Climbing Into a Nursing Home to Beat His 80-Year-Old Father Four Times: Why Intentional Injury, Not Abuse

The short answer

• The key to the intentional injury conviction is that the beating on 5 July 2024 directly caused the father’s fracture and reached the level of a second-degree minor injury. Under the gist of the ruling in the Supreme People’s Court Case Database, where an injury of minor degree or above is directly caused by one or several acts with a clear causal link, the offence is intentional injury; only where the injury is gradually accumulated through long-term abuse and no single act on its own amounts to a crime is it the crime of abuse (database entry no. 2023-02-1-179-001).
• The two offences differ on both the subjective and the objective side: abuse is long-term torment that seeks the victim’s suffering and is complete once it reaches grave circumstances, with no requirement of a minor-injury outcome; intentional injury is the deliberate infliction of bodily harm, with an injury of minor degree or above as the threshold for criminal liability (Article 260 and Article 234 of the Criminal Law; database entry no. 2023-02-1-214-001).
• The two are not an either/or choice: where there is both a beating causing an injury of minor degree or above and long-term abuse reaching grave circumstances, the two offences may be punished cumulatively (the same database case); that this case was punished as a single offence with a one-year sentence is an inference drawn back from the judgment (my own summary).
• Beating an elderly person also attracts a heavier administrative penalty: Article 51(2) of the current Public Security Administration Punishments Law provides that a person who beats or injures a person aged 70 or over is detained for not less than 10 and not more than 15 days and concurrently fined RMB 1,000–2,000 (the old law set the threshold at 60).
• The rule that a failure to perform the duty of support should attract a heavier penalty is a sentencing factor: the duty of support is set out in Article 26(2) and Article 1067(2) of the Civil Code; Article 18 of the 2015 Opinion on Handling Family Violence Criminal Cases (Fa Fa [2015] No. 4), issued by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and two ministries, lists cruel means, serious consequences and previous punishment for domestic violence among the circumstances in which a heavier penalty may be imposed at the court’s discretion.
• When an elderly person is beaten, the family can do more than call the police: on receiving a report the public security organ should attend the scene promptly, investigate and gather evidence and assist with the injury assessment (Article 15 of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law), and a personal safety protection order can also be applied for (Article 23).

What happened in this case

According to public reports quoting the content of China Judgements Online: the defendant, Hou, had been strictly disciplined by his father in childhood and beat his father repeatedly. In June 2021 he beat his father at his home in Dongzhen township, Wenxi county, Shanxi, and his elder sister then placed their father in a local nursing home; on 22 February and 5 July 2024 he twice climbed over the wall into the nursing home to beat his father, and the beating on 5 July caused a fracture of the father’s right fibula, assessed as a second-degree minor injury; on 15 March 2025 he again climbed over the wall into the nursing home and beat his father; in June 2025 he was arrested by police in Haidian, Beijing.

The Wenxi County People’s Court held that Hou had beaten his father, aged 80 or over, on multiple occasions and caused a minor injury, constituting intentional injury, and that he had failed to perform the duty of support, so a heavier penalty should be imposed; he was sentenced to one year’s fixed-term imprisonment. Many people’s first reaction is: he beat him four or five times — why is this not the crime of abuse?

Why it is intentional injury, not abuse

Article 234(1) of the Criminal Law: whoever intentionally injures another person’s body is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or surveillance. Article 260: whoever abuses a member of his or her family, where the circumstances are grave, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years, criminal detention or surveillance; where the victim is seriously injured or dies, to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than two years and not more than seven years. The idea that abuse is the lighter offence is a misunderstanding — the crime of abuse does not require a minor-injury outcome, its threshold being grave circumstances, whereas intentional injury requires an outcome of minor injury or above.

The gist of the ruling in Supreme People’s Court Case Database case 2023-02-1-214-001 (the Cai abuse case) distinguishes the two on two sides (as reported): subjectively, the perpetrator of abuse torments and breaks down the victim to cause suffering, in order to vent or retaliate, whereas the perpetrator of intentional injury intends to cause bodily harm and seeks or is indifferent to that result. Objectively, abuse does not usually directly and seriously damage physical health, whereas intentional injury directly harms the integrity of body tissue or the function of organs; the crime of abuse does not require any degree of injury for criminal liability, while intentional injury requires an outcome of minor injury or above.

The gist of the ruling in case 2023-02-1-179-001 (the Wang intentional injury and abuse case) sets out three rules (as reported): where an injury of minor degree or above is gradually accumulated through long-term abuse and no single act on its own amounts to a crime, the offence is abuse; where it is directly caused by one or several acts with a clear causal link, the offence is intentional injury; and where there is both intentional injury causing an injury of minor degree or above and long-term abuse reaching grave circumstances, the two offences are punished cumulatively. This case falls under the second rule: one beating directly caused a fracture assessed as a minor injury, with a clear causal link.

When does conduct amount to the crime of abuse?

There is a practical standard for grave circumstances. Article 17 of the 2015 Opinion on Handling Family Violence Criminal Cases (Fa Fa [2015] No. 4), issued by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and two ministries, lists: abuse lasting a long time and occurring many times; cruel means; causing a slight injury or a relatively serious illness; and relatively serious abuse of elderly people, among others. The crime of abuse is in general a crime prosecuted only on complaint, except where the victim is unable to complain, or cannot complain because of coercion or intimidation (Article 260(3) of the Criminal Law) — an 80-year-old who lives in a nursing home and is beaten repeatedly falls within this category (this point is my own inference from the text of the provision). There is also an easily overlooked offence: Article 260-1 of the Criminal Law provides that a person who has a duty of guardianship or care over an elderly person and abuses the person under his or her care, where the circumstances are grave, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention, and where the offence is committed by a unit, the unit is also to be fined. This provision applies when staff of an elderly care institution beat an elderly resident.

Why the duty of support became an aggravating factor

Support is a statutory duty: Article 26(2) and Article 1067(2) of the Civil Code provide that adult children have a duty to support, assist and protect their parents, and that parents who lack the ability to work or are in financial difficulty are entitled to require their children to pay support payments; Article 14 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly requires a supporter to provide financial support, day-to-day care and spiritual comfort, Article 25 prohibits the commission of domestic violence against elderly people, and Article 76 provides that abusing an elderly person or committing domestic violence that constitutes a breach of public security administration is to be punished under public security administration, and where it constitutes a crime, criminal liability is to be pursued.

There is no uniform standard for how much heavier the penalty should be. The circumstances listed in Article 18 of the Opinion as ones in which a heavier penalty may be imposed at the court’s discretion include cruel means or serious consequences, base motives such as a malicious intent to misappropriate property, long-term violence caused by bad habits such as heavy drinking, drug use or gambling, and previous punishment for domestic violence; where the circumstances are relatively minor, there is genuine remorse, the victim has forgiven the offender, or a lighter penalty would benefit the person receiving support, a lighter penalty may be imposed at the court’s discretion. How much is added or subtracted is for the judge to decide within the statutory range of punishment (my own summary).

Five things the family of a beaten elderly person can do

• Call the police and keep the attendance record: on receiving a report of domestic violence the public security organ should attend the scene promptly, stop the violence, investigate and gather evidence, and assist the victim with medical treatment and an injury assessment (Article 15 of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law); where the circumstances are relatively minor and no public security penalty is imposed under the law, a warning notice may be issued (Article 16).
• Obtain an injury assessment as soon as possible: a second-degree minor injury is the threshold for the crime of intentional injury, and a serious injury raises the penalty to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than ten years (Article 234(2) of the Criminal Law).
• Apply for a personal safety protection order: an application may be made on the ground of having suffered domestic violence or facing a real danger (Article 23); where the party concerned lacks or has limited capacity for civil conduct, or cannot apply because of coercion or intimidation, a close relative, the public security organ, the women’s federation, the residents’ committee and others may apply on his or her behalf. The court generally makes its decision within 72 hours, or within 24 hours in urgent circumstances (Article 28), and the measures include prohibiting the commission of domestic violence, prohibiting harassment, stalking and contact, and ordering the person to move out of the residence (Article 29).
• Complain to or seek help from the residents’ committee, the village committee or the women’s federation (Article 13); hospitals, schools, social work agencies and welfare institutions that discover that a person lacking or with limited capacity for civil conduct has suffered or is suspected of having suffered domestic violence should report it to the public security organ promptly (Article 14). Medical records, assessment opinions, police attendance records, warning notices, surveillance footage and witness testimony should all be kept.
• Assert civil rights: sue to claim support payments (Article 1067(2) of the Civil Code); and where a guardian seriously infringes the rights and interests of the person under guardianship, an application may if necessary be made to revoke the guardian’s qualification and appoint another guardian (Article 22 of the Opinion referred to above).

If you are on the side of the accused

The statutory penalty for intentional injury causing a second-degree minor injury is fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or surveillance, so there is considerable room on sentence. What normally affects the outcome is the number of beatings, the means used, the injury, the victim’s age, whether compensation and forgiveness have been obtained, and whether there was a voluntary surrender or a truthful account of the facts. Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that a person who voluntarily and truthfully confesses to the offence, admits the criminal facts alleged and is willing to accept punishment may be treated leniently in accordance with the law. A motive such as having been beaten badly by his father as a child and taking revenge as an adult may be taken into account at the court’s discretion in sentencing, but it cannot justify beatings committed as an adult (this point is my own summary).

Limitations to note

The facts of the case in this article come from public reports quoting the content of the judgment document; the original judgment has not been verified. Why this case was punished as a single offence, and why the sentence was one year, are an analysis drawn back from the judgment (my own summary). There is no uniform standard on the number of occasions or the degree of injury for grave circumstances under the crime of abuse, and courts in different places take different views. This article is a legal explainer and is not legal advice on any particular case; whether the father’s disciplinary conduct more than twenty years ago can be pursued involves the limitation period for prosecution and the law in force at the time, and is not addressed here. If you or a family member is facing a situation where an elderly person has been beaten or abused, or has been accused of the crime of abuse or of intentional injury, you are welcome to contact Wang Xin, Attorney at Law: phone 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 多次翻墙进养老院殴打80岁父亲，为什么定的是故意伤害罪，而不是虐待罪？. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.