As soon as the new civil code law came out, many women seemed to have found an outlet, and the civil code law stipulated that daughters-in-law had no obligation to support their mothers-in-law, and now many daughters-in-law use this as an excuse to split the family and material marriage!
The Civil Code stipulates that daughters-in-law and sons-in-law have the right to inherit the property of their in-laws and parents-in-law, so why do they not have the obligation to support their in-laws and parents-in-law? Isn't this a contradiction?
I think that children have the obligation to support their parents, and every penny that a spouse pays to support their parents is the joint property of the husband and wife, which is the same thing as getting an inheritance, it is the property of the husband and wife, what is wrong with this.
The daughter-in-law and son-in-law have no obligation to support the in-laws and mothers-in-law, which is in the absence of a spouse, and the same is not the case of a spouse, and the property of the elderly, the daughter-in-law and son-in-law cannot inherit it.
To be honest, husband and wife can't even help each other with this, so what kind of husband and wife In the final analysis, in this case, it is actually their own children who do not fulfill their pension obligations, why are they more willing to complain about the children's spouses.
This old man is psychologically more willing to accept that it is easier to accept the child's spouse as a defendant than his own child as a defendant. Indeed, it is his own child's doing.
Whether the child does it himself, or the child asks his spouse to do it, there is no need for the old man to worry about it himself, only if his own children can't do it, he needs his wife and husband not to let this excuse!
The law says that supporting the elderly is the main responsibility of the children, and the daughter-in-law and son-in-law have the obligation to support them. Look at the laws and regulations for yourself and don't be led astray.
If it is said that since the spouse has no obligation to support the other parent, the inheritance of the property of the children from the parents should be the personal property and not the joint property of the husband and wife, that is, the husband and wife do not have the right to distribute the property of the other parent.
Some believe that since the daughter-in-law does not support herself, she should return the bride price and the money for buying a house to herself, and after her death, the daughter-in-law should not have the right to inherit her own property.
A confident and virtuous girl will not ask for a bride price for a wedding house, and my friend's daughter-in-law does not want a bride price, and insists on contributing a part of the marriage house.
Of course, the in-laws should treat such daughters-in-law well and support and care for them after marriage. Not giving a bride price does not mean not giving gifts or red envelopes, but they should be rewarded more.
Take the 90s as an example, when a friend got married and had children, he didn't know what bride price money was at that time, so when he got married, he moved his luggage to the object's rental house, added a board to his original wooden bed, and went to the marriage registry office to get a marriage certificate with his ID card when he returned to his hometown before the Chinese New Year.
After the child was born, she also brought it by herself, and her parents-in-law had too many grandchildren to take care of them, and she never ate half a chicken from her mother-in-law during confinement. In such a case, it is enough to do your best.
If you are a Chinese, you should talk about filial piety. What is a family? A daughter-in-law does her best to support her in-laws, and this is a family. Only when the family is harmonious can the Chinese virtue not be lost.
In a family, there are several family members, and all of them have different personalities: some are sheep, some are dogs, some are snakes, and some are wolves......
Who can guarantee that "it" does not bite each other, and who can guarantee that "it" does not eat the weak and the strong. Everyone in the family is different in age, the younger ones are only a few years old, the oldest ones are seven or eight years old, and the young ones are at the best age of their lives.
They vary in physical strength, perseverance, and risk-taking. If there is no legal protection for the iron fence here, then there is no way to talk about the support, maintenance, and safety of this family member, let alone happiness.
Don't let the nobility and beauty of people fade in a vacuum, subjective imagination, the current people, the whereabouts of the current people can no longer be said.
Although it is said that the daughter-in-law has no legal obligation to support her in-laws, since she has entered the family and become a family, she still has to help support her morally!
The mother-in-law has fulfilled her obligation to raise her son, and whether she wants to take out the money to raise her son and the family depends on her own ideas, and she can't force it.
Of course, whether the old daughter-in-law wants to serve depends on her personal intentions, the police will not care, and the daughter-in-law should not put the threat of pension on her lips all day long, if you want to be ruthless, you will take it out and say it on that day.
Why should a daughter-in-law be hostile to her in-laws? While raising a daughter and raising a son at the same time, the cost is about the same, while a daughter-in-law with a brother generally does not leave assets for her children, and her in-laws will give everything to her husband and children.
I also have a day to become a mother-in-law, I really don't understand women's thinking, who does the role of mother-in-law offend? Isn't their mother also someone else's mother-in-law?
Parents-in-law have no obligation to take care of their grandchildren. The in-laws take care of the grandchildren, and the daughter-in-law is the beneficiary. Is it not understandable that the beneficiary should give the giver in return?
Some people say that daughters-in-law have no obligation to take care of their in-laws. I don't understand, and then my daughter-in-law said that she has no obligation to support her in-laws.
There is no blood relationship with the in-laws, so why do you have a daughter-in-law to do confinement. The mother-in-law has to take care of herself for confinement, and the law does not stipulate that the mother-in-law has the obligation to take care of the daughter-in-law.
This law violates thousands of years of Chinese customs, making the daughter-in-law and her in-laws two families, and the daughter-in-law has no obligation to support her in-laws.
Similarly, in the case of a daughter-in-law with a major illness or major injury, the in-laws will not lend a hand, just protect themselves and protect their son, and it is a big deal to marry one.
There are all kinds of things in the family, a thousand tricks, the core one, conscience is on the top, such as talking about the law, what is the passer-by, why bother to get married, go to another country, if you want to close the family, respect each other, respect each other, and turn iron and stone into gold.
According to common sense, when a son marries a daughter-in-law, he is a family, and the daughter-in-law also has the right and obligation to honor and support her in-laws; and when a son marries someone else's daughter, she should also have the right and obligation to honor and support her parents-in-law.
This kind of relationship between rights and obligations is a necessary condition for stabilizing family relations, and it is unreasonable to say that a daughter-in-law does not support her in-laws and a son-in-law does not support her parents-in-law! Nor does it do any good to stabilize family relations.
Encourage AA, encourage "division", this is not what a government should do, the stability of the family is the stability of the country, at all times we must try our best to let the people "together", so that the country can be "together" for a long time.
A daughter-in-law has no obligation to support her in-laws, this is a morally unethical statement! A daughter-in-law and her son jointly inherit the inheritance of her in-laws! Why don't you support your in-laws! When a daughter-in-law gets married, she is a member of her in-laws' family, and her in-laws give a bride price and repay her mother's nurturing grace for her daughter-in-law!
Naturally, the daughter-in-law should be grateful to her in-laws! Your mother-in-law can no longer rely on your daughter-in-law to support her for the elderly after receiving the bride price! The old way of providing for the elderly is very reasonable! The daughter-in-law supports her in-laws from generation to generation! If the daughter-in-law does not support her in-laws, where did your son get married and marry a daughter-in-law to support you!
If a daughter-in-law does not support her in-laws, how can your in-laws keep a family and create wealth for you! If a daughter-in-law does not support her in-laws, why should your in-laws give you a bride price, if a son and daughter-in-law do not support her in-laws, what should you do to give birth to a son, and if the daughter-in-law inherits the inheritance with her son! Where is the conscience of the daughter-in-law?
Neither spouse has an obligation to support each other's parents, and this kind of legal provision is both contrary to social morality and inhumane. Because the income of the husband and wife is joint property and cannot be disposed of separately, the husband's money cannot be used to support his parents.
On the other hand, a wife's money cannot be used to support her own parents, and once a man or woman gets married, it is tantamount to abandoning their biological parents.