After a divorce, many people encounter theTrouble of being prevented from visiting their children, even though they are the biological parents, yet they are deliberately blocked by the other party, unable to accompany their children normally. In fact, the right to visit is a legal right explicitly granted to parents by law, and the parent with direct custody has the obligation to assist, and has no right to obstruct without cause. According to Article 1086 of the Civil Code, regardless of which party the child is awarded to, the father or mother who does not have direct custody of the child has the right to visit the child according to law. Deliberately blocking is not in accordance with the law, and encountering obstacles does not require a head-on collision. Following the regular procedures to safeguard one's rights is the most secure approach.

  Legal rights protection can be progressively advanced. Firstly, prioritize communication and negotiation, while also ensuring evidence preservation. Many people fail in their rights protection because they did not retain evidence after the dispute. Chat records, call recordings, video footage of being blocked at the door, and records of mediation by grassroots organizations should all be properly preserved. Communicate rationally with evidence, clearly informing the other party of the illegal nature of obstructing visits, and negotiate to determine the time and method of visits. Private reconciliation is the most convenient. If negotiation fails, one can file a lawsuit for a visitation rights dispute with the court, even if the visitation details were not agreed upon during the divorce, and can file a separate lawsuit to confirm the rights. The court will follow the principle of maximizing the interests of the minor, clearly determining the time, place, and method of visits, and the judgment will be the legal basis for legitimate visits.

  If the other party still refuses to cooperate after obtaining the judgment, one can directly apply for enforcement. According to relevant judicial interpretations, the court can impose penalties such as fines and detentions on the party that maliciously obstructs, but will not forcibly take away the child and will not forcibly execute against the child's person. Generally, obstructive behavior will not be included in the credit blacklist, and only in extreme cases such as violent obstruction will the punishment be intensified. If the other party maliciously blocks visits for a long time, causing a serious rift in the parent-child relationship, one can also sue to change custody. The court will consider the malicious obstruction as an important factorUnfavorable the child's growth and is likely to support the change after verification.

  It should be noted that the exercise of visitation rights must be based on the child's physical and mental health. One should not act impulsively to take the child away or defame the other party in front of the child, as improper behavior not only exacerbates conflicts but may also result in the termination of visitation rights. When encountering obstacles to visits, one should only fix evidence, negotiate amicably, sue for confirmation of rights if negotiation fails, apply for enforcement if there is no cooperation, and change custody if the situation is serious. Adhering to legal and rational rights protection can both protect parent-child affection and avoid the continuous deterioration of conflicts.