Deciphering Abuse under Parentalis Potestas

June 3, 2026

“I myself hold a different view. Put yourself in the parents’ shoes—although the actions taken were a bit radical, it would be devastating for your own 21 year old daughter to be with a divorcee. Parents have more life experience and see further into the future, and the matters are not as uncomplicated as young girls think. The article takes perspectives of ‘rescue’ and ‘autonomy’ throughout, and ascribe labels such as ‘victim’; it lacks the objectivity of journalism and greatly misleads the readers. A complete and unconfined independence is extremely dangerous, which most young people do not realize.”

This comment—representing views of an established camp of commentors—was left under a news article that details a Chinese adult woman’s escape from a false imprisonment facility providing regimented abuse as a service to parents who cannot do so themselves. Similar facilities are widespread in China, usually claiming to be schools that provide character building, rehabilitation from internet addiction, or gratitude training. The treatment described of this victim is typical of such facilities—premeditated abduction impersonating law enforcement, prohibition of outside communication, imprisonment, coercion, and physical abuse. They are obviously crime organizations, but most operate under protection, and possibly support, from law enforcement. This specific facility operated just next door to government agencies; if not for the publicity of the event, I am confident the facility would continue its business as usual for possibly decades into the future.

What parents seek when they abuse their children through a profit-generating crime organization is obvious. It is simply a malicious need of control. Apologetics of this crime, like what is quoted above, argue that the need for control is not at all problematic as long as they come from good intentions. My position is that intentions do not matter.

It is worth mentioning that there are reasons for the strong footholds the apologetics have in Chinese society. Whichever scholarly position you agree with on its historical mechanism, the nuclear family as the basic institution of power has been a constant in Chinese history. One could compare it to the ancient Roman institution surrounding the paterfamilias, but in particular after former paramount leader Deng’s “reform and opening up”, the structure shifted into generalized power of parents over progeny (one might argue, of core members in a family’s Hukou registration over the subordinate members), which I think appropriate to be termed parentalis potestas.

The peculiar property of China’s parentalis potestas is its informal organization. It is readily obvious that the potestas is maintained through rhetoric and only condoned by law enforcement—sufficient publicity of a news article was enough to turn the facility from one among many unprosecuted, still-operational crime organizations to one actively prosecuted by law. Then, from the rhetoric used by apologetics, it seems intention of the parents is highly relevant to whether unambiguous criminal acts could be justifiable or not. Needless to mention, facilities that take in mostly gay, trans, queer, religiously deviant, or socially low-functioning people face less scrutiny, because any pushback is unlikely to be popular under the mainstream discourse of high social conservatism and casual bigotry.

As a result, the potestas-supporting rhetoric is relatively widespread in general; it permeates primary and secondary education, sometimes in seemingly nonsensical ways. Having been forced to memorize the entirety of Classic of Filial Piety at age 6, I was reasonably indoctrinated and suffered my fair share of cognitive dissonance. Under the logic of parentalis potestas, intention takes precedence over concrete harm, local laws, and basic human rights. In turn, it does seem appealing at times, when there is no way to fight back against the abuse, to placate oneself with the fantasy of good intentions. “No parent could ever hate their own child” is indeed a very attractive idea.

But it does not matter—and it has never mattered—the intentions behind abuse. In my opinion, this is the scenario one should do a little bit of good old utilitarianism and phenomenology without considering any grand ideas and elaborate justifications. If someone did to me only someone who hates me to their guts would do, they might as well just hate me to their guts. If it is wrong to hurt people, it might just be wrong regardless of intention. If it takes so much good intention to break the law, risk emotional alienation, and do harm, there might just not be any good intentions at all.

Why talk about this at all if I am not subject to any of it anymore? Well, the strategy of abduction in the news article could not have been possible with the victim’s socially acceptable, minimal trust of parents. My thesis is directed toward myself and other Chinese people—it is time to be reasonably and measuredly cautious based on an evaluation of past events at their face value. It might not be all that virtuous, but it is reasonable to hate. It could be a good idea to go no-contact. It is okay to not care all that much when they pass away. Stay reminded of how the abuse could continue through the potestas. It could happen to you. Again.

This is a short-short article in a series of short-short opinion pieces. Ideas are of my own except when they are not.