure of the mediation record is generally fine, but there are several details that need improvement:
   1. The psychological counseling arranged on Wednesday evenings of even-numbered weeks in the mediation record should be changed to 9 AM to 12 PM on Saturdays of even-numbered weeks. Also regarding whether there is a need to maintain psychological counseling, the family investigation report has stated "it is recommended to maintain psychological counseling, which is more beneficial for the minor's physical and mental condition adjustment" (see Evidence 12, page 11). This case's social worker report also states "the child is affected by the disputes of both parties." Therefore, to maintain the child's physical and mental health and safety, there is indeed a need for continued psychological counseling. Lin Huiya's constant obstruction of psychological counseling actually disregards the child's psychological trauma from long-term witnessing of domestic violence.
   2. The mediation record only stipulates that on the 1st and 3rd Saturdays of each month from 9 AM Saturday to 7 PM Sunday, Cen Feishan may have visitation with the child, but does not stipulate the 5th Saturday of each month (about 4 months each year have a 5th week). Therefore, it is suggested to add that on the 5th Saturday of each month from 9 AM to 7 PM, Cen Feishan may have visitation with the child. (Note: Only adding Saturday of the 5th week for one day, Sunday the child may spend with Lin Huiya)
   3. The Lunar New Year period stipulated in the mediation record has six days total, but Cen Feishan's visitation period is substantially only 2 days (i.e., from 3 PM on the 1st day to 3 PM on the 3rd day). Cen Feishan should be guaranteed to have 3 consecutive days of visitation, so it is suggested to change to from 9 AM on the 1st day to 7 PM on the 3rd day. (Note: This date was requested by Lin Huiya, Cen Feishan can also agree to change to the 3rd to 5th days)
   4. The summer vacation visitation period stipulated in the mediation record is to add 14 days. It is suggested that the summer vacation visitation period be adjusted to add 20 days, allowing the child to spend more time with Cen Feishan during summer vacation, while also fairly reserving the same period for Lin Huiya. It is also suggested to clearly stipulate that for the additional period, if it encounters originally fixed visitation weekends, the return time should be extended by days accordingly to avoid disputes.
   5. The Christmas visitation stipulated in the mediation record is arranged from 4 PM on the Saturday before Christmas to 7 PM on Sunday. This was considered because Christmas Day might be a school day, to avoid affecting the child's school attendance. At Lin Huiya's request to change to Christmas Day itself, but since Christmas Eve dinner on December 24th is quite an important activity of that holiday, if changed to Christmas Day December 25th for visitation, the visitation period should be arranged from 4 PM on December 24th to 7 PM on December 25th.
8. In summary, Lin Huiya has many behaviors that violate friendly parenting and cooperative parenting principles and ignore the child's physical and mental health, such as: refusing to inform about the child's health information, obstructing the child from receiving psychological counseling, demanding the child publicly take a stance in litigation to cooperate with the mother's claims, causing the child to bear the pressure of loyalty conflict stance-taking, violating the temporary disposition agreement's handover time and location, deliberately instilling in the child thoughts of alienating the father, etc. Her behavior clearly disregards the child's best interests and is not suitable for exercising parental rights. As for the high child support fees requested by Lin Huiya, there is even less reason, as the private school the child attends was Lin Huiya's unilateral decision, and Lin Huiya subsequently even repeatedly uses the child as a weapon to threaten Cen Feishan to bear the tuition fees. Lin Huiya's requests should be dismissed, and Cen Feishan's requests should be granted. We respectfully request the honorable court's review and consideration, and deeply appreciate the convenience.

Respectfully submitted

Taiwan New Taipei District Court Family Division for Review

【Evidence List】

Evidence 26: Audio recording and transcript from April 4, 2024.

Evidence 27: Audio recording and transcript from June 20, 2024.

Evidence 28: Letters from Cen Feishan inquiring about the child's health information.

Submitter/Defendant: Cen Feishan

Litigation Representative: Attorney Chen Jingyi

Republic of China, July 1, 2025