친양자 및 자녀의 성·본 변경제도에 관한 성인지적 분석

Abstract

This research analyzes the current status of the full adoption system and changing their family name and place of family origin that started in 2008 from a gender perspective and proposes the reform for the gender-neutral system based on this analysis. The following cases were studied for the research: 262 applications for full adoption that were rejected between January 1, 2008 and February 5, 2013; 71 cases that were appealed from the lower court's decision, rejecting their applications for changing children's family name and place of family origin between January 1, 2008 and July 16, 2013; and 45 cases of dissolution of full adoption that were granted from January 1, 2008 and July 16, 2013. The researchers reached the following conclusions:First of all, most of the recent full adoptions was primarily for stepfathers to adopt stepsons. Second, a biological mother tends to try to make her family look "normal", which centers around a stepfather by having him adopt her children as soon as possible. Third, this newly formed family easily ceases to exist once the marriage is terminated and adoption dissolution follows. Fourth, judges favor taking a stepfather's family name and place of family origin over mother's when changing child's family name and the place of family origin. Fifth, a couple of reasons is behind judges' cautious attitude towards granting applications for taking mother's family name for childeren; 1) a stereotype that taking mother's family name and place of family origin is still unusual and 2) the concern that after changing to mother's family name and place of family origin, it will be re-changed to stepfather's after the mother re-marries. Such lower court's tendency reflects its unfavorable view on single-mother families. That the ratio for adoption dissolution and retaking their original family names and places of origin following a breakdown of remarriage is high does not stop lower courts from granting applications for changing family names and places of family origin of children to stepfathers'. This practice reinforces prejudice against divorced women, thus, interfering with women's right to divorce. It also puts children's wellbeing in danger by allowing making changes to legal status of children frequently depending on their mother's marital status. Therfore, the proviso statute of the Article 908-2, the section 1 should be repealed. Also, grounds for adoption dissolutions should be limited so that people will think it over thoroughly at the time of adoption. It should be declared that a principle is to grant an application when it asks to change family name and place of family origin of children to mother's. To prevent a perception that taking mother's family name and place of family origin is still unusual, Article 781, Section 1 and 6 of the civil law should be amended.