我國與日本未成年監護制度之比較研究

Abstract

未成年監護制度係用以保護無父母或父母均不能行使權利義務之未成年人，因其與親權制度和成年監護制度各有相似之特點，故制度發展長久以來深受此二者之影響。近年親子法強調以「子女利益」作為保護未成年人之指導原則，而監護法社會化（公法化）之趨勢，使國家公權力加強介入此領域，均影響未成年監護制度的發展走向。本論文旨在探討我國未成年監護制度之現況與問題點，以及其於法體系中之定位。 首先，本文藉由回顧文獻與分析裁判之方式，探討我國未成年監護制度相關議題。學說主要批判係針對民法第1094條第1項之法定監護順序與未成年人利益可能產生衝突，導致立法價值選擇不一致。而本文由裁判的整理分析發現，除了學說所批判者，實務經驗更顯現出目前法條繁瑣令人無所適從的問題，同時，當個案中涉及親權人積極或消極地濫用親權時，法院於判定個案為「親權濫用」或「事實上不能行使親權」有較大的裁量空間，亦有不經宣告停止親權程序即選定監護人之情況，此作法使未成年監護與親權停止制度之界線漸趨模糊，無形中侵犯了親權人的權利。 其次本文以日本法作為比較法之借鏡對象，介紹日本2011年之民法修正，該次修法係因應兒童虐待之問題而生，為了促進兒童保護，故對於相關之親權限制制度與未成年監護制度一併進行修正，針對既有之監護事務負擔過重、監護報酬、公示登記及隱私權等問題點加以改善，增修了法人監護與複數監護，並提出相關支援制度作為配套。 最後針對我國法與日本法的修法特色、親權與親權停止制度、法定監護順序之有無、以及監督機關之差異等各方面進行比較，並反思我國現行未成年監護制度於法體系中之定位。本文認為，我國現行未成年監護制度之主要問題有三：一、與親權停止制度之界線模糊，有侵害親權人行使權利之虞；二、立法價值不一致，法條缺乏整合；三、監督機制不足，則監督成效有限。故本文建議今後修法方向，應全面檢討未成年監護制度與親權停止制度，整合相關法條，並增訂監護監督人機制，使國家公權力介入此一領域時能兼顧親權人之權利與未成年人利益之保障。

The minor guardianship is a system for the purpose of protecting minor children who have no parent or when both the parents cannot exercise the rights nor assume the duties in regard to them. In Taiwan, the development of minor guardianship is affected by the development of parental rights and adult guardianship due to their similar characteristics with each other. In recent years, the development of family law is affected by “the interests of the child” principle, also, the state intervene more in family business. Therefore, the article would like to study on the current minor guardianship in Taiwan, and find its position in the legal system. First, the article reviews studies on Taiwan’s minor guardianship, which published in the past 20 years, and finds that Paragraph 1 of Article 1094 of Civil Code has been criticized. Paragraph 1 of Article 1094 sets an order for determination of the guardian, and the order might sometimes conflict with the interest of the child. In addition, the article collects 837 rulings related to minor guardianship from 2000 to 2014, and discovers some problems in practice. For example, there are several articles for appointing guardian in different situations, but sometimes even the court is not able to distinguish the difference of each article. Also, lots of cases are related to parental rights suspension issue and minor guardianship at the same time, and sometimes it's hard for the court to determine whether the situation is that both the parents cannot exercise the rights or abuse of parental rights. In some rulings, the court appoints guardians for the minors without suspending parental rights of their parents, however, this way invades those parents’ rights. Secondly, the article introduces Japan’s minor guardianship, and focuses on the amendment of Japanese Civil Code in 2011. The amendment aimed to solve child abuse problem and promote the protection of child, therefore, it reviewed minor guardianship and parental rights restriction at the same time and raised solutions to problems such as the overburden duties, the pay to guardian, and privacy issue. Also, the amendment allows juridical person to be the guardian, and allows multiple guardians to be appointed in a single case. In addition, relating supporting systems are provided to assist the ward and the guardian. At last, the article compares Taiwan’s minor guardianship with Japan’s from several aspects including features of law amending, parental rights and parental rights suspension, legal order of determining the guardian, and the supervision system. The article finds out that the following three problems are most considerable relating to Taiwan’s minor guardianship. 1. The boundary between minor guardianship and parental rights suspension is ambiguous. 2. The legislation values are inconsistent. 3. The supervision system is insufficient and ineffective. Therefore, the article suggests that the minor guardianship and the parental rights suspension should be reviewed together in the future amendment. In addition, relating articles should be integrated, and the supervision system must be improved. With the improvements mentioned above, we hope once the state intervenes in family affairs, the parent’s rights and the interests of the child can both be protected.