The talk mainly focused on sharing findings of how domestic violence allegations and evidence were ignored and went missing in divorce trials and the following adjudication processes in China from 2017 to 2024. Prof. Michelson compared with solid official statistics the denial rate in divorce trials as well as the role of domestic violence in the current period to the previous 2009 to 2015 which has already been covered in his book. Then, surprisingly, the data revealed no change regardless of the enforcement of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law in 2016. As he suggested and then further illustrated, the failure for the law to successfully engage with the troublesome ignorance of domestic violence in divorce trials could be explained by the determining power of the judges and their misconduct. Subsequently, two representative recorded divorce trials were presented to show how judges gaslighted the plaintiffs, mostly women, by utilizing defendant consent, confession letters, playing with the conception of domestic violence, normalizing the idea to persuade plaintiffs to withdraw their petitions. In addition, the accompanying written decisions were found erasing every detail of abuses women had gone through no matter how severe they were and not citing the Law, which were both obviously against the regulation. But it was unfair that plaintiffs were held accountable for judges’ misconduct when they suffered from physical abuses and radical coercive controls at all levels. Finally, there was a discussion about factors that might have impacts on the denial rate. It is investigated that plaintiffs’ age and the duration of their marriage were relevant to the possibility of denial. Though gender differences of the judges seemed irrelevant in those cases, their workload and the related performance evaluation influenced that potential. That offered an explanation for Zhejiang’s (a more developed province) higher rate than that of Henan’s (a less developed province).

Written by: LIU, Zexi

On November 5th, professor Ethan Michelson delivered a lecture titled “What I Learned from Watching 2000 Hours of Divorce Trials” based on a large amount of court judgment and trial record data. The core research covered over 144000 adjudicated divorce cases from Henan and Zhejiang provinces from 2009 to 2016 and the results showed that the proportion of divorce judgments not being supported has always been high. Gender differences were very obvious, with about two-thirds of divorce applications being made by women, and their chances of being rejected were higher than those of men.
It’s worth noting that domestic violence allegations raised by nearly 40% of female plaintiffs have little impact on the outcome of cases. Judges often ignored these claims and supporting evidence, employing strategies like redefining violence, demanding excessively high proof or normalizing the abuse in families. The 2016 Anti-Domestic Violence Law has had little practical effect as it is rarely cited and even when mentioned, is sometimes used to deny petitions. After instructions that restrict the online issuance of divorce decrees issued by the Supreme People’s Court in 2016, professor Ethan Michelson collected a new sample of about 138347 cases from 2017 to 2024 nationwide and found a consistent pattern of high rejection rate and judicial indifference to domestic violence.
An important new research involved analyzing 4549 paired video recordings and written judgments from divorce trials, which exposes significant omissions: in nearly 20% of trials in which physical abuse was verbally described, there was no description in written judgments. Moreover, in almost half of these cases, written records lack evidence to support allegations of abuse. Professor Ethan Michelson argued these systematic discrepancies constitute large-scale judicial misconduct and censorship, harming women seeking escape from abusive marriages.
In the Q&A, professor Ethan Michelson argued that while traditional values exist, the primary driver of judicial behavior is not culture but overwhelming workload pressure and institutional performance indicators. Judges in more developed provinces like Zhejiang faced a greater number of cases, which led to higher denial rates as a case clearing strategy. In addition, the appeal rate in divorce cases was extremely low, and the plaintiff preferred to re-file the lawsuit after six months rather than appeal, which created a unique environment in which judges could circumvent the rules with minimal responsibility. The discussion also highlighted that the “cooling-off period” has made obtaining divorces through Civil Affairs Bureaus significantly more difficult, likely funnelling more contentious cases into an already overburdened court system. This shows that institutional pressure, not just the personal bias or cultural factors of judges, makes women’s demands systematically marginalized in Chinese divorce courts, and this cycle continues.

Written by: CHEN, Guanhan

Is there gender justice in China’s divorce courts? Evidence suggests not. In this seminar, Professor Michelson illustrated how an overburdened court system implements divorce restrictions by offloading the institutional burden onto women, at the cost of their lawful rights.

Professor Michelson’s research began with an analysis of written court decisions from basic-level courts in the provinces of Henan and Zhejiang between 2009 and 2016. The findings revealed that while more women file for divorce than men, their petitions are more likely to be denied. Notably, cases involving domestic violence allegations face an even higher rate of denial than those without such claims. Judges use various strategies for sidelining domestic violence allegations, for instance, using defendant consent as an indicator of mutual affection. His research underscores the human toll of the clampdown on divorce, particularly for women seeking to leave their abusive husbands, often leaving them with no way out.

In 2016, the Anti-Domestic Violence Law of the People’s Republic of China came into effect, alongside a policy shift that prohibited courts from publishing divorce decisions while encouraging the upload of trial videos to official websites. In response, Professor Michelson expanded his research by examining how judges deal with domestic violence claims during courtroom proceedings. He compared video recordings with written court decisions from PKU Law across 4,549 divorce cases across China between 2019 and 2024. Paradoxically, the Anti-Domestic Violence Law has not improved outcomes for victims; yet, in some cases, it is leveraged by judges to reject petitions when the victim’s allegation does not conform perfectly to the legal definition. Moreover, his analysis suggests that there are selective omissions and discrepancies from written decisions for physical abuse claims and supporting evidence of domestic violence.

In one of the cases presented by Professor Michelson, Qu v. Wang, the trial video revealed that the wife’s allegations of domestic violence had escalated to the point of a knife attack. However, the written decision simply stated that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of an irretrievable marital breakdown, and the petition was denied. Behind each written decision and statistical trend lie human stories—of women like the plaintiff in Qu v. Wang, whose plea for safety was eclipsed by a system prioritizing procedural efficiency over lived experience. As Professor Michelson’s work continues, it compels us to look beyond the legal text and bear witness to the profound human cost of this gendered injustice. The path forward must begin with this recognition.

Written by: LI, Mao

I think the most central argument in this lecture is that Chinese courts are systematically making it increasingly difficult for individuals, particularly women, to obtain a divorce through litigation, especially in cases involving domestic violence. This phenomenon is described as a “judicial clampdown”.
Professor also uses abundant evidence and data to prove to us that there has been a significant and steady increase in the rate at which divorce petitions are denied by courts, forcing couples to remain married. Since 2017, the denial rate for first-attempt divorce petitions has been over 16% nationally and is even higher in some provincial data (eg: Henan province).
The research focuses specifically on adjudicated divorces (contested cases that go to trial), which represent a more difficult subset of divorce proceedings compared to mediated or mutually-agreed divorces processed by civil affairs bureaus.

Women file the majority (two-thirds to three-quarters) of divorce petitions in these contested cases, and there is a significant and persistent gender gap: petitions filed by women are significantly more likely to be denied than those filed by men, even when controlling for other factors. An estimated 100,000+ women per year, who are seeking divorce from abusive husbands, are denied and forced to return to their abusers. Approximately 40% of women’s divorce petitions include allegations of domestic violence, but presenting evidence of domestic violence has no positive impact on the likelihood of a judge granting the divorce, judges just systematically ignore or sideline these allegations. The 2016 Anti-Domestic Violence Law has had virtually no effect on judicial behavior in divorce cases, it is rarely cited, and even though when it does happen , it is often used to deny petitions. (really ridiculous)
Judges employ several tactics to justify denying divorces, which the professor characterizes as “judicial gaslighting”:
The first one is prioritizing “No-Fault” Standard, it means Citing the defendant’s unwillingness to divorce as evidence that the couple’s “mutual affection” (感情尚未破裂) is not broken.
The second one is accepting Defendant Contrition, which means using a husband’s apology and promise to change as a reason to deny the divorce, even when he admits to violence.
The third one is redefining and Trivializing Violence, where judges tend to dismiss violence as a “minor marital dispute,” claiming it was not “severe” or “persistent” enough to meet a made-up standard.
The fourth one is Imposing Unduly High Burdens of Proof, in this case judges usually demand unrealistic levels of evidence for domestic violence and refusing to consider evidence presented informally (e.g: photos on a phone).
The last one is persuading plaintiffs to withdraw, aka pressuring women to drop their cases “voluntarily”.

The initial research was based on a large dataset (over 144,000 cases) of written court judgments from Henan and Zhejiang (2009-2016).
New groundbreaking research analyzes a vast collection of video recordings of divorce trials (over 2,400 hours) paired with their corresponding written judgments, the professor uses AI tools for transcription and data extraction to handle the scale and linguistic diversity of the videos. A key finding from this video analysis is widespread judicial censorship: horrifying details and evidence of physical abuse described in the courtroom are systematically omitted from the final written judgment in roughly 20% of relevant cases. For evidence submission, the omission rate is nearly 50%, this discrepancy suggests judicial misconduct on a massive scale, as judges are legally required to document claims and evidence in their rulings.
To conclude, the lecture presents a stark picture of a Chinese judicial system that, in divorce adjudication, fails to protect women, ignores laws designed to combat domestic violence, and employs tactics that force victims to remain in dangerous marriages. The clampdown is driven by a combination of institutional pressures (e.g., high caseloads, performance metrics) and a judicial culture that prioritizes “marital harmony” over individual safety and legal rights.

Written by: WANG, Jiayi

本次講座圍繞主講人Ethan Michelson教授在“觀看”了2000小時中國離婚庭審視頻後的發現展開。

在講座的前半部分，教授展示並講解了一系列與離婚相關的圖表和數據。他指出，從2004年左右開始，中國訴訟離婚的駁回比例持續劇烈升高。以河南省和浙江省為例，其中首次嘗試的駁回率極高，分別達到了75%和82%。並且在這兩個省份，提出家暴指控的女性離婚訴訟原告比例均接近40%，遠高於男性。而法官在庭審中極少引用《反家庭暴力法》，甚至提出了家暴指控的離婚訴訟被駁回的比例更高。

教授還指出，在離婚審判中，法官常常傾向於阻止願被告離婚。為達成這一目的，法官會使用一系列的策略，例如將被告是否同意離婚、是否表現出後悔作為雙方感情有沒有完全破裂的重要參考標準，忽略法律重新定義家庭暴力，設置過高的舉證門檻，勸說原告撤回訴狀，以及在紀錄書面判決時選擇性忽略原告的家暴指控以及相關證據等。

接著，教授通過展示部分庭審中的對話紀錄，結合具體案例說明了這些策略的實施過程。例如在屈燕訴王平基離婚糾紛一案中，在原告明確表示被告曾用刀砍傷自己後，法官詢問原告，被告是不是只是用刀背嚇唬了她。並且法官表示，原告屈燕儲存在手機中的傷痕照片只有一張，無法證明法律定義中家庭暴力的連續性特徵，因此記錄為沒有證據提交。最終法官以原告沒有提供充分的證據證明雙方感情已經完全破裂為由駁回了原告的訴訟請求。

最後，教授指出，法庭記錄往往在兩個方面存在省略，然後分別結合具體的案例和數據對此進行了說明。首先是對原告所陳述的身體暴力遭遇的省略。教授在這裡舉了馬艾米的例子。原告馬艾米在法庭上表明自己受到了來自丈夫及其家人的囚禁以及嚴重家暴，在第三次起訴後才終於成功離婚。但法院將三個孩子的撫養權判給了被告，並且在判決書中對於被告對原告實施的家庭暴力以及囚禁行為隻字未提。接著，教授以表格列舉數據指出，在樣本中，有19%的原告，其在庭審中陳述的身體暴力遭遇沒有被記錄到書面判決中。還有就是法庭對原告所提供的自己遭受身體暴力的證據的省略。在教授提供的庭審案例中，原告不僅遭受了被告的頻繁暴打，還承受著被告嚴重的經濟控制和精神孤立，甚至不能給家人打電話，然而書面判決中只寫了一句“原告訴稱：被告性情暴躁，經常對原告實施家庭暴力”。數據顯示，在樣本中，有52%的原告，其在庭審上被引用的遭受身體暴力的證據沒有被記錄到書面判決中。

綜上所述，Ethan Michelson教授在本次講座中以詳實的數據和具體而富有代表性的案例揭示出，在中國離婚司法實踐中法庭常常傾向於避免做出離婚判決，并且為達成這一目的法官逐漸發展出了一系列策略、手段和話術，展現了中國女性在離婚審判中的艱難處境。

Written by: LIU, Yingjie

11 月 5 日，我聆聽了 Ethan Michelson 教授題為《我從 “觀看” 兩千小時離婚審判中學到了什麼》的講座。講座核心圍繞中國離婚法庭的性別不平等問題展開，尤其聚焦家庭暴力現象，透過分析浙江省與河南省的大量離婚法庭判決影片及庭審數據記錄，揭示了司法實踐中諸多令人不安的疏漏 —— 其中最突出的，便是司法機構對家庭暴力行為的普遍漠視。
作為一名未婚女性，我雖知曉婚姻兼具浪漫與現實，但此前更多懷揣著對婚禮儀式、親密伴侶關係、育兒生活的美好期待；而這場講座，卻讓我直面婚姻背後冰冷殘酷的一面：許多男性因本可調和的矛盾，對妻子施加令人髮指的暴力。我並非從未聽聞家暴現象，但當詳實的數據與受害者的白描式記錄被具象呈現時，那種衝擊仍觸目驚心 —— 不少受害人口頭詳述了身體受虐經歷，這些內容卻未被納入書面判決；此類案件中，近半數書面記錄缺乏支撐虐待指控的證據，法官往往會透過重新定義暴力行為、要求提供更多證據等方式，駁回女性原告的家暴訴求。即便女性在婚姻中明顯遭受暴力傷害，也難以依靠司法工具維護自身權益，近 40% 女性原告提出的家庭暴力控訴，對離婚案件的最終判決結果幾乎未產生實質影響。值得關注的是，2016 年《反家庭暴力法》頒布時雖引發媒體高度關注，但在司法程序中的實際引用率極低，即便被提及，有時反而成為駁回相關請求的依據。
講座的核心研究覆蓋 2009 至 2016 年河南省、浙江省超過 14.4 萬起已判決離婚案件，其中性別差異極為顯著：約三分之二的離婚申請由女性提出，而她們的申請被駁回的機率遠高於男性。在討論環節，Ethan Michelson 教授還指出，當前「離婚冷靜期」顯著增加了透過民政局辦理離婚手續的難度與複雜度，這很可能促使更多人選擇訴訟離婚的方式終結複雜婚姻關係，進而持續加重法院系統的工作負擔。
在此之前，我對婚姻、家暴及離婚程序的認知，多來源於新聞報導、法制節目與影片號內容。我常看到婚姻受害者藉助輿論壓力向法院施壓，以求脫離苦海；每當目睹家暴導致的傷情照片，我在共情之餘，始終存有一個疑問：結婚與離婚本是公民的基本權利，為何「想離離不了」會成為許多人的困境？而 Ethan Michelson 教授的講座，無疑讓我對中國婚姻法律制度有了更全面、更深刻的理解 —— 司法人員亦受制於壓倒性的工作負荷與制度績效指標，「堵而不疏」的治理邏輯终究非長久之計。中國離婚法庭的未來走向如何？如何讓法律服務真正落地為民？如何切實保障女性在婚姻中的合法權益？這些問題，仍任重而道遠。

Written by: BAI, Yun

在這次演講中，麥克森教授向我們展示了他在中國2009至2016年間發生的離婚訴訟中所發現的性別不平等現象。在他的研究數據中，河南省和浙江省占主要比例。所以大部分具體的表格數據都是以這兩個省份的數據為例。
他也表示數據的收集由於來源渠道較少、政策改變以及精力限製等原因導致地理意義上並不均勻也不能保證完全的準確率，但已經在能力範圍內做到了對精準度與普遍性的最大保證。比如盡管一些判決書中沒有提到雙方的性別，但他通過找尋嫁娶等帶有性別文化意味的字眼推斷出性別。
他在對這些離婚訴訟的判決書以及訴訟記錄視頻中發現中國女性在離婚訴訟中遭遇性別不公平對待，具體來說，女性在離婚訴訟中遭到駁回的概率大於男性，並且家庭暴力（大多數受害者為女性）並沒有提升訴訟成功率。
麥克森教授著重強調了離婚訴訟中家庭暴力被普遍弱化影響甚至無視的現象。具體來說，法官常常采用煤氣燈效應，對家暴日常化，如將其看作夫妻一定會發生的矛盾沖突；勸告受害者接受現狀接受和解，如勸告施暴者已經認錯，所以受害者應該讓家暴成為過去，給施暴者改過自新的機會；態度冷漠，強調受害者所提交證據不符正確格式所以無法受理；無視法律，對自己應負的法律責任進行推脫，如聲稱家暴受害者所陳述的被傷害經歷不歸自己管。以上種種，不僅是對受害者的二次傷害，而且包含了故意欺騙，引導受害者放棄維護自己的權益。除此之外，判決書中對家暴也往往是一帶而過，采用各種模糊不清或者中性不帶褒貶的詞來描述家暴，讓受害者的痛苦經歷變成輕描淡寫的夫妻沖突。
最後麥克森教授呼籲大家加大對中國的離婚程序相關議題的關註，彌補這一塊目前研究上的巨大空白。
麥克森教授給我們出示了多張真實的庭審畫面截圖以及法官和雙方的對話，從中我們直觀的體會到家暴受害者在法庭上孤立無援的悲傷局面，在法官和施暴者的默契共謀下受害者由氣憤控訴一步步轉變為啞口無言。這場演講過程中我和身邊的同伴都數次流淚，既氣憤又悲痛，相信在座的人們都感受到了這兩種強烈的情緒。感謝麥克森教授讓我們得知如此普遍存在的不公正現象，我們因此能夠更多關註離婚過程中的性別平等與家暴問題，讓兩性在實際離婚過程中都享有同等的權利，讓家暴受害者得到應得的正義，讓施暴者得到應得的懲罰。

Written by: YI, Huitong 

來自印第安納大學的Ethan Michelson為我們帶來了一場關於中國離婚訴訟中的性別不公與家庭暴力司法實踐困境的講座。身為社會學與法學教授，他對中國離婚訴訟展開了長期的研究，透過整合河南、浙江兩地2009-2024年的大量司法數據，對中國離婚審判中存在的性別不公現象進行了深入剖析。
數據顯示離婚申請呈現出高駁回率的現象：河南 2015 年離婚申請整體駁回率為 64%，浙江 2016 年達 65%，其中首次申請駁回率更是分別高達 75% 和 82%，即便後續再次申請，駁回率仍維持在 24%-25%。從性別佔比來看，女性作為離婚原告顯著多於男性，河南 2009-2015 年女性原告佔 66%，浙江 2009-2016 年達 67%。其中有高達 28%-31%的家暴指控率，女性原告提出家暴指控的比例約 38%-39%，而男性原告的指控率僅 9%-14%。女性原告的離婚申請駁回率（河南 78%, 浙江 84%）遠高於男性原告（河南 66%, 浙江71%）。
令人痛心的是，在發生肢體衝突時明顯出於弱勢地位的女性並沒有因為家暴指控而獲得離婚判決的有效支撐，河南 2015 年女性離婚申請駁回率達 78%，浙江 2016 年更是高達 84%，均明顯高於男性的 66%-71%。即便在明確提出家暴指控的案件中，駁回率也居高不下，河南 2009-2015 年達 62%，浙江 2009-2016 年為 69%，均高於未提出家暴指控的案件。
例如在 “屈燕訴王平基離婚糾紛一案” 中，原告屈燕指控被告存在嚴重家庭暴力行為，稱被告 “動刀拿砍刀、用板凳打她，還用白開水沖她”，並表示身上有肩傷印，有被告用皮帶打她的照片證據。然而即便麵對如此極端的行為，法官依然在庭審中質疑原告證據的有效性，強調 “法律上的家庭暴力是持續性、隔三差五的毆打行為”，認為僅憑照片沒有辦法證明其“持續性”。 Michelson表示，法官會透過忽略法律並重新定義家暴，將家暴簡化或正常化的方法來迴避家暴指控。
Ethan Michelson教授向我們清楚指出家暴指控在從庭審到判決書的過程中，被系統性地過濾、忽略和「消失」了。判決書無法反映庭審中已呈現的家暴事實，使得受害者無法透過法律途徑獲得應有的救濟。

Written by: SHEN, Xinyi

Michelson教授的研究始於2022年出版的著作，最開始他分析了河南和浙江兩個省大約14.4萬個離婚案子，發現2017年後，法院駁回離婚申請的比例超過了60%。後來他又用2017到2024年全國11.5萬個案子的樣本做研究，樣本數據得到進一步印證。另外，大概三分之二的離婚申請是女性提出的，但她們的申請被駁回的機率明顯比男性高。

研究發現，大概40%的女性在申請離婚時會說自己遭遇了家暴，但這些對判決結果幾乎沒什麼影響。即便《反家庭暴力法》已經實施，法院對「家暴」的認定還是特別嚴格。法官常會透過重新界定家暴、提高舉證難度這些方式，把家暴的事實淡化處理。在典型例子中，女方都拿被傷害的實質照片，但這些關鍵證據根本沒寫進判決書裡，家暴就被系統性地忽略了。還有，近20%的庭審裡提到身體虐待，結果沒寫進判決書；差不多一半能證明有家暴的證據，在書面判決裡直接消失了。

法官審案，加劇了對方權益失衡。法官常拿「感情沒破裂」當理由不判離婚，把被告口頭說的「我後悔了、會改」當成感情還能挽回的依據，卻對家暴證據不視而不見。有些法官會透過誤導當事人怎麼用證據規則這種方式，變相駁回離婚申請，導致很多受害者就算起訴多次，還是很難離婚。例如，女方多次起訴離婚，還提交了家暴證據，結果就因為法官重新定義了“家暴”，她還是敗訴了，書面判決中甚至未提及家暴指控。

Ethan Michelson教授透過實際案例研究，指出了法院在處理離婚案子時存在的系統性問題，尤其關注到「不認家暴」和「司法程序不合規」這兩點，對女性權益造成了損害。他的研究結果，也給大家理解現在中國婚姻相關的司法現狀，提供了一個很重要的角度。

Written by: CAI, Beilin