친족위탁에 대한 재평가와 친족위탁양육자 지원을 위한 후견제도의 활용 ― 가정위탁보호 지원법(안) 발의를 계기로 ―
Rethinking kinship foster care and proposing the use of guardianship to support kinship foster caregivers: with the review of 「Foster Care Facilitation Bill」
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
While the number of children in care has been continually increasing, the pool of potential adoptive parents is not changing. Moreover, along with the increasing concerns for placing children to the institutional care, new bill has been proposed in the effort of facilitation of foster care system in Korea. The bill specifies the conditions to start and end foster care services and the legal status of foster parents, further, describes ways to support and monitor foster care services. We critically review the bill, and suggest revisions of the bill. Firstly, there should be a special caution in treating foster care as a way of achieving permanency. Rather, to contribute to the wellbeing of children in care, we suggest to use kinship care as guardianship if kinship caregivers have an ability and willingness to take care of foster children in appropriate caring environments. We can use Korean laws, Child Welfare Law and Civil Law that already exist, regulating guardianship, by their provisions related to appointing a guardian after limiting or terminating parental rights if needed. Secondly, we propose the guardianship for foster children to be subsidized by government and proper level of governmental monitoring too to facilitate the guardianship by kinship caregivers and to keep it as a stable placement. It seems premature to conclude whether kinship foster care is a better option than general foster care, since the study results are mixed when it comes to comparing children’s developmental outcomes. However, considering limited pool for the placement of children in care and the lack of children’s permanency achievement in Korea, we recommend the facilitation of a guardianship for kinship foster children. Subsidized guardianship in the United States can be a good example of permanency achievement for Korean kinship foster care children. This policy is expected to improve the quality and accountability of child welfare services for Korean foster children.
Abstract
While the number of children in care has been continually increasing, the pool of potential adoptive parents is not changing. Moreover, along with the increasing concerns for placing children to the institutional care, new bill has been proposed in the effort of facilitation of foster care system in Korea. The bill specifies the conditions to start and end foster care services and the legal status of foster parents, further, describes ways to support and monitor foster care services. We critically review the bill, and suggest revisions of the bill. Firstly, there should be a special caution in treating foster care as a way of achieving permanency. Rather, to contribute to the wellbeing of children in care, we suggest to use kinship care as guardianship if kinship caregivers have an ability and willingness to take care of foster children in appropriate caring environments. We can use Korean laws, Child Welfare Law and Civil Law that already exist, regulating guardianship, by their provisions related to appointing a guardian after limiting or terminating parental rights if needed. Secondly, we propose the guardianship for foster children to be subsidized by government and proper level of governmental monitoring too to facilitate the guardianship by kinship caregivers and to keep it as a stable placement. It seems premature to conclude whether kinship foster care is a better option than general foster care, since the study results are mixed when it comes to comparing children’s developmental outcomes. However, considering limited pool for the placement of children in care and the lack of children’s permanency achievement in Korea, we recommend the facilitation of a guardianship for kinship foster children. Subsidized guardianship in the United States can be a good example of permanency achievement for Korean kinship foster care children. This policy is expected to improve the quality and accountability of child welfare services for Korean foster children.
참고문헌 (27)
- 김주수, "친족·상속법" (2013), 법문사
- 권재문, "친권의 제한·정지 제도 도입을 위한 검토사항", 가족법연구, 28(1), pp.31~60 (2014), 한국가족법학회
- 권지성, "가정위탁 당사자들의 경험에 대한 질적 사례연구", 사회과학연구, 37(2), pp.35~77 (2013), 사회과학연구소
- 김민지, "가정위탁제도에 관한 법적 고찰 ―위탁부모의 법적지위를 중심으로―", 가족법연구, 24(2), pp.167~210 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 김상용, "2011년 가족법의 개정 동향 - 친권·후견을 중심으로 -", 법조, 60(12), pp.5~86 (2011), 법조협회
- 김상용, "가정위탁양육에 관한 민법상의 쟁점", 법조, 56(7), pp.94~147 (2007), 법조협회
- 김현수, "未成年後見制度의 改正方向에 關한 小考", 가족법연구, 28(1), pp.233~262 (2014), 한국가족법학회
- 노충래, "위탁아동의 가정위탁만족도에 관한 연구: 가정위탁 유형의 개인, 위탁부모 및 서비스 요인을 중심으로", 한국아동복지학, (29), pp.155~185 (2009), 한국아동복지학회
- 배나래, "대리양육가정 조부모의 위탁경험에 관한 질적 연구", 한국가족복지학, 18(3), pp.333~352 (2013), 한국가족복지학회[DOI]
- 윤진수, "2013년 개정민법 해설", 법무부, ~ (2013)
- 이은정, "가정위탁(Fostercar)제도에 대한 소고", 가족법연구, 16(1), pp.6~234 (2002), 한국가족법학회
- 차선자, "가정위탁 제도의 다면적 법률관계 검토", 법제연구, (45), pp.171~209 (2013), 한국법제연구원
- 정현수, "요보호아동의 복리 관점에서 본 가정위탁제도 一考", 법학논총, 33(1), pp.241~275 (2009), 법학연구소
- 최상설, "아동돌봄 유형선택에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구:영아기 돌봄유형을 중심으로", 사회복지정책, 39(3), pp.29~57 (2012), 한국사회복지정책학회
- 허남순, "가정위탁보호제도의 활성화 방안에 관한 연구", 한국아동복지학, (9) (2000), 한국아동복지학회
- 허남순, "친인척가정위탁과 일반가정위탁아동의 심리 사회적 특성 및 위탁가정의 서비스 욕구에 대한 비교연구", 한국아동복지학, (18), pp.243~270 (2004), 한국아동복지학회
- "Children's Bureau" (2013)[URL]
- Bamberger, "Beck'scher Online-Kommentar BGB" (2014)
- "Making It Work: Using the Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP) to Close the Permanency Gap for Children in Foster Care" (2012)[URL]
- Cynthia Godsoe, "Permanency Puzzle", Mich. St. L. Rev, 2013, pp.1113~ (2013)
- H. Kang, "The Outcomes of Foster Care in South Korea Ten Years After its Foundation: A Comparison with Institutional Care", Children and Youth Services Review, 13 (2013)
- H. Kang, "Theoretical Perspectives for Child Welfare Practice on Kinship Foster Care Families", Families in Society, 88(4) (2007)
- Mark F. Testa, "The Quality of Permanence: Lasting or Binding? Subsidized Guardianship and Kinship Foster Care as Alternatives to Adoption", Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L, 12, pp.499~ (2005)
- Rauscher, "Familienrecht 2" (2008), C.F.Müller
- Sacha Coupet, "Swimming Upstream against the Great Adoption Tide: Making the Case for “Impermanence,”", Cap. U. L. Rev, 34, pp.405~ (2005)
- Sarah Katz, "The Value of Permanency: State Implementation of Legal Guardianship under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997", Mich. St. L. Rev, 2013, pp.1079~ (2013)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Administration for Children and Families", ~