適度的懲戒與虐待,有時僅有一線之隔。當父母對其子女進行懲戒時,往往會造成子女身體上的傷害,因而侵害子女的身體不受傷害權。基於虐待會對兒童的人格產生嚴重的影響,且親權本身即含有利他的性質,國家面對父母濫用其權利時,得以限制親權的手段來保障兒童的身體不受傷害權。然而,在此又會出現另一個問題,當國家爲保護兒童的身體不受傷害權而限制父母的親權時,另一方面也會侵害到兒童的家庭成長權。而家庭成長權屬於人格權的一環,受憲法基本權的保障,就此而言,縱使國家爲有效保護兒童而限制其家庭成長權也需有憲法正當性,本文認爲其憲法正當性即在於兒童的最佳利益。最後,要強調的一點是,家庭有其不可取代的功能,國家限制親權的目的並非要取代家庭的功能,毋寧其係處於輔助家庭功能健全的角色,讓兒童能在健全的家庭中成長。
An excess of discipline turns to abuse. When parents exercise their discipline power towards children, it will lead to the physical harm of the children. Since abuse has a great effect upon children's personality and the core of parental rights is for children's good, state can protect children from abuse by limiting parental rights; namely, states can limit parental rights to guarantee children's right not to be physically harmed. However, another problem appears: though the purpose of limiting parental rights is to secure children from being harmed, yet it will infringe children's right to grow up in the family. Owing to children's right to grow up in the family is part of personal rights, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, state should ensure its constitutionality in limiting children's right to grow up in the family. This article believes that the constitutional legitimacy of state to limit children's right to grow up in the family is based on the best interests of the children. Last but not least, family has it irreplaceable functions. The goal of States to limit parental rights is not to replace the functions of family, but to assist family instead.