친권 제한의 유연화 —신분적 효력을 중심으로—
Flexibilization of the Restrictions upon Parental Authority —Concerning the Effect upon the Person of a Child—
0
조회
0
다운로드
21
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
When parents are unable to accomplish parental responsibility due to mental, physical, or economic problems, a state or a community intervenes for the best interest of the child. However, the state should guarantee the child and the parents to live together unless the court decides to separate them for the sake of the child. It is because the termination of a parent-child relationship by the complete forfeiture of parental authority can have a negative effect upon the stability and continuity of child custody. However, there is a problem that the third party, according to Korean civil code, cannot be involved in custody without terminating a parent-child relationship. In other words, only parents can have full rights of child rearing unless parents lose their parental authority. Even in the case in which the state or the community supports child-rearing, there is no specific rule concerning the relationship between parents and a third party for custody. Such inflexibility and vagueness impede us to make the best interest of child. If such codes on parental authority are flexiblized by allowing partial restrictions or temporary suspension of parental authority, each child can be provided with suitable security and cares more efficiently. When parental authority is partially restricted or suspended, a third party should get into undertake limited rights and responsibilities of parental authority. At this time, the rights of the third party in child rearing and parental authority should be acknowledged and clarified to complement parents’ limited authority. The extent of and the criterion for such limitation of parental authority should be determined by family court concerning the best interest of the child. In this respect, the role of the family court should be more expanded and fortified.
Abstract
When parents are unable to accomplish parental responsibility due to mental, physical, or economic problems, a state or a community intervenes for the best interest of the child. However, the state should guarantee the child and the parents to live together unless the court decides to separate them for the sake of the child. It is because the termination of a parent-child relationship by the complete forfeiture of parental authority can have a negative effect upon the stability and continuity of child custody. However, there is a problem that the third party, according to Korean civil code, cannot be involved in custody without terminating a parent-child relationship. In other words, only parents can have full rights of child rearing unless parents lose their parental authority. Even in the case in which the state or the community supports child-rearing, there is no specific rule concerning the relationship between parents and a third party for custody. Such inflexibility and vagueness impede us to make the best interest of child. If such codes on parental authority are flexiblized by allowing partial restrictions or temporary suspension of parental authority, each child can be provided with suitable security and cares more efficiently. When parental authority is partially restricted or suspended, a third party should get into undertake limited rights and responsibilities of parental authority. At this time, the rights of the third party in child rearing and parental authority should be acknowledged and clarified to complement parents’ limited authority. The extent of and the criterion for such limitation of parental authority should be determined by family court concerning the best interest of the child. In this respect, the role of the family court should be more expanded and fortified.
참고문헌 (35)
- 곽민희, "프랑스법상 親權의 歸屬과 行使 —親權移任制度(la délégation de l'autorité parentale)를 中心으로—", 가족법연구, 26(3), pp.99~132 (2012), 한국가족법학회
- 김상용, "친권상실선고제도의 문제점", 고시연구, 26(6) (1999)
- 김상용, "이혼시 양육권과 친권이 분할 귀속된 경우 양자의 관계, In 가족법연구 Ⅱ" (2006), 법문사
- 김상용, "독일가정법원의 기능과 역할", 가족법연구, 22(3), pp.105~150 (2008), 한국가족법학회
- 김유미, "아동의 권리실현을 위한 관계법의 연구", 가족법연구, (10) (1996), 한국가족법학회
- 김유미, "현행 친권상실선고제도의 문제점과 대응책", 가족법연구, (11) (1997), 한국가족법학회
- 박종택, "젠더관련 가족분야 법과 판례의 최근 변화와 쟁점, 그리고 가정법원의 변화", 젠더법학, 4(1) (2012), 한국젠더법학회
- 박주영, "자녀의 이익을 위한 가사사건 절차상 대리인제도 -영국과 독일의 제도를 중심으로-", 민사법학, (46), pp.477~518 (2009), 한국민사법학회
- 박주영, "최근 일본의 친권제한에 관한 개정 논의의 소개 및 그 시사점", 가족법연구, 24(3), pp.363~402 (2010), 한국가족법학회
- 박주영, "독일과 프랑스의 친권제한제도에 관한 고찰 － 부모에 의한 아동학대사례를 중심으로 －", 안암법학, (33), pp.141~177 (2010), 안암법학회
- 법원행정처, "법원실무제요 가사 (Ⅱ)", ~ (2010)
- 양혜원, "자녀보호의 관점에서 본 양육권 문제 ―영국과 미국의 법이 주는 시사점―", 가족법연구, 25(3), pp.69~104 (2011), 한국가족법학회
- 윤진수, "미국법상 부모의 자녀에 대한 치료 거부에 따르는 법적 문제", 가족법연구, 18(1), pp.9~74 (2004), 한국가족법학회
- 이봉민, "자녀에 대한 의료행위에 관한 친권남용 통제 - 서울동부지방법원 2010. 10. 21.자 2010카합2341 결정 -", 법조, 61(5), pp.233~280 (2012), 법조협회[DOI]
- 이은정, "비친권자의 양육권", 가족법연구, 21(1), pp.165~186 (2007), 한국가족법학회
- 이은정, "미국법상 양육자 결정에 대한 소고 － 부모 아닌 자의 양육 참여를 중심으로 －", 안암법학, (28), pp.155~184 (2009), 안암법학회
- 이유정, "가정법원의 문제점과 개선방안", 가족법연구, 22(3), pp.1~66 (2008), 한국가족법학회
- 이준일, "친권포기각서의 위헌성", 헌법논총, 22 (2011), 헌법재판소
- 이화숙, "현행 친권법상 자녀의 이익과 부모의 책임", 정신건강연구, 15 (1996), 한양대학교 정신건강연구소
- 이혜원, "한일 아동복지법의 내용에 관한 비교연구", 한국사회복지학, 58(2), pp.167~198 (2006), 한국사회복지학회
- 제철웅, "친권과 자녀의 권리의 충돌과 그 조정방향: 자의 인권을 중심으로, In 인권과 법 Ⅱ", 아세아여성법학, (9) (2006), 아세아여성법학연구소
- 최진섭, "친권상실에 관한 비교법적 연구", 가족법연구, (10) (1996), 한국가족법학회
- 최진섭, "친권법의 쟁점과 개정 방향", 가족법연구, 16(1), pp.3~122 (2002), 한국가족법학회
- 한봉희, "친권법의 새로운 전개", 가족법연구, (11) (1997), 한국가족법학회
- 海外制度調査報告書(イギリス及びフランス), "日本 法務省", ~
- 海外制度調査報告書(ドイツ), "日本 法務省", ~
- Randy Frances Kandel, "Family Law" (2000), Aspen Law & Business
- Peter Gottwald, "Family ＆ Succession Law in Germany" (2001), C. H. Beck
- S.M. Creteney, "Priciples of Family Law" (2003), Sweet ＆ Maxwell