Child Protection Action AllianceChild Protection Action Alliance
EN

COURT HEARING RECORD · DAY 4

Original record: Prison WatchEdited reconstruction by CPAA

Fourth Trial Hearing

KaiKai case citizen-judge trial | Monday, 28 April 2025

CPAA EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

That day, the court asked not only what each person saw, but what they did after seeing it.
Day 4 hearing impression artwork in papercraft and clay, showing the courtroom, protective motifs, and a child in light-blue and dark-blue stripes
Day 4 edited court-observation key visual
Content notice

This page discusses alleged child maltreatment, bodily injuries, restraint, possible concealment and distressing messages. Testimony, prompted records and questions are not final judicial findings. This is an edited procedural reconstruction, not a verbatim transcript.

01 · OVERVIEW

Hearing at a glance

Proceedings resumed at 09:27. The court first identified a photograph and Wenshan weather-station data. Liu Ruo-lin testified in the morning and Liu Tsai-hsuan in the afternoon. The hearing examined three childcare locations, division of care, restraint and a basin incident, masks, a calm-down/standing area, injury reporting, photographs and communications. Court adjourned at 17:28.

Date2025.04.28Fourth trial hearing
Witnesses2Liu Ruo-lin and Liu Tsai-hsuan
ProcedureEvidence inquiryDirect, cross and judges’ questions
Adjourned17:28About eight hours
02 · TWO WITNESSES

Two witnesses | Different accounts of the same care environment

The witnesses were sisters and licensed caregivers within the same childcare network. The page separates what was seen, asked, stopped, documented and reported.

01Morning

Liu Ruo-lin | caregiver and sister

Described head-banging, tooth grinding, injuries, nudity, standing, the basin incident, social-worker contact, photographs and messages.

Limit | She frequently said she forgot or had no impression; some points were reports or record-prompted recollections.Read notes
02Afternoon

Liu Tsai-hsuan | defendant testifying as a witness

Described the three-location route and reasons offered for standing, restraint, the basin, an adult mask and injury reporting.

Limit | She framed several practices as protection, allergy management or cleaning; credibility remains for the court.Read notes
03 · EVIDENCE LENS

Four lenses for reading Day 4

Locations, professional responsibility, physical records and changes in testimony must be read together.

Location

Who was where

Keys, shared spaces and actual presence test the claim that each caregiver acted independently.

Action

What happened after observation

Asking, stopping, untying, documenting, seeking care and reporting are separate steps.

Records

Photos, audio and messages

Records test timing and memory but cannot be detached from context and authentication.

Professional practice

Ordinary injury procedure

The court compared what licensed caregivers said they normally did with what was done here.

Sleeping locationNight

Night-time sleep, some photographs and standing episodes.

Liu Ruo-lin’s homeMorning / movement

Near-daily visits and the basin incident.

Main childcare locationLunch / daytime

Meals, the calm-down area and basement entrance.

Editorial reconstruction from Liu Tsai-hsuan’s testimony; not a judicially fixed daily route.
04 · TIMELINE

Day 4 timeline

  1. Court-initiated exhibits

    Photograph and Wenshan temperature data.

  2. Liu Ruo-lin

    Direct, cross and judges’ questions.

  3. Midday break

    Liu Tsai-hsuan began after court resumed.

  4. Liu Tsai-hsuan

    Daily route, restraint, standing, reporting and records.

  5. Adjournment

    Final questions on photo times and the claimed onset of head-banging.

05 · EXAMINATION

How examination tested the accounts

These are lines of inquiry, not findings adopted by this page.

Observation and action

What a fellow caregiver did after seeing warning signs

Questions separated noticing, asking, stopping, documenting and reporting.

Alternative explanations

Head-banging, allergy, cleaning and protection

The defence and witnesses offered reasons for restraints, masks, bathroom feeding and leg elevation.

Reporting

Testing “I told the social worker”

Oral reminders, missing message traces and the claimed concealment of a neck injury were compared.

Memory

Photos, messages and prior statements

Prompts tested repeated “I forgot” answers while leaving context and weight to the court.

06 · JUDGES’ QUESTIONS

Eight recurring questions

The judges repeatedly returned to professional practice and concrete response.

01

What happened after the basin overturned?

Untying the child was distinguished from asking, documenting and reporting.

02

How would an injury to another child be reported?

Ordinary practice was compared with the response here.

03

Were restraint and bathroom feeding normal?

The witness said they were not used with other children.

04

What did outdoor temperature show about the room?

Weather context and actual indoor conditions were separated.

05

When did a calm-down area become standing punishment?

The name of a practice was compared with its duration and effect.

06

Why were towels, nets and bags used?

The asserted protective purpose was tested against the means.

07

Why hide an injury after being reminded to report?

Professional duty and the witness’s stated motive were placed side by side.

08

How do records interact with “I forgot”?

Messages and photographs can test memory but require full context.

07 · LIMITS

Reading limits

01

“Head-banging” is an account, not a diagnosis

No medical assessment is completed by the word itself.

02

“I do not remember” defines memory only

It proves neither occurrence nor non-occurrence.

03

Locations must remain consistent

Every episode requires its place, participants and basis of knowledge.

04

Messages require context

Timing, authentication, full threads and other evidence remain necessary.

08 · EVIDENCE & PROCEDURE

Evidence and procedural nodes

Exhibit 86

Photograph dated 23 September 2023

The court discussed provenance, timing, appearance and nutrition.

Exhibit 87

Wenshan weather-station data

The defence questioned whether outdoor data reflected indoor temperature.

Objection

Scope of cross-examination

An objection concerning a red container was sustained as beyond direct examination.

Photograph of the scheduled procedure for the fourth trial hearing
Procedure photograph reproduced from page 1 of the original record.
09 · EDITED COURT RECORD

Full edited notes by procedure

Repeated questions are consolidated and wording is shortened. This is not a verbatim transcript; consult the original Chinese record for the full text.

01
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Court-initiated exhibits

Photograph and weather-station data

Proceedings resumed at 09:27.

Presiding judge

The court first identified Exhibit 86, a photograph dated 23 September 2023, and Exhibit 87, daily temperature data from the Wenshan station for December 2023.

Prosecutor

Asked the court to note the photograph’s provenance, date, the child’s appearance and nutrition, and the detailed temperature fields.

Counsel for Liu Tsai-hsuan

Asked whether outdoor station data could properly reflect the indoor temperature.

02
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Liu Ruo-lin | direct examination

What she saw, heard and remembered

The court explained the privilege against self-incrimination and perjury liability; the witness was sworn.

Direct examination by counsel for Liu Tsai-hsuanLiu Ruo-lin answered

How often did the child come to your home?

Liu Ruo-lin

Occasionally, mainly in the afternoon and sometimes at night, when Liu Tsai-hsuan went out or moved between locations.

What drew your attention?

Liu Ruo-lin

She described episodes of head-banging, moaning, profanity, tooth grinding and picking at the hands, while repeatedly saying she could not recall dates or sequence.

Did you see injuries?

Liu Ruo-lin

She recalled bruising, a small mark between the eyebrows, scabs on a hand and swelling at the back of the head; she said falls were offered as explanations.

Did you tell her to report to the social worker?

Liu Ruo-lin

She said she did, orally, and was told a report had been made.

03
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Liu Ruo-lin | cross-examination

Nudity, standing, restraint and feeding in a bathroom

Break at 10:23; court resumed at 10:37.

Cross-examination by the prosecutorLiu Ruo-lin answered

Did you see the child naked or standing?

Liu Ruo-lin

She had seen the child naked and standing, but said she did not know whether this was punishment.

When the child hit his head, why were his hands and feet tied? Did you ask?

Liu Ruo-lin

She said she did not ask.

Why is the alleged oral reminder to the social worker absent from LINE messages?

Liu Ruo-lin

She said it was raised in person, at meals or when she remembered.

Was the child fed in a bathroom?

Liu Ruo-lin

She recalled Liu Tsai-hsuan saying an oral injury caused bleeding or vomiting and the bathroom was easier to clean.

Court

An objection was sustained when the prosecutor sought to show a red container beyond the scope of direct examination.

04
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Liu Ruo-lin | questions from judges

The basin incident and professional response

Break at 11:03; court resumed at 11:32.

What happened when the basin overturned?

Liu Ruo-lin

She said she ran from the kitchen, saw the child’s hands and feet tied, righted the basin, untied and carried the child to the living room.

Did you ask Liu Tsai-hsuan? Did this seem normal?

Liu Ruo-lin

She said she did not ask and did not think much of it at the time.

How would you handle an injury to a child in your own care?

Liu Ruo-lin

She would photograph it and notify the social worker by LINE, explaining the injury and cause.

Were other children tied, fed in a bathroom or known to hit their heads?

Liu Ruo-lin

She said no.

What did you understand from terms such as “dead kid” and a message about knocking him unconscious?

Liu Ruo-lin

She acknowledged inappropriate language and said she had seen Liu Tsai-hsuan pat or strike a body area, while her memory of the messages was limited.

05
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Liu Tsai-hsuan | direct examination

Three locations, the “calm-down area” and restraint

Break at 12:53; court resumed at 14:33.

The court explained the privilege against self-incrimination and perjury liability; the witness was sworn.

What was the daily route?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She described moving from the sleeping location to Liu Ruo-lin’s home almost every morning, then to the main childcare location for lunch, and back to the sleeping location at night.

What was the “calm-down area”?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She said the child stood there when crying; initially she returned after about ten minutes, later leaving him until he became quiet.

Did Liu Ruo-lin object?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She recalled being told not to leave the child standing alone, but said she continued.

Why was the child tied in a basin on 2 November?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She cited head-banging and concern for Liu Ruo-lin after surgery, and said she used a long towel before leaving temporarily.

Why nets, plastic bags or a chair?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She framed the acts as protection and improvised restraint, calling the conduct foolish.

Why the adult mask?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She cited persistent nasal discharge, allergy, cold air or dust mites.

Why were the legs raised?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She said it was intended to reduce swelling for 15–20 minutes after lunch.

06
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Liu Tsai-hsuan | cross-examination

Shared care, punishment and record prompts

Break at 15:33; court resumed at 15:45.

Could you freely enter the main locations?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

Yes. She said childcare occurred mainly at one location by day and sleeping at another by night.

Were the four children truly cared for entirely separately?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She maintained separate placements but acknowledged interaction and occasional help from Liu Ruo-lin.

Was the separation linked to income?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She agreed that separate registrations allowed each caregiver to take two children and increase income.

Did the “calm-down area” become punishment?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She eventually described it as a place for standing punishment and acknowledged standing punishment at the sleeping location too.

Did Liu Ruo-lin know?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She first said no, then after a Facebook message was shown said she had forgotten because it was long ago.

How should violent-sounding chat messages be read?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She characterised some of them as casual talk or nonsense.

07
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Questions from citizen and professional judges

Reporting and the claimed concealment of injury

Break at 16:37; court resumed at 16:50.

Did Liu Ruo-lin remind you to report injuries?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

Yes.

Why was the child made to sleep during a social-worker visit?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She said she feared the neck injury would be discovered, criticism would follow, and future referrals might be affected.

Were later injuries reported?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She said a head injury was reported.

Did Liu Ruo-lin stop you from scolding?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

Yes, but not from tying the child or placing him in the basin.

Why did the mask reach the eyes?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She said it was not intentional and resulted from using an adult mask.

Did the child arrive with wounds?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

No.

08
COURT RECORD · EDITED NOTES

Chat records, photo times and adjournment

Final prompts by the presiding judge

Record summary

Messages included violent or demeaning phrasing. The witness described some exchanges as joking or nonsense; this page retains only the minimum needed to explain the court’s line of inquiry.

How did you explain the message about keeping the child awake?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

She said the child might hit his head when not sleeping, while also saying he was difficult to settle.

Presiding judge

The prosecutor was asked to show a slide listing photographs at 01:47 on 27 September, 01:41 on 1 October and 01:54 on 6 October.

Was the photographed person the child, and was this a sleeping position?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

Yes.

When did you first notice alleged head-banging?

Liu Tsai-hsuan

Early September, she said.

Court adjourned at 17:28.

17:28 · COURT ADJOURNED

Day 4, adjourned

CPAA EDITORIAL CLOSING

Day 4 could not be reduced to “I saw” or “I did not know.” Locations, photographs, messages, professional duties and subsequent action formed a chain that the court tested one link at a time.

Source

Prison Watch

Original: DAY4 | Monday, 28 April 2025 — Fourth Trial Hearing

Edited, structured and animated by the Child Protection Action Alliance. Where questions arise, the original Chinese record and public court materials control.

Read original record ↗