A divorce judgment may settle who raises the child and when the other parent sees the child, yet still change nothing on the ground: the child is not handed over, or every visit is blocked. At that point the question is no longer what the court decided. It is how the state makes the decision happen. This article explains that second stage — compulsory enforcement of child handover and visitation judgments in Vietnam — and nothing else. It does not revisit the grounds for changing custody, nor the general content of visitation rights, and it does not cover enforcement of child support money, which uses asset measures and is a different enforcement track altogether.
What enforcement actually enforces
Two different obligations can appear in the same divorce judgment, and enforcement treats them differently. A handover obligation requires the parent currently keeping the child to deliver the child to the parent awarded custody. A visitation obligation requires the custodial parent to let the other parent meet the child on the schedule set by the court — pick-up, time together, and return. Both are enforceable. But neither is enforced the way a money debt is enforced: there is no seizure, no deduction from a bank account, and no auction that can stand in for a child. The enforcement officer’s job is to produce the handover or the visit itself, with as little disruption to the child as possible.
The substantive rights behind enforcement come from the Law on Marriage and Family 2014. Article 82(3) provides that after divorce, the parent who does not directly raise the child has the right and obligation to visit the child, and no one may obstruct that visitation. Article 83(2) provides that the parent who directly raises the child, together with other family members, must not obstruct the other parent in visiting, caring for, nurturing and educating the child. Enforcement is the machinery that gives those two provisions practical force.
Which authority handles the file
Enforcement is handled by the civil judgment enforcement system under the Ministry of Justice, not by the court that issued the divorce judgment and not by the commune administration acting on its own. In practice, the file belongs to the competent civil judgment enforcement agency for the place where the person obliged to comply resides or where the child is actually living, because that is where persuasion, handover and any compulsory measure must physically take place.
Readers should double-check the name of the receiving office before filing. Vietnam abolished the district level of local government in 2025 and moved to a two-tier model, and the enforcement system has been reorganised alongside that change; Law No. 85/2025/QH15, amending the Civil Procedure Code, replaced the phrase “civil judgment enforcement agency of the same level” with “competent civil judgment enforcement agency” in several related provisions. The safe approach in October 2026 is to confirm the current competent office — the provincial-level civil judgment enforcement agency for the locality where the child is living, or its regional civil judgment enforcement office — for the locality where the child is living, rather than addressing the application to a district-level office out of habit. A misaddressed application is usually transferred, but the transfer costs weeks.
During enforcement, the enforcement officer works with the local administration where the child is living and may invite representatives of mass organisations or child protection bodies to witness the handover. Their presence is not decorative: it creates a record that the handover happened in an orderly way, and it gives the child familiar, non-threatening adults in the room.
When enforcement can start
Three gates must all be passed before any compulsory measure is possible:
- A legally effective judgment. The handover or visitation part of the judgment must have taken legal effect. A first-instance judgment still within the appeal or protest period, or a judgment under appeal, is not yet enforceable.
- An enforcement decision. The entitled parent files a request for enforcement with the competent agency, attaching the effective judgment. The head of the agency then issues an enforcement decision and assigns an enforcement officer.
- Expiry of the voluntary compliance period. Under the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement No. 106/2025/QH15 (effective 1 July 2026), the voluntary compliance period is 10 days from lawful notification of the enforcement decision (Article 36(1)). From 1 July 2026 the general framework is Law No. 106/2025; enforcement not yet carried out or not yet completed before that date continues under the new Law, and steps already carried out lawfully need not be repeated (transition principle in Article 116 of Law No. 106/2025).
There is also a time limit on the request itself: under Article 34(2) of Law No. 106/2025/QH15, the limitation period for requesting enforcement is five years from the date the judgment takes legal effect or from the date the obligation falls due. Waiting years while obstruction continues is therefore not only harmful to the child; it can also put the request itself at risk.
What to file
A complete request file normally contains: a written request identifying precisely which part of the judgment is to be enforced (handover to a named person, or a specific visitation schedule that is being blocked); a copy of the effective divorce judgment; the applicant’s identification documents and any power of attorney; evidence of non-compliance, such as messages refusing handover, minutes of failed handovers, or confirmations from local authorities; and, most usefully, any information about where the obliged parent and the child are actually living. In handover cases, the single most common cause of delay is not legal argument but the simple fact that the enforcement officer cannot locate the child.
How the process unfolds
Step 1 — Decision and assignment. The agency issues the enforcement decision and assigns an enforcement officer, who notifies both parties.
Step 2 — Voluntary period. The obliged parent has 10 days to hand over the child or to restore the visitation schedule voluntarily.
Step 3 — Verification. The officer verifies the addresses of the obliged parent and the child, working with local authorities and, where relevant, the child’s school. If the child cannot be found, verification continues through lawful channels and the applicant’s information becomes critical.
Step 4 — Persuasion. Before any compulsory measure, the officer coordinates with the commune-level People’s Committee and relevant organisations and individuals to persuade the obliged parent to comply, explaining the legal consequences of continued refusal. In child cases this step carries unusual weight: a voluntary handover arranged calmly is worth far more than a forced one, and many files close here once the obliged parent understands that refusal will lead to a formal coercion decision rather than indefinite delay.
Step 5 — Coercion decision for handing over a minor (Article 93 of Law No. 106/2025/QH15). Before issuing a coercion decision, the enforcement officer coordinates with the commune-level People’s Committee and relevant organisations and individuals to persuade the obliged person or the person currently keeping the child to comply voluntarily. Under Article 93 of Law No. 106/2025/QH15, the coercion decision sets a time limit of five working days from lawful notification for the child to be handed over. If the child is still not handed over when that period expires, the enforcement officer requests the competent authority to pursue criminal liability for failure to execute a judgment. This sequence replaces the former-law coercion mechanism entirely, and the decision does not by itself mean an immediate forced handover session at the place where the child is living — the statutory consequence of expiry without handover is the criminal referral above. Both sides may complain about enforcement decisions or the officer’s conduct through the complaint mechanism in the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.
What coercion can — and cannot — do to a child
Coercion in these cases is directed at the obstructing adult, not at the child. For handover of a minor, Article 93 of Law No. 106/2025/QH15 provides the sequence: persuasion coordinated with the commune-level People’s Committee before the coercion decision; the decision sets five working days from lawful notification for the child to be handed over; if the child is still not handed over when that period expires, the enforcement officer requests the competent authority to pursue criminal liability for failure to execute a judgment. For visitation alone, coercion is not the same sequence as handover under Article 93: it compels compliance with the court-set schedule — the custodial parent must make the child available for pick-up and return, and must stop inventing pretexts to cancel visits. For visitation alone, coercion follows the general mechanism in Article 91 of Law No. 106/2025/QH15 (coercion to perform a specific obligation): the coercion decision sets five working days from lawful notification for the custodial parent to comply with the court-set visitation schedule; if the schedule is still not complied with when that period expires, then, because this obligation is personal to the custodial parent and cannot be transferred to another person, the enforcement officer requests the competent authority to pursue criminal liability for failure to execute a judgment (Article 91(2)(b)).
Three limits matter. First, no measure may be applied in a way that physically or psychologically harms the child; officers are expected to pause and use further persuasion, including child psychology support or child protection representatives, when a child reacts with acute distress, rather than pulling the child away by force on the spot. Second, asset measures do not substitute for handover: seizing property cannot produce a child, although asset enforcement may run in parallel if the same judgment also contains an unpaid support obligation. Third, enforcement does not rewrite the judgment. If circumstances have fundamentally changed since the judgment — the child is much older, has lived stably with the current carer for a long time — the proper route is to ask the court to reconsider custody, not to demand that the enforcement officer force through a handover that would clearly harm the child.
Conversely, a custodial parent may not unilaterally cancel visits because support is late, and a visiting parent may not use visits to undermine the child’s care or education. If a visiting parent abuses visitation, the custodial parent’s remedy is to ask the court to restrict visitation — a court procedure, not self-help by blocking the schedule.
Consequences for obstruction
Obstruction can attract several layers of liability, depending on severity:
- Administrative sanctions in judgment enforcement. Obstructing enforcement or failing to comply with an enforcement decision may be administratively sanctioned under Decree No. 109/2026/ND-CP (effective 18 May 2026, replacing Decree No. 82/2020/ND-CP) — the current sanctioning framework for civil judgment enforcement. Acts occurring before 18 May 2026 are assessed under the framework in force at the time of the act. The applicable fine depends on the specific act, so this article states no single figure.
- Administrative sanctions for obstructing visitation. Obstructing a parent’s post-divorce visitation may also be sanctioned under the framework for security, order and domestic violence prevention. Decree No. 282/2025/ND-CP (issued 30 October 2025, effective 15 December 2025) replaced Decree No. 144/2021/ND-CP in this field; under Article 42 of that Decree, preventing the performance of rights and obligations in family relations between parents and children (except where a court has restricted visitation) is fined VND 5–10 million for an individual and double (VND 10–20 million) for an organisation, under Article 5(2) of the Decree (Chapter II fines are stated for individuals; organisations pay twice); which framework applies depends on when the act occurred, and the file must be checked against the framework in force at that time.
- Criminal liability. In serious cases, failure to execute a legally effective court judgment or decision may be considered under Article 380 of the Penal Code 2015 (as amended in 2017), on failure to execute a judgment. Not every missed visit or delayed handover is a crime: criminal consideration typically requires that the person, although coercive measures have been applied or an administrative sanction has been imposed for the same conduct, still fails to comply (Article 380(1), Penal Code 2015 as amended in 2017; imprisonment from three months to two years), or other serious circumstances defined by law.
Practitioners note a hard truth here: some obliged parents simply pay the administrative fine and keep the child. That is exactly why the fine is only one layer. For handover, the Article 93 coercion decision sets the five-working-day deadline for handing over the child, and expiry without handover leads to a request for criminal prosecution — a fine alone does not produce the handover.
When the child is hidden, moved, or taken abroad
Hidden or moved within Vietnam. Give the enforcement officer every lead at once: a new school, relatives’ addresses, a temporary residence. The agency can verify with local authorities where the child is believed to be. Deliberately concealing the child’s whereabouts to evade enforcement is both a ground for coercion and a potential obstruction offence.
Taken abroad, or a foreign parent returns home. This is the hardest scenario, and expectations should be set honestly. A Vietnamese enforcement agency can only organise enforcement inside Vietnam; its coercion decision does not execute itself in another country. As of the date of writing, Vietnam is not a party to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, so there is no Hague return mechanism available. Realistic avenues are consular assistance, proceedings to recognise and enforce the Vietnamese judgment before the courts of the country where the child is, under that country’s law, and negotiated settlement through lawyers on both sides. This article does not present any foreign country’s procedure as a guaranteed route, because outcomes depend on the foreign court.
Prevention. In divorces with a foreign element, the judgment should spell out the visitation schedule, handover place, and whether taking the child abroad requires the other parent’s consent. The more specific the judgment, the fewer arguments remain at the enforcement stage.
Practical checklist
Do: file promptly once the voluntary period expires; keep dated, factual evidence of each refusal; cooperate with the enforcement officer; prepare the child gently, without disparaging the other parent; and return to court if circumstances have fundamentally changed. Do not: seize the child by force yourself; hide the child in retaliation; cancel visits because support is unpaid — support and visitation are independent obligations, and breaching one does not justify breaching the other; or take the child abroad to evade enforcement, which can turn a civil dispute into a far more serious matter and make reunion much harder.
Frequently asked questions
How soon can coercion start after the judgment? After the enforcement decision, the obliged parent has 10 days to comply voluntarily (Article 36(1) of Law No. 106/2025/QH15). After that period, before a coercion decision, the enforcement officer coordinates with the commune-level People’s Committee to persuade voluntary compliance; the coercion decision for handing over a minor (Article 93) then sets five working days from lawful notification for the child to be handed over, and if the child is still not handed over when that period expires, the officer requests the competent authority to pursue criminal liability for failure to execute a judgment. How long the whole file takes depends largely on how quickly the child can be located.
Can visitation alone be enforced, without changing custody? Yes. Enforcement can compel compliance with the visitation schedule exactly as the court set it, without transferring custody.
What if the child refuses to go? The officer will rely on persuasion and, where needed, child protection or psychological support, rather than immediate force. If circumstances have fundamentally changed, the parties should ask the court to reconsider custody.
Can I stop visits if support is not paid? No. Unpaid support is enforced through support enforcement; stopping visits creates a separate violation and can itself be enforced against you.
What if the child is already abroad? Vietnamese enforcement cannot reach abroad. The realistic routes are consular assistance, recognition proceedings in the foreign country, and negotiation; there is no Hague 1980 return procedure available because Vietnam is not a party to that Convention as of the date of writing.
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific case.
