Abstract: Property damage compensation in disputes over misidentified upbringing is not a typical marital and family dispute, nor is it purely a return of custody fees. It involves many value measurement judgments. The existing dispute resolution paths are all based on deviated legal concepts, leading to the dilemma of narrow regulatory scope or lack of appropriate basis for claims in practical effects. This statement can also be seen in the accumulation of relevant judicial practices in China. By correcting the legal concepts and normative connotations of mistaken custody disputes, and examining the nature of the rights infringed upon by the caregiver, it can be found that the property loss of the caregiver is caused by the transmission or violation of the parent-child identity relationship, and actually originates from the infringement of the parent-child identity relationship. Therefore, the original right of the caregiver that is infringed upon is the right to identity, and the appropriate remedy path should be the infringement law path protected by the right to identity. Articles 112, 1001, 1045 and 1182 of the Civil Code jointly construct a system of claims for infringement of identity rights, providing a suitable basis for the compensation of property damage to caregivers. This system combines theoretical consistency and practical possibilities, and can provide appropriate legal conclusions for the relief of caregivers.