The clarification of this recognition standard immediately sparked public questions: If premarital cohabitation relationships are included within the scope of family members, will cohabiting partners also enjoy the same level of legal protection—such as in property division and inheritance rights—as traditional family members under conventional law?

I. The broadened interpretation of “family members” in anti-domestic violence scenarios has long been established.

In criminal law, particularly in the context of combating domestic violence, the scope of “family members” has been expanded to include not only premarital cohabitation relationships but also the following situations, all of which are recognized as “family members”:

(1) The couple continues to live together after divorce;

(2) The de facto family relationship formed by both parties in a bigamous marriage and their children;

(3) De facto family relationships formed by minors living together with unmarried cohabiting partners;

(4) Individuals who have previously been in a romantic or marital relationship, or who have engaged in contact under the guise of dating or making friends (applicable to protection orders).

The above cases collectively demonstrate that, in the context of combating domestic violence, the definition of “family members” has expanded beyond traditional blood relations and marital ties to encompass de facto family relationships formed through shared living. The emphasis on “the fact of shared living” and “substantial family relationships” as criteria for identification reflects China’s criminal law’s consistent adherence to the principle that “substance takes precedence over form.”

A similar expansive interpretation also applies in China’s criminal law anti-corruption system when determining who qualifies as “persons with specific relationships.” Under criminal law, “persons with specific relationships” specifically refer to those who have close familial ties, romantic relationships (whether marital or otherwise), or other shared interests with state functionaries. These individuals are key subjects in identifying indirect bribery, joint bribery, and bribery involving the abuse of influence. This concept goes beyond the traditional boundaries of family relationships, bringing improper intimate relationships and various forms of hidden interest groups within the scope of criminal law evaluation.

II. Pre-marital cohabitation relationships are considered family members only in the context of domestic violence prevention and cannot be extended to the realm of civil law.

A premarital cohabitation relationship is considered a “family member” in substance, which amounts to an expansive interpretation of the term “family member.” However, this expanded interpretation cannot be directly applied in the realm of civil law; rather, it is confined to interpretations by judicial authorities specifically in contexts involving the protection of victims of domestic violence. The most fundamental distinction between criminal law and civil law lies in their respective focuses: criminal law looks at the essence of matters, whereas civil law focuses on formalities. Although, from an essential standpoint, a relationship formed through shared living indeed qualifies as a de facto family relationship, from a formal perspective, the establishment of a marital relationship requires registration as its sole statutory prerequisite. Consequently, a premarital cohabitation relationship does not constitute a marital relationship and does not give rise to the statutory rights and obligations prescribed under the Family Code.

Article 1045 of the Civil Code has clearly defined the scope of family members, namely: “Spouses, parents, children, and other close relatives living together are considered family members.” This regulation clearly stipulates that the definition of “family members” is based on statutory kinship relationships, which also aligns with the traditional public perception of “family members.”

This means that if the two parties were merely cohabiting before marriage, have not registered their marriage, and do not share a blood relationship or adoptive relationship, they are generally not considered family members. Consequently, in determining rights such as property division and inheritance rights, the relevant provisions applicable to family members cannot be directly applied by analogy.

For example, in property division, during the period of cohabitation, property division still follows the principle of “autonomy of will taking precedence, with legal provisions providing a fallback for fairness.” As for inheritance rights, cohabiting partners who were in a premarital relationship do not enjoy statutory inheritance rights unless they obtain such rights through a will or gift, or can prove that they fulfilled the primary duty of supporting the deceased. This is fundamentally different from spouses in a marital relationship, who are first-order statutory heirs.

The Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Supreme People’s Court have, through typical cases, recognized premarital cohabitation relationships with a shared living foundation as family member relationships, reflecting the judiciary’s response to social realities and its adaptation to diversified social relationships. While recognizing the positive significance of this determination for combating domestic violence, we should also be mindful of its limitations in terms of scope of application, and avoid extending the classification of family members to areas of civil law such as property division and inheritance.