我國民法監護制度與信託制度對身心障礙者保障程度之探討

Abstract

背景：根據民國113年衛福部統計，我國依法領有身心障礙手冊已達123萬人。與身心障礙者有關生活照護及財產管理方面的問題，已成為社會關注的重要課題。監護制度與安養信託制度作為保障身心障礙者的兩大工具，其實際成效與制度運作有待進一步探討。 目的：本研究旨在從法律規範與實務操作兩個層面，深入比較我國身心障礙者監護制度與信託制度的運作差異。透過分析法院成年監護裁定案例與實務上的信託司法案例，探討法院監護宣告如何支援信託制度，並剖析不同類型信託模式可能面臨的法律與實務問題。 方法：本文採用文獻回顧法與個案分析法並行之綜合研究。首先，選取三個司法裁定為主要分析文本，針對將我國民法有關成年人監護制度與法院實務見解加以比較分析。其次，選取三個有關保險金信託、遺囑信託及意定監護搭配信託之司法判決及裁定文本加以分析，探討其在實務操作上對身心障礙者保障之成效與挑戰。 結果：本研究歸納法院在監護（輔助）人選任的考量，主要以受監護（輔助）人最佳福祉與權益保障為核心，故以配偶或親屬優先選任，若有意見分歧時，則指定複數人或非親屬人共同監護，以強化監護（輔助）功能中立性與穩定性。同時亦尊重當事人自主意願，若有預立契約，原則上予以承認並依契約選任之人選，以保障其選擇監護人的自由與安排；若人選顯不適任時，則再另選任適當的監護人。而從不同信託工具與安排亦可歸納： 1. 保險金信託可兼顧突發情況與長期照護需求，更可確保在關鍵時刻能夠按照要保人的意願進行分配與運用。 2. 遺囑信託可以按被繼承人的意志分配遺產，特別是若有身心障礙子女則可為其未來提前規劃，以提供穩定生活與經濟支持來源，並且避免繼承爭議及維護家族關係。 3. 意定監護信託可以為個人提供一個更周全、更安心的晚年生活規劃，讓自己在失去意思表示能力後，能依照自己的意願，由信任的人管理財產並提供妥善的生活照顧，並確保財產的安全和有效運用以避免遭受詐騙或是不當使用。 結論：當監護人與信託受託人在信託財產管理權限上產生衝突時，例如受監護人信託契約之簽訂、變更或終止等，建議應於民法中明文規定，應經由法院許可始生效力。另建議可以研議訂定「成年人監護財產交付信託制度要點」或修正《家事事件法》，增列法院得指示監護人辦理信託事務之條文，以建立制度性支持，強化法院與信託機制之連動。另實務上法院對監護事務之定期監督難以全面落實，故建議可設置「監護監督人」，由其代為執行部分監督職責，並定期要求監護人提出報告。最後，若意定監護人同時為繼承人或受遺贈人時，建議在意定監護契約中，就財產處分相關事項設有明確限制，凡有涉及處理受監護人之重大財產行為時，應經由法院許可，以提升合法性。

Background: Based on the statistics of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2024 (Year 113 of the Republic of China calendar), there are 1.23 million individuals in Taiwan who legally hold a disability identification certificate. Issues concerning the physical and mental care, as well as property management of persons with disabilities, have become major topics of social concern. The guardianship system and the care trust system are two key mechanisms designed to protect the rights and welfare of this group, but their actual effectiveness and operational structures require further exploration. Objective: The study compares the guardianship and trust systems for persons with disabilities in Taiwan, from both legal and practical perspectives. Through the analysis of court rulings related to adult guardianship and judicial cases involving trust arrangements, the study explores how guardianship declarations can support the implementation of trust mechanisms and examines the legal and operational challenges faced by different types of trust models. Methods: This study adopts a combined research approach using literature review and case analysis. First, three court rulings are selected as primary texts for analysis, focusing on comparing the adult guardianship provisions in Taiwan’s Civil Code with actual court practices. Then, three judicial decisions or rulings related to insurance trusts, testamentary trusts, and advance directives paired with trusts are analyzed to explore their effectiveness and challenges in practice in safeguarding persons with disabilities. Findings: This study concludes that, in appointing guardians (or assistants), courts primarily consider the best interests and protection of rights of the person under guardianship. Therefore, spouses or close relatives are generally given priority in selection. In cases of disagreement among relatives, the court may appoint multiple guardians or include non-relatives as co-guardians to enhance the neutrality and stability of the guardianship function. At the same time, the courts respect the individual’s autonomy; if there is a pre-established contract, the court will, in principle, honor it and appoint the designated guardian accordingly, to protect the individual's freedom of choice. If the designated person is clearly unsuitable, the court will appoint an appropriate alternative. From the perspective of various trust tools and arrangements, the following can be summarized: 1. Insurance trusts provide dual protection, addressing both emergencies and long-term care needs. They also ensure that insurance payouts can be allocated and used according to the policyholder's wishes at critical times. 2. Testamentary trusts enable the distribution of assets according to the testator’s intent, especially useful for securing the future of children with disabilities by providing stable financial and living support, preventing inheritance disputes, and preserving family relationships. 3. Voluntary guardianship trusts offer individuals a more comprehensive and reassuring approach to later-life planning. When a person loses decision-making capacity, a trusted individual can manage their property and care in accordance with their wishes, ensuring asset security and effective use, while protecting against fraud or misuse. Conclusion: When conflicts arise between guardians and trustees over authority in managing trust assets—such as the signing, modification, or termination of a trust agreement—it is recommended that explicit provisions be added to the Civil Code, requiring court approval for such actions to be legally effective. Furthermore, it is suggested to consider drafting guidelines for a “System of Entrusting Property under Adult Guardianship” or amending the Family Proceedings Act to include provisions allowing courts to instruct guardians to handle trust-related affairs, thereby building systemic support and strengthening the coordination between courts and trust mechanisms. In practice, due to limited court resources, it is difficult to implement comprehensive, regular supervision of guardianship affairs. To address this gap, the appointment of a Guardianship Supervisor is recommended. This individual would carry out certain oversight responsibilities on behalf of the court and require periodic reports from guardians. Finally, if a designated voluntary guardian is also an heir or beneficiary, it is recommended that the voluntary guardianship agreement include clear restrictions on the handling of financial matters. Any major asset-related decisions involving the ward should be subject to court approval to enhance the legal validity of such actions.