同志收養未成年子女之研究 －理論基礎與政策方向－

Same-Sex Adoption--Theory and Policy

林孝穎(Hsiao-Ying Lin)

指導教授 ： 李立如

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/CYCU.2010.00597

摘要

本論文之問題意識 ，在於討論同志收養未成年子女，是否違背子女最佳利益？本文所採取的研究方法，因為包括法律釋義學、文獻分析法及比較研究法，除收集國內的期刊論文外，並會討論美國涉及同志收養之法律、案例及期刊。
藉討論同志收養之議題，本文希望達成三個目的。第一，因為同志的性傾向不應該是法院允許收養與否的決定性因素，所以應著重在收養人照顧未成年子女的能力。第二，為使法院能落實子女最佳利益，本文嘗試提出建議，以協助法院能中立、謹慎審視收養注意事項，避免法院受到社會偏見影響。第三，既然同志收養未必不合子女最佳利益，本文希望對同志收養的未來政策方向提出建議。
至於研究之架構，第一章緒論描述本論文研究的動機與目的，並說明本題目之研究範圍與研究架構。第二章討論桃園地院的收養裁定及收養法制基礎，以突顯同志收養所引發的爭議。但是因為我國實務對同志收養尚無明確的態度，所以第三章討論美國同志收養之實務與學說，提供我國反思同志收養的素材。至於第四章則是討論對美國最高法院產生部分影響力的寬容理論；受寬容理論影響，最高法院對同志開始顯示寬容、尊重及接受的態度，此改變啟發本文主張我國應保障同志憲法上的家庭權及收養權。第五章，則討論如何落實子女最佳利益並對同志收養政策的未來方向提出建議。最後，第六章則總結上述之內容。
依據本文研究之結果，為降低子女最佳利益的不確定性，主張法院應運用社會科學資訊、增加專業人員的參與及詳細審查各項要素。另外，對同志收養政策則有四項建議：第一，關於同志單身收養政策，法院如以同志性傾向作為駁回收養的唯一理由，法院應提出證據。第二，本文建議增加同志收養的類型（第二父母收養）。第三，立法院應盡速通過人權基本法草案。第四，落實性別平等教育法。

關鍵字

家庭權 ； 第二父母收養 ； 同志收養 ； 性傾向 ； 子女最佳利益

並列摘要

The research question of the dissertation lies in discussing whether or not same-sex adoption is against the best interest of the child? Because the methods of the research used in this paper are legal dogmatics, document analysis and comparative study, besides collecting domestic periodicals and dissertations, we will discuss American laws, periodicals and cases about same-sex adoption.
By discussing the topic about same-sex adoption, the dissertation hopes to achieve three purposes. First, because sexual orientation of homosexuals is not a decisive factor in whether courts shall grant adoption, we should center on adopters’ abilities to take care of children. Second, in order to make courts carry out the best interest of the child, I try to make suggestions to help courts consider all the conditions about adoption in a neutral and cautious way and keep courts from social prejudice. Third, since same-sex adoption is not necessary against the best interest of the child, this paper desires to make suggestions about future policy of same-sex adoption.
As to the framework of the study, the first chapter “ Preface” describes the motive and aim of the research and illustrates the scope and structure of the subject. In chapter 2, we will discuss the adoption ruling decided by Taoyuan district court and the law foundation about adoption to stress the controversy about same-sex adoption. But, because courts’ attitudes toward same-sex adoption are unclear, in chapter 3 I will discuss American practices and theories to supply us materials which we can introspect. As regards the fourth chapter, we will talk about “Tolerance Theory” which has a partial influence on United States Supreme Court. Affected by “Tolerance Theory”, the Supreme Court has begun to display tolerance, respect and acceptance for gays and lesbians. This change inspires me to contend we should protect gays’ and lesbians’ constitutional family right and adoption right. So far as chapter 5 is concerned, we will discuss how to fulfill the best interest of the child and make suggestions about future policy about same-sex adoption. Finally, the sixth chapter “Conclusion” sum ups the contents above.
According to the research result, for reducing the uncertainty of the best interest of the child, this paper recommends courts shall use social science studies, increase participations of professionals and checks factors in detail. In addition, there are four suggestions about same-sex adoption policy: first, with reference to single same-sex adoption, if the only reason courts overrule adoption petitions is homosexuals’ sexual orientation, courts should give evidences; second, this study suggests increasing the type of same-sex adoption (second-parent adoption); third, the Legislative Yuan should pass the draft of “Human Rights Basic Code” as soon as possible; fourth, we should carry out Gender Equity Education Act.

並列關鍵字

family right ； second-parent adoption ； same-sex adoption ； the best interest of the child ； sexual orientation

參考文獻

42. 謝如媛，刑法規範下的家庭秩序，台大法學論叢，第三十五卷第六期，頁291-329（2006）。

31. 雷文玫，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，台大法學論叢，第二十八卷第三期，頁245-309（1999）。

21. 郭振恭，論修正後之收養，國立高雄大學法學論叢，第三卷第一期，頁103-123（2007）。

23. 郭德厚，父母權利義務之定性、質變與複製-優生保健法修正草案第十一條第三項規定之商榷，國立中正大學法學集刊，第二十五期，頁179-226（2008）。

9. 李震山，憲法意義下之「家庭權」，中正大學法學集刊，第十六期，頁61-104（2004）。