A woman in South Korea is pursuing legal action after alleging her former husband subjected her to a campaign of harassment following their divorce, despite initial police dismissal of her stalking complaint. The case highlights a growing legal debate surrounding the definition of stalking in the context of post-divorce contact, particularly when related to ongoing issues like child custody.
The woman’s complaint centers on approximately 102 instances of contact and visits initiated by her ex-husband between April and October 2024, after their divorce was finalized in February of the same year. Although the couple continued to communicate regarding their child, the woman alleges the frequency and nature of the contact crossed the line into harassment. Initial investigations resulted in a decision of “no indictment,” a ruling that was subsequently challenged.
The case gained attention after being reviewed by the Constitutional Court of Korea in November 2025. The court’s decision, while not directly overturning the initial ruling, clarified the criteria for determining whether post-divorce contact constitutes stalking under Korean law. The court acknowledged that continued communication, even regarding shared children, could be considered stalking if it demonstrates an intent to harass or control the former spouse.
Legal experts note that the key factor in these cases is establishing “intent.” The Constitutional Court’s ruling emphasized that a prior “mutually maintained relationship” between the parties, such as ongoing discussions about child care, could be considered when assessing intent. Visits to the former spouse’s residence, if explainable within the context of these ongoing discussions, were as well considered less likely to be interpreted as stalking. Although, the court cautioned that the nature and tone of the interactions, as well as the overall pattern of behavior, are crucial considerations.
The ruling comes amid increasing awareness of “post-divorce stalking” and the challenges victims face in seeking legal protection. Advocates point to instances where former spouses use continued contact as a means of emotional manipulation or control, creating a climate of fear, and intimidation. Legal resources indicate that such behavior can extend beyond direct contact to include surveillance, spreading rumors, or interfering with the victim’s new relationships.
Beyond stalking charges, similar behavior can also potentially lead to charges of coercion or threats. A separate case highlighted by legal blogs involved a woman alleging she was threatened with institutionalization in a psychiatric facility by her in-laws, coupled with demands for financial concessions during divorce proceedings. Such actions, if proven, could be prosecuted under laws addressing coercion and extortion.
The availability of legal remedies for victims of post-divorce harassment includes seeking a restraining order, filing criminal charges under the stalking laws, and pursuing civil lawsuits for damages. Legal professionals advise against attempting to resolve such situations through emotional responses, as this could potentially weaken a legal case. Instead, documenting all instances of harassment and seeking legal counsel are recommended steps.
As of February 15, 2026, the woman in the initial case is continuing to pursue her legal options, with the possibility of further appeals. The outcome of her case is being closely watched by legal observers, as it could set a precedent for future cases involving post-divorce harassment and the interpretation of stalking laws in South Korea.
