유럽인권재판소 판결을 통해서 본 친권상실사유와 그 심사기준

Abstract

This article examines two recent cases of the European Court of Human Rights on deprivation of parental rights and compares them to the system of deprivation and restriction of parental rights under our law. According to the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence, parents' fundamental rights not to be deprived of parental rights is based on the right to respect for family life under Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is because deprivation of parental rights results in a breakdown of the family life of the parent and the child. The right of parents to respect for his or her family life may be violated if the parent has a predisposition against his or her will, such as mental illness, as illustrated in S.S. v. Slovenia. This is also the case where, as in Y.I. v. Russia, the parent is highly motivated to be rehabilitated and has a strong attachment to the child. This was extended to the issue of deprivation of custody of foster parents in Savinovskikh and others v. Russia. However, it is also clear from the above decisions that the right of parents to respect for their family life may be restricted at the discretion of member states when necessary in a democratic society, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Convention. This is in accordance with the margin of appreciation theory as recognized by the European Court of Human Rights, and the best interests of the child have been identified as the overriding value that can be limited. Thus, in S.S. v. Slovenia, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the deprivation of parental rights in the best interests of the child, while in Y.I. v. Russia, the termination of parental rights of a mother suffering from drug addiction was considered a violation of the Convention because there was no justification for interfering with the right to respect for family life. In 2014, the Civil Code was amended to define the requirements for deprivation of parental rights as both abuse of parental rights and significant harm or risk of harm to the interests of the child, but the law was amended to be flexible by introducing not only strict deprivation of parental rights, but also suspension and restriction of parental rights in some cases. This flexible approach is positive in that it ensures that the interests of the child are the primary consideration in all cases of parental rights deprivation, and that the parent's right to respect his or her family life is limited to the minimum necessary. However, it will be necessary to amend Article 924(1) of the Korean Civil Code to specify and individualise the requirements for deprivation of parental rights to include newly emerging requirements for deprivation of parental rights, such as mental illness, drug addiction, and transsexualism.