Divorce ends the marriage, not the parent-child relationship. The parent who does not directly raise the child keeps a right framed in the strongest terms the statute offers: the right and obligation to visit the child that no one may obstruct, in clause 3 of Article 82 of the Law on Marriage and Family No. 52/2014/QH13. In practice this is also the provision most often breached after divorce, from unannounced schedule changes to a complete cut-off of contact between the child and the other parent.
What Article 82 grants, and the obligations attached
Article 82 sets three layers for the non-custodial parent. Clause 1 requires that parent to respect the child’s right to live with the direct caregiver, so visitation is not a tool for luring the child away from their home. Clause 2 imposes the duty to support the child, and that duty stands independently of how smoothly visits go: no one may stop paying support because visits were obstructed, and no one may block visits because support is late. Clause 3 is the core: after divorce, the non-custodial parent has the right and obligation to visit the child, and no one may obstruct this. Framing visitation as both a right and an obligation shows it is not a favour dispensed by the caregiving parent, but a surviving part of parenthood itself.
The custodial side’s duties under Article 83
Article 83 balances the other side. Clause 1 gives the direct caregiver the right to require the other parent to perform the Article 82 obligations and to require that parent and their family to respect the caregiver’s right to raise the child. Clause 2 states plainly that the direct caregiver and family members must not obstruct the non-custodial parent in visiting, caring for, raising and educating the child. The prohibition therefore binds not only the caregiver but also grandparents and relatives in the household, who in typical disputes are the people actually closing the gate, hiding the school schedule or refusing to open the door.
When visits are obstructed: a practical remedy path
The first step is always to fix a written visitation schedule. Many divorce judgments record the right in general words without fixing times and handover places, and that gap generates most conflicts. The parents can agree a detailed schedule and, once a dispute arises, ask the court to record it. Where obstruction repeats, the blocked parent should preserve evidence incident by incident: refusal messages, confirmations from the residential management or the school, and notarised records of arriving to collect the child and being refused. With that file, the blocked parent may ask the court to resolve the visitation dispute; if the court’s decision is not voluntarily complied with, civil judgment enforcement can be requested to enforce a visitation decision. Persistent obstruction that visibly damages the child’s relationship with the other parent can also become a factor weighed in a later request to change the direct caregiver under Article 84.
When visitation can be restricted: clause 3 of Article 82 and Article 85
Visitation is not absolute. Within clause 3 of Article 82 itself, the law reserves an exception: where the non-custodial parent abuses visitation to obstruct or adversely affect the care, raising and education of the child, the direct caregiver may ask the court to restrict that parent’s visitation. The restriction is a court decision, never a self-help remedy for the caregiving parent. At the more serious level, Article 85 restricts a parent’s rights over a minor child on four grounds in clause 1: conviction for an intentional crime against the child’s life, health, honour or dignity, or serious breach of care duties; dissipating the child’s assets; a depraved lifestyle; or inciting or forcing the child to act against the law or social morality. Under clause 2 of Article 85, the court, on its own motion or at the request of the persons and bodies listed in Article 86, may decide to bar the parent from looking after, caring for or educating the child, managing the child’s separate assets or representing the child, for a period of one to five years, which the court may shorten.
Common disputes, read correctly
The first dispute family is the schedule itself: overnight stays, public holidays and summer breaks are rarely anticipated in a judgment written when the child was very young. The second is the manner of visits: taking the child far away without notice, disparaging the other parent in front of the child, or interfering with schooling and medical decisions that belong to the caregiver’s daily authority. The third is unsafe visits, such as arriving intoxicated or causing disturbances. The correct legal reading separates two questions: the caregiver may never ban visits unilaterally out of dissatisfaction, but every concrete safety concern can be taken to the court for a conditional restriction, such as supervised visits or a neutral handover location, instead of a complete cut-off.
If a family is stuck over a visitation schedule or facing prolonged obstruction, FLAT Law Firm can review the judgment and the court options through the contact page.
Frequently Asked Questions
After divorce, how can the non-custodial parent visit the child?
Under clause 3 of Article 82 of the 2014 Law on Marriage and Family, after divorce the non-custodial parent has the right and obligation to visit the child, and no one may obstruct this. The law does not preset a schedule; the specific timetable is agreed by the parents or determined by the court in its judgment or decision, usually covering pick-up and return times, handover places, holidays and school breaks. The visiting parent must also respect the child’s right to live with the direct caregiver (clause 1) and pay child support (clause 2).
What can I do if I am prevented from visiting my child?
Start by agreeing a specific written schedule. If obstruction continues, preserve evidence of each refusal (messages, notarised records, confirmations from the school or residential area) and ask the court to resolve the visitation dispute; a court decision that is not voluntarily followed can be enforced through civil judgment enforcement. Clause 2 of Article 83 forbids the direct caregiver and family members from obstructing visits, so prolonged obstruction may also be weighed in a custody-change case under Article 84.
When can visitation rights be restricted?
There are two levels. Under clause 3 of Article 82, if the non-custodial parent abuses visitation to obstruct or adversely affect the child’s care, raising or education, the direct caregiver may ask the court to restrict visitation. Under clause 1 of Article 85, a parent’s rights over a minor child are restricted where the parent is convicted of an intentional crime against the child or seriously breaches care duties; dissipates the child’s assets; leads a depraved lifestyle; or incites or forces the child to act against the law or social morality. Every restriction must be decided by the court; neither side may impose a ban unilaterally.
What happens if visitation harms the child?
The direct caregiver may ask the court to restrict visitation under clause 3 of Article 82, with evidence of the abuse and its concrete effect on the child. Where the conduct falls under clause 1 of Article 85, the court may bar the parent from looking after, caring for or educating the child for one to five years under clause 2 of Article 85, a period the court may shorten. While the court is deciding, the caregiver still may not cut off visits completely on their own authority before a court decision exists.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council