想養育子女的渴望,不因性向不同而改變,同性戀者和異性戀者一樣,也希望能養兒育女、共組家庭。同性戀者可透過婚姻、登記為伴侶關係或收養等方式,使其與非親生子女之關係更密切。但在我國無論是同性婚姻、同性伴侶關係、同性伴侶共同收養子女、同性伴侶收養他方之子女,還是同性戀者單身收養子女,皆不被允許,因此,子女與同性伴侶間之關係並不受到我國法律之保障。 本文主要集中於美國法制與案例之研究,輔以部分英國法制度。由於我國關於同性戀父母爭取子女親權與會面交往權之案件數量稀少,甚至根本沒有同性伴侶爭取子女監護權之相關案件,故本文主要透過美國之相關裁判,觀察該國對同性伴侶爭取子女監護權與探視權問題之運作方式,藉以提作為我國未來審理相關案件之參考。 其次,將相關問題擴及至涉外案件及外國裁判之承認與執行。我國實務目前雖無相關案例,但因現代交通發達,與外國人互動頻繁,未來會有相關案件是可預見的,故本文將討論涉外同性家庭子女監護權與會面交往權案件可能會面臨的問題。除了討論在同性家庭的涉外監護權與會面交往權中,同性伴侶在外國之合法婚姻或合法收養子女,是否認為有違我國公序良俗而有外國法適用之限制,也要探討當同性伴侶持外國之監護權或探視權裁判至我國請求承認或強制執行時,我國法院是否需認為此種賦予同性伴侶親權、監護權或探視權的裁判,不符合子女最佳利益,有違我國公序良俗而不予承認或執行該外國裁判。 我國實務認為同性戀傾向是不利於子女最佳利益因素之一,然諸多研究已證實,性傾向與擔任親職角色並不衝突,因此,本文認為若同性伴侶和子女之間已建立深厚情感,且子女在同性家庭中成長已為既定事實,法院應拋棄對同性戀者之成見,承認同性伴侶之親權,除了係保障同性伴侶組成家庭、養育子女的權利,更重要的是保護在同性家庭中成長之子女,維護其對同性伴侶心理上情感的穩定性與繼續性。
Homosexual parents desire to raise children just like heterosexuals.Moreover, homosexuals are able to make relationships with non-biological children closely by having same-sex marriages, civil unions, or children adoptions. In Taiwan, same-sex couples are not able to get married or adopt children. The relationship between same-sex couples and children are not being protected in Taiwan’s law. This article focuses on the U.S. legal system and case studies, supplemented by some laws in the British legal system. Firstly, there are only a few cases about homosexual parents fighting for child custody and visitation in our country, and there are no cases in regards to same-sex couples fighting for child custody and visitation rights. In order to give our courts references when they judge similar cases in the future, this article will observe American cases in attempt to understand how American courts solve cases in regards to the child custody of same-sex families. Secondly, this essay discusses the transnational child custody of same-sex family, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody or visitation judgments. Presently, there are no cases about the transnational child custody of same-sex family, and there are no same-sex couples applying for Taiwanese courts to recognize the foreign custody or visitation judgments. However, it is inevitable that the courts will face to this issue. In addition to discussing the cases of homosexual couples having married or adopted children in a foreign country in the transnational child custody of same-sex families, whether these cases will conflict with our public policy? When same-sex couples applying for Taiwanese courts to recognize the foreign custody or visitation judgments, will Taiwanese courts hold these judgments against the principle of the best interests of the child? In the opinion of Taiwanese courts, homosexual orientation is the one of the negative factors to the best interests of a child; nevertheless, many studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is not conflicted with a parenting role. In the opinion of this article, since the child is raised in a same-sex family, and the same-sex partner became the child’s psychological parent, the courts could abandon the prejudice in homosexuality and recognize the parental right of the same-sex partner, not only could the right of the same-sex partner be protected, but also the child could maintain emotional stability with their psychological parent.