| 摘要(英) |
Abstract
Starting from the twentieth century, the welfare states were gradually influenced by the concept of ”state paternalism”, which believed the state should not allow families to be totally autonomous. In the context of “state paternalism ”, the United Nations, European and American countries have begun to adopt ”the best interests of children ” as the basic principle of Civil Code. Taiwan also adopted a ”children base” Civil Code when amending the Family Law of the Civil Code on September 25, 1996. Inside the current Family Law of the Civil Code, there are many articles adopt the ”Children’s best interests” as the criterion. This study chose to examine the principles of ”children′s interests” in changing the child′s surname, because the right of a surname is a type of personality rights. The existence of a surname is the first step for a country to recognize an individual′s existence and to grant him/ her rights and obligations.
This study examined the influences of the amendments of Paragraph 1 of Article 1059 of Civil Code in 2007 to allow parents to agree on the child’s surname and in 2010, to allow parents to draw a surname, if the child’s surname was not agreed upon, on the national statistics of the newborn’s surnames. Our results showed that the majority of the newborns’ surnames were still agreed upon according to their father′s last names, but the proportions of the newborns using father′s surnames have declined since 2012. Although the mother′s surname agreed upon by both parents only accounted for a minority, but the proportions of using mother′s surname have increased since 2012. The proportions of drawing a surname for the newborns resulted more from mother′s surnames and fewer from the father′s surnames.
In addition, this study examined the influences of the amendments of Paragraph 2 and 3 of Article 1059, Paragraph 1 of Article 1059-1, and Paragraph 2 of Article 1078 of Civil Code in 2010 on the proportions of children’s surnames from fathers’ or mothers’ side. This study found that the majority of children born in wedlock changed to their mother′s surnames later in life, and the number of adoptive children changed to adoptive father′s more than to adopted mother′s surnames.
Finally, this study compared the evaluations of “the interests of children” among four different types of people appeared in the court documents, which resulted in the following seven conclusions. The first conclusion is by comparing the key reasons for granting and dismissing a case in the best interests of the child: overall, the key reason in a granting case favored positive or neutral reasons; the key reason in a dismissing case tended to be negative or neutral reasons.
The second conclusion is: social workers (or family matter investigation officers) tended to use two criteria as “the interests of children”, i.e., the meaning of changing the surname for children is to establish a new life ; children can get along with the petitioner’s family more harmoniously and closely.
The third conclusion is: judges assisted by social workers (or family matter investigation officers) tended to evaluate “the interests of children” more as the following five criteria, i.e., the minor child has not yet understood the meaning of the surname, the minor child thinks that the change of the surname has no effect on him/her, the child is influenced by the grandparents and the mother, the mother no longer want to remind of the child’s father from the father′s surname, and the child can receive financial support.
The fourth conclusion is: judges who were not assisted by a social worker (or a family matter investigation officer) considered “the interests of children” predominantly on one criterion, i.e., the minors’ willingness to change their last names, to be the top of four evaluators.
The fifth conclusion is: the petitioner’s considerations of “the interests of children” were many, i.e., the child′s perception that changing the meaning of the surname is a sense of identity and belonging to the petitioner ′s family, the child can explain to the peer, the child is expected by other family members, the child is influenced by others (peers, teachers), the father or mother thought it was unnecessary to explain the surname to others, the non- petitioner ′s side has rarely cared about the grown up children for a long time, the change of a minor’s surname has no effect on the non- petitioner ′s side (for there are other children with the same surname), and the other party is wanted by law, and has complicated circles and friends.
The sixth conclusion is: the petitioner and the legal professionals were different in their evaluations of “the interests of children”, i.e., the legal professionals emphasized more on the influence of changing the surname on the petitioner’s family, while the petitioner emphasized the safety issues of the family.
The seventh conclusion is: whether the reasons for the dismissed cases of changed to the mother′s surname or the approval cases of changed to the father′s surname, there seemed no gender inequality reasons written in the court documents.
|
| 參考文獻 |
一、專書
1. Asquith, Stewart & Malcolm Hill (Eds.)(1992)Justice for Children.UK:University of Glasgow in collaboration with UNICEF and Save the Children Fund .
2.高玉泉，蔡沛倫，兒童權利公約逐條要義，衛生福利部社會及家庭署，2016年4月。
3.施慧玲，家庭法律社會學論文集，元照出版，2004年。
4.謝秀芬，家庭社會工作理論與實務，雙葉書廊，第2版。
二、博碩士論文
1.林少尹，性別平等法規範與父權社會規範之角力─以民法子女姓氏約定制度為例，國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2013年1月。
2.周靜華，子女姓氏權之研究─民法親屬編修正實施之回應性評估，國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文，2011年12月。
3.陳金鴻，親屬法子女姓氏規範變革之妥適性，中國文化大學法學院法律學系碩士論文，2013年7月。
4.曾映慈，從父姓？從母姓？─女性單親家庭成員的姓氏政治，世新大學性別研究所碩士學位論文， 2011年6月。
三、期刊
1.Lin, Yun-Hsien Diana(2013). “In the Name of the Father? The Law and Social Norms of Children′s Surnames in Taiwan ,” in Family and Gender in East Asia, pp.75-94,Siumi Maria Tam, Wai Ching Angela Wong, and Danning Wang (eds.)Routledge.
2.呂玉瑕、伊慶春，社會變遷中的夫妻資源與家務分工：台灣七○年代與九○年代社會文化脈絡的比較，台灣社會學，2005年12月，第10期，第41-94頁。
3.尤美女，從婦女團體的民法親屬編修法運動談女性主義法學的本土實踐，律師雜誌，2005年10月，第313期，第73-82頁。
4.李立如，婚姻家庭與性別平等─親屬法變遷的觀察與反思，政大法學評論，2007年2月，第95期，第175-227頁。
5.李淑媛，休妻棄放──唐代離婚法「七出」、「義絕」問題再探，法制史研究，2010年6月，第17期，第57-100頁
6.施慧玲，論我國民法親屬編之修正方向與立法原則－由二十世紀的成果展望二十一世紀的藍圖，中正大學法學期刊，2000年7月，第3期，第163-221頁。
7.施慧玲，兒童及少年性交易防制條例之立法意義與執法極限─個應用法律社會學的觀點，律師雜誌，第222期，第38-50頁。
8.孫麗君、何明晃，矛盾與衝突－少年事件處理法安置輔導執行現況之探討，青少年犯罪防治研究期刊，2010年，第2卷第2期，第45-82頁。
9.馬憶南，父母與未成年子女的法律關係－從父母權利本位到子女權利本位，月旦民商法，第25期，第51-64頁。
10.陳怡君，第二姓！新生兒姓氏協商的性別權力關係，婦研縱橫，2010年，第48-59頁。
11.陳柯玫、王舒芸，兒童及少年參與困境之初探，台灣社會工作學刊，2017年，第18期，第63-112頁。
12.陳昭如，父姓的常規，母姓的權利：子女姓氏修法改革的法社會學考察，台大法學論叢，2014年6月，第43卷第2期，第271-380頁。
13.陳奕潔、陳玉華，父系家庭傳承制度下的收養形式與決策模式，人口學刊，第54期，2017年6月，第39-80頁。
14.陳惠馨，變動中的人倫秩序與法律秩序－從親屬法中夫妻間的關係談起，台大法學論叢，1991年，第21卷第1期，第327-361頁。
15.陳惠馨，中國固有法中的親子關係，台大法學論叢，1992年，第21卷第2期，第429-456頁。
16.曾孆瑾、高緻真、蔡明芳，從「兒童少年最佳利益」探討社會工作者在監護訪視的多樣性評估指標與困境，臺灣社會工作學刊，2009年，第7期，第129-162頁。
17.彭渰雯、洪綾君，為何從母姓？夫妻約定子女姓氏的影響因素調查，女學學誌：婦女與性別研究，2011年6月，第28期，第1-54頁。
18.雷文玫，以「子女最佳利益」之名：離婚後父母對未成年子女權利義務行使 與負擔之研究，台大法學論叢，1999，第28卷第3期，第245-309頁。
19.鄭麗珍，有關監護權調查評估的指標，社會發展季刊，2005年，第112期，第141-151頁。
20.戴東雄，子女稱姓之現代化，法制史研究，2016年12月，第30期，第207-248頁。
|
[Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
[檢視]
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit