女同志家庭親子關係法制之研究

Study on the Laws of Parent-Child Relationship in Lesbian Family

李惠珊(HUI-SHAN LEE)

指導教授 ： 雷文玫 ； 林昀嫺

國立清華大學/科技管理學院/科技法律研究所/碩士(2008年)

摘要

在我國現行法令實務下，同志還無法結婚，能夠使用捐精捐卵等人工協助生殖科技的人，也僅限於異性戀已婚的夫妻，而同志收養子女是否會被法院認可，也有疑問。不過，國內已有人權保障基本法草案、同志婚姻法草案等，這些法令草擬、討論與施行的結果，將形塑台灣家庭的樣貌。本文從人工協助生殖技術提供的種種可能性，及事實上存在的同志家庭於有限的法律支持或者阻礙下，檢視其對親屬法上親子關係的意涵。第二章從同志家庭在台灣面臨的困境與挑戰，由拉媽報及女同志媽媽聯盟田野觀察資料，介紹臺灣同志組成家庭之現況，約略分為人工協助生殖模式、女男同志協議結婚、離婚爭取監護權、事實上的扶養關係等，進而引出台灣同志家庭需要家庭權益保障之立法需求。第三章由組成家庭的權利與要件開始談起，由家庭權的法制思考家庭主要組成要件為何，並討論建立生育自主權之可能。第四章論限制同志組成家庭之平等權違憲審查，由平等使用人工生殖技術的權利及同志收養不受歧視，闡述親子關係構成之延伸與限制是否符合平等原則，及同志家庭亦應適用親子關係構成要件成立法律上之親子關係，否則不符合平等權之內涵。第五章論證國外立法例與法院實務的啟示，介紹目前已有的同居伴侶法與同志婚姻法對同志親權之保障，以丹麥、英、美等國為例，有以伴侶關係及無法定伴侶關係之同志成為父母之多元方式。同志自主地發動成立家庭，科技並非只侷限於父權與資本主義社會的枷鎖，同志家庭亦非近年來新興之家庭型態，由離開傳統婚姻之同志父母帶著小孩與其伴侶所建立家庭存在已久，在另類的母職實踐中，同志家庭展現了多元的性別角色，而法律不應歧視同志應有之生育權與組成家庭之權利。

關鍵字

同志家庭 ； 親子關係 ； 拉媽報 ； 女同志媽媽 ； 家庭權 ； 生育自由

並列摘要

Lesbians and gays are not allowed to marry according to the laws in Taiwan now, and only the married couple of husband and wife could use the Artificial Reproductive Technology (ART). It is also doubt that whether the court will grant the adoption of lesbian and gay parents. However, there were draft Basic Law for Human Rights Protection and draft Marriage Act for Lesbians and Gays once proposed, those discussions and proposals in the end will formulate the future family in Taiwan. This paper will review the parent-child relationship on the aspects of the possibilities provided from the ART and the existing lesbian families in Taiwan, though there are limited support and many obstacles from the law now. In Chapter 2, I introduced the difficulties and the challenges which lesbian families faced in Taiwan, the Taiwan lesbian family status and materials were from the LaMaNews, e-paper for the lesbian mothers, and the field work observation from joining the Lesbian Mothers’ Alliance, which combined into the “Taiwan LGBT Family Rights Advocacy” in July 2007. We can see there are urgent needs of the family rights protection for the LGBT families, and those needs are showed from the different ways of composing lesbian families, for example, using the ART to have children, lesbian and gay married to each other under private joint agreements, claiming for custody when divorce, factual nurturing and caring relationship etc. In Chapter 3, I discuss about the family rights and important conditions of forming a family, reviewing the related laws and regulations, the right of reproduction, and the right of reproductive autonomy. In Chapter 4, I argue whether the limitation on LGBT forming family can be justified under the Constitution of R.O.C.? I argued that the restriction on lesbians, gays and single persons using ART, and the rejection on the application of adoption only because the sex orientation of homosexuals are against the equal protection principle of the Constitution. In Chapter 5, I introduce the legislatures which protect same sex couple’s relationship, for example, the “Registered Partnership Act” in Demark, the “Civil Partnership Act” in the UK, the “civil union” and “domestic partnership” in some states in the United States. There are also cases using “second-parent adoption”, “joint adoption” and “Equitable Estoppels” to build the parent-child relationship for the lesbian families in the United States. In conclusion, no matter the law or the court shall not ban LGBT to form their family and their right of reproduction; the existing LGBT families need the protection of stable parent-child relationship, which will also be the best interest of the child. The law shall give the equal protection for LGBT families on the non-discriminatory basis.

並列關鍵字

LGBT family ； Parent-child relationship ； LaMaNews ； Lesbian mothers ； family right ； freedom of reproduction

參考文獻

雷文玫，1999，以「子女最佳利益」之名—離婚後父母對未成年子女權利義務行使與負擔之研究，台大法學論叢，28卷3期。

李震山，2004，憲法意義下之「家庭權」，中正法學集刊第十六期。

張維民，2006，由代孕生殖法草案論代孕者之身體自主權，成大法研所碩士論文。陳家和，2006，代理孕母制度之研究，中國文化大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

潘皆成，2004，雙重衣櫃：已婚男同志的生命敘說，高雄醫學大學性別研究所碩士論文。

Marjorie Maguire Shultz, "REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND INTENT-BASED PARENTHOOD: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GENDER NEUTRALITY", 1990 Wis. L. Rev. 297.