請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71572
標題: | 未成年監護制度之實證研究 An Empirical Study on Minor Guardianship in Taiwan |
作者: | Hsiu-Chi Chiu 邱綉棋 |
指導教授: | 黃詩淳(Sieh-Chuen Huang) |
關鍵字: | 未成年監護,實證研究,量化方法,最佳利益,親權停止,監護開始之事由,監護人種類, Minor Guardianship,Empirical Study,Quantitative Statistics,Parental Rights Suspension,the Best Interest,Commencement of Minor Guardianship,Type of Guardians, |
出版年 : | 2020 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 未成年監護制度為保護無父母可行使親權之未成年人,並配合成年監護之改革,在民國97年為全面性修正,調整監護人種類、增設會同開具財產清冊之人,並在修法後參酌離婚後酌定親權應考量子女最佳利益,將「受監護人之最佳利益」作為最高指導原則。然實務適用法規範是否落實良善的立法意旨?最佳利益的評估是否有其判斷標準?本文網羅1,844則裁判,包含2,492名未成年人,作為研究樣本,以量化研究方法探討法律規範與實務運作的落差,並分析「受監護人之最佳利益」此一不確定法律概念之內涵,期冀研究成果作為未來修法之參考。 首先,本文探討未成年監護的開始,觀察「監護開始之事由」及「會同開具財產清冊之人」,發現實務過度擴大解釋父母不能行使親權之情況,可能侵害父母親權,亦致法定監護是否已經開始不甚安定;此外,並未明確區分監護人類型,使區辨監護人類型的詳細規範淪為具文;未確實選任會同開具財產清冊人,亦未確認其實質監督之可能等。 其次,再藉由實務裁判觀察監護事件的特徵,發現:北部法院重視監護人生活狀況與其經濟,南部法院著重於監護人年齡及健康,兩者考量因素略有不同;受監護人由同性別監護人行監護職務之比例較高;家事調查官與程序監理人的提出報告供法官參考者仍為少數…等裁判趨勢。 最後,本文以「決策樹研究法」及「邏輯斯迴歸模型」,分析法院在判斷「受監護人最佳利益」時最重視「受監護人之意願」、「親權人同意與否」及「監護人與受監護人是否同居」三項因素。另外再探討實務多少程度落實「父母優先原則」、「尊重子女意思原則」及「照護繼續性原則」等,以及尚存問題為何。 基於上述觀察結論,本文建議將所有涉及未成年監護制度之法律規範統整於監護章,刪除不必要的監護人種類,使法院不再困惑,可以更專注於「受監護人最佳利益」的保障及評估。 Minor guardianship aims to protect childern whose parents are no longer qualified to make legal decisions on his or her behalf. Minor guardianship was amended in 2008 in Taiwan, including adjusting the type of guardians, adding property inventory supervisors, and perceiving ‘the best interest of ward’ as the highest guiding principle. However, it has remained uncertain if courts implement these amendments in practice. The criteria of courts for considering ‘the best interest of ward’ is not clear, either. This article collected 1,844 court cases involving 2,492 children to figure out the “law in action” in Taiwan. Firstly, this article divides the process of minor guardianship into three phases: ‘commencement’, ‘deciding a guardian’ and ‘appointing a Property Inventory Supervisor’. By descriptive statistics, it was found that: courts (1) widely decide that parents are not able to make legal decisions, which lead to infringment of the parental rights and parties cannot make sure whether the guardianship started or not; (2) have confused the type of guardians; (3) have improperly appointed property inventory supervisors. Secondly, by quantitative statistics, it was also found that: (1)courts in Northern Taiwan emphasize importance on the guardian’s living conditions and their economy, while others in Southern Taiwan focus on the guardian’s age and health. (2) Courts intend to appoint guardians who are in the same sex as children. (3) There are few reports submitted by family investigators and guardians at litem in guardianship cases. Furthermore, this article applied ‘Decision Tree’ and the ‘Logistic Regression Model’ to predict how the court interprets ‘the best interest of ward’. It is found that “child’s wishes” , “parents’ consent” and “whether the party lives with the child” are the three factors that court considers most in selecting guardians. This article clearly indicated the gap between law in books and law in action, and pointed out that the current provisions regarding minor guardianship are too complicated. Regulations involving minor guardianship exsist in the Marriage Chapter, the Guardianship Chapter of Civil Code, the Family Act, the Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act, and so on. However, the standard of application of these laws has remained unclear. There is no difference in the legal effect among these types of guardians, which means distinguishing the types of guardians seems to be meaningless, and courts also often incorrectly identifie the types of guardians. This article recommends that all regulations involving minor guardianship should be integrated into the Guardianship Chapter of the Civil Code, and unnecessary guardian types should be deleted, so that the court can focus more on the protection and evaluation of “the best interest of ward.” |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71572 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202004329 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-0911202000330500.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.92 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。