美国离婚后的子女监护制度及其启示

美国关于离婚后子女监护的种类主要有单独监护、分配监护、共同监护和分离监护.就单独监护和共同监护而言,又存在单独身体上的监护、共同身体上的监护、单独法律上的监护和共同法律上的监护的不同.无论适用哪种父母离婚后的监护方式,均应符合子女最佳利益原则.共同监护并非当然符合子女最佳利益.我们应当借鉴美国的子女最佳利益原则以及多种监护方式并存的模式.     

从子女最大利益原则评析离婚后父母对子女的监护问题

目前,我国婚姻法及司法解释在离婚后父母对子女的监护问题方面缺乏系统的规范,而在仅有的条文规范中也存在对子女利益保护不周等诸多弊端.为此,本文从“儿童最大利益原则”出发,来审视我国监护制度,为完善离婚后父母对子女监护问题的相关规范寻找出路.     

英美法"儿童最大利益原则"及其启示——以离婚后子女监护为视角

英美法国家制定法均以"儿童最大利益原则"作为处理离婚后子女监护的基本原则,并在司法实践中就该原则的适用进行了有益的探索.对英美法国家离婚后子女监护"儿童最大利益原则"的立法及司法实践进行探讨,可以为我国相关立法及司法提供借鉴.     

未成年人意定监护立法研究

未成年人意定监护是指在未成年人不处于父母照护权之下时,由未成年人的父母双方或一方通过委托或者以遗嘱方式为其设立监护人,并将对未成年人的照顾与保护委托给监护人代理行使的制度。它是未成年人利益最大化原则的具体体现。未成年人意定监护具有自身的特征,它体现的是作为法定监护人父母的意思与意愿,意定监护人履行的是类似于父母对未成年子女的抚养、教育与保护的义务与责任,保护的是未成年子女的人身权和财产权。作为法定监护的补充,我国相关立法规定了委托监护和遗嘱指定监护两种意定监护形式,但从立法本身及其适用效果来看,我国的意定监护还存在着立法体系不统一、内容不够完善和监护监督机制不够健全等问题。因此,建议由民法典来统一规定意定监护,明确规定意定监护的适用条件、意定监护人选任资格、意定监护人的职责与权利等内容,并建立健全意定监护的监督机制。     

以比例原则为核心的未成年人国家监护制度建构

父母子女关系的人权和基本权利指向决定了权利思维在国家监护制度建构中的普遍适用。比例原则的核心地位是由国家监护制度所隐含的权利冲突困境所决定的。同时,它也提供了弥合国家在父母子女关系上所负消极和积极义务之间张力的可行方案。以比例原则为基础进行国家监护制度建构包含了实体和程序两方面的安排。实体措施上的分层是前提和基础。措施所适用的对象、期间、内容和程度均构成分层的标准。建立在“目的——手段”权衡之上的程序规则设计则是正当化国家监护措施的关键。这种权衡体现在对程序启动的条件、主体范围、程序的类别和期间、证明标准、证明责任的分配以及父母子女程序性权利的保障等方面具体规则的设计之中。我国现行国家监护制度对于比例原则的表达存在实体和程序两个面向上的缺陷,存在改革的空间。     

父母监护责任合理性探析——兼评《中华人民共和国民法（草案）》及学者《建议稿》的相关规定

父母监护责任的合理性包括价值合理性与工具合理性两个方面。其中，价值合理性是其主观性价值——保护未成年子女的利益与父母自由权，与客观性价值——损害填补与预防损害，两者的统一。工具合理性，即合理的归责原则，它为实现父母监护责任的价值合理性而必然采过失责任原则。《草案》与《建议稿》遵循《民法通则》的思路，价值取向强调对损害的填补，其合理性自有疑问；归责原则采严格责任原则更须更正。     

比较法视野下的“父母责任”

父母是子女最大利益的守护者,对未成年子女的生存与发展承担首要责任。当代国际社会,在《儿童权利公约》标准的指引下,以父母履行责任与义务,保障子女最大利益为特征的子女本位立法已成为各国亲子关系立法的主流。我国婚姻法中涉及亲子关系的内容自1980年婚姻法以来从未修改,仍残存着父母本位立法的痕迹。有关父母对子女权利义务的规定过于概括、简略,父母抚养教育子女的内涵、边界及法律责任不明确、不具体,对子女权利的保护不周延。我国应在婚姻家庭法中单独设立亲子关系章,将"父母责任"作为上位法律术语,涵括父母对于子女在人身关系和财产关系方面所有的权利义务,全面、系统、具体地规范父母责任。对不履行或不当履行父母责任者,应当明确规定父母责任丧失、转移和恢复的条件和程序,由国家公权力介入,对未成年子女实行国家监护。     

父母监护责任合理性探析--兼评《中华人民共和国民法(草案)》及学者《建议稿》的相关规定

父母监护责任的合理性包括价值合理性与工具合理性两个方面。其中 ,价值合理性是其主观性价值──保护未成年子女的利益与父母自由权 ,与客观性价值──损害填补与预防损害 ,两者的统一。工具合理性 ,即合理的归责原则 ,它为实现父母监护责任的价值合理性而必然采过失责任原则。《草案》与《建议稿》遵循《民法通则》的思路 ,价值取向强调对损害的填补 ,其合理性自有疑问 ;归责原则采严格责任原则更须更正。     

撤销父母双方监护人资格的考量

【裁判要旨】父母均实施了严重损害未成年子女身心健康行为或者怠于履行监护职责、严重危害未成年子女身心健康的,人民法院可以根据有关个人或组织的申请,对父母的侵害行为是否达到较为严重的程度、是否符合撤销监护人资格的法定条件进行审查,在作出同时撤销父母对其子女的监护人资格后,应按照维护未成年子女利益最大化的原则另行指定监护人,以妥善维护受侵害未成年人合法权益。     

被忽视的差异——《民法总则(草案)》“大小监护”立法模式之争的盲区

当下出现的六部《民法总则(草案)》在对未成年子女的照顾和监护问题上呈现出三种观点:"小监护概念,分别规定"、"大监护概念,统一规定"和"大监护概念,分别规定"。"大监护概念"未能凸显父母子女关系的人权和基本权利指向,也未能体现出思想基础上的"信任与不信任"假设及其派生的区分原则,是不可取的。在"设置统一总则"的潘德克吞体系下,总则应当维持其一般性和抽象性,家庭法编也应当维持其体系完整性,在总则中规定对未成年子女的照顾和监护是不妥的。《民法总则》应当超越《民法通则》的思维窠臼,修正《民法通则》对父母照顾和监护问题的错误认识和定位。     

TIPPINS AND WITTMANN ASKED THE WRONG QUESTION:

Tippins and Wittmann (2005) provide an important analysis of the limitations of child custody evaluations, but they are wrong to propose that court-appointed evaluators should be precluded from making recommendations about best interests decisions. While some of the evidence of evaluators may fail to meet the high standard of reliability expected for "expert evidence," the role of court-appointed evaluators in child-related cases is not the same as the role of party-retained experts in other types of litigation, and the legal basis for their involvement in the family law dispute resolution process is very different. The family courts should not apply the "expert evidence" standard when deciding how to use the evidence of a court-appointed evaluator, but rather should use a more flexible standard that takes account of the family law context. If the Tippins and Wittmann proposal is adopted, it will have negative implications for the resolution of family law cases, including making settlements less common, thereby deleteriously affecting children.     

PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.     

EXTENDING COMITY TO FOREIGN DECREES IN INTERNATIONAL CUSTODY DISPUTES BETWEEN PARENTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ISLAMIC NATIONS

International custody disputes involving parents and children from Islamic nations and the United States have yielded a spectrum of interpretation of Islamic Shari'a law and the best interests of the child. The lack of a determinative treaty between the United States and all but one Islamic nation has led to an inconsistency of criterion in determining whether to extend comity to a custody decree from a court of an Islamic nation. The domestic law statutes, which determine jurisdiction in these matters, have provisions for international application and recognition of foreign custody decrees. The recognition of custody decrees from the courts of Islamic nations is contingent upon the satisfying of procedural and substantive thresholds. Focusing on the substantive, the author opines that American courts have a responsibility to understand certain aspects of the law, culture, and religion of Islam in order to accurately determine if the threshold has been meet.     

Separated Children: A Comparison of the Treatment of Separated Child Refugees Entering Australia and Canada

Separated children are in a uniquely vulnerable situation. Notonly are they in fear of persecution but they have been separatedfrom their families. They are seeking multifaceted protections.Such children need a country to protect them from further persecution,a caregiver to nurture them and fulfil the family role and asociety that will foster their social and intellectual growth.This article analyses the treatment of separated child refugeesin the context of international human rights law as it relatesto children and from the viewpoint of domestic immigration law.The article bases this analysis on a comparison of the treatmentof separated child refugees in Australia and Canada. The fundamentalprinciple of the International Convention on the Rights of theChild is that member states should act in the child's best interests.This principle has two important aspects, firstly, that detentionof children should only be used as a last resort and, secondly,that child refugees should enjoy the right to seek asylum. Thearticle examines the domestic law of both Australia and Canadawith a view to determining how these two aspects are appliedto unaccompanied children.     

Proponents Bear the Burden of Proof

Richard Gardner claimed to be able to diagnose parental alienation among contentious parents disputing custody, and asserted that his "syndrome" is supported by scientific and legal authority. Despite influencing many custody proceedings, Gardner's ideas fail to meet even minimal scientific standards. The burden of proving any new hypothesis falls on its proponents, and given the complete absence of objective replication, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) must be viewed as nothing more than a hypothesis. The lack of clear guidance in the law allows concepts like PAS to gain temporary credibility, as judges look to mental health professionals for help in making decisions under the vague best interests standard.     

Parents as decision-makers--do the attitudes of Norwegian doctors conform to law?

This article studies whether the attitudes of Norwegian doctors regarding surrogate decision power in end-of-life care conform to legal rules, particularly as they apply to the protection of children. The article is based on a hypothetical scenario concerning a critically ill child, believed to be dying, presented to 406 doctors. The study indicates that doctors may permit parental/surrogate decision-making to a greater extent than justified by law, sometimes in contravention of the child's best interests, which should be a fundamental guideline in all decisions that concern children. This article suggests a need to improve knowledge of doctors concerning parents'/surrogates' right to participate in life-or-death decisions. We conclude that Norway needs a precedent decision from the Supreme Court that confirms the right of judicial review of end-of-life decisions, and which applies the principle of the child's best interests as a fundamental guideline in the final decision.     

论血缘主义在确定亲子关系时的修正与限制

婚姻法上决定自然血亲的亲子关系的指导原理是血缘主义原则。但在某些情形下若彻底推行此原则反而可能招致对国家、社会或当事人的不利,因而应受到某些修正或限制。从各国婚姻法在自然血亲的亲子关系的确定方法上所设立的婚生推定和非婚生子女的认领及准正等方法模式中,可以窥知血缘主义在确定亲子关系时仍然要受到某些主观主义的限制。为谋求亲子关系的稳定,尤其为保障子女利益的需要,不得不在一定情形下承认没有血缘关系的“亲子”为法律上的亲子关系,有血缘关系的亲子却不是法律上的亲子关系。     

THE “EYE OF THE BEHOLDER”: PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are a central feature of parenting litigation in many North American jurisdictions. However, there has been little recent research comparing CCE decisions about children's interests with decisions made by judges. This article presents empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from CCEs employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges fully agreed with the CCEs only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, the most salient of which is the effect of delay in Ontario family litigation. In conclusion, the article suggests that a more efficient synthesis of the judicial and CCE decision‐making processes might be more consonant with the best interests of children involved in these disputes.     

反思刑法谦抑主义

谦抑性考察已成为当下评判刑事立法和刑事司法的基础性分析工具。与此相应,我国晚近以来的历次刑法修正案所反映的犯罪化进程被不少学者反复诟病为"不谦抑"。刑法谦抑主义虽然彰显了古典刑法保障个人权利的理念,但是谦抑性并非一个价值中立、超越时空、至高无上的刑法原则。直面现代社会刑法法益保护与人权保障的内在紧张关系,仅从单一化的谦抑主义维度去评判刑法发展的得失是偏颇的。谦抑性应该还原为罪刑法定原则之下用来说明和贯彻罪刑法定原则的子原则。反思刑法谦抑主义,并非要放弃或终结对刑法谦抑性的追求,而是主张在肯定谦抑理念的同时对谦抑性在立法和司法、设罪和配刑等不同场域作不同的把握。刑法的发展需要在法益保护与人权保障中寻求一种张弛有度的动态平衡,而绝非单向度的谦抑主义。     

最密切联系原则与我国的立法及实践

最密切联系原则是冲突法发展的必然结果 ,是当代冲突法中一种生命力极强、在各国立法及其实践中普遍确立和运用的一种法律适用的重要理论原则。最密切联系原则的实质在于软化连接点 ,增强法律适用的灵活性 ,从而实现法律的根本性价值———公平、正义 ,最大限度地维护当事人的合法权益。我国在立法上确定了这一原则 ,但对这一原则的运用标准不够完善、具体 ,因此导致在我国司法实践中法官摸索办案的客观现实。最密切联系原则在我国应成为法律适用的基本原则 ,在司法实践的运用中应体现法的公平正义价值