親子非訟事件程序之研究──以未成年子女最佳利益之保護為核心

A Study on the Procedures of Non-Contentious Casesof Parent-Child—Focusing on the Protection of the Best Interests of Minor Children

臺灣家事事件法並未設有子女之居住地，會面交往之權利，以及子女之交付有關以及危害子女利益之程序應優先於其他程序優先與迅速處理之規定，且就上述之事件未設有要求法院須於程序開始後1個月內進行討論期日之規定，凡此均有從保障程序參與者進行言詞討論期日之權利與迅速進行子女關係事件之觀點，再加以分析之必要。為保障未成年子女之利益，此項優先與迅速進行程序之要求應如何被貫徹？與其他家事事件程序進行之關係如何？臺灣家事事件法未來是否亦可增設相同類似之規定？凡此均須作更深入之研究。
家事事件法第108條規定，法院就第107條之事件及其他親子非訟事件為裁定前，應依子女之年齡及識別能力等身心狀況，於法庭內、外，以適當之方式，曉諭裁判結果之影響，使其有表達意願或陳述意見之機會；必要時得請兒童及少年心理或其他專業人士協助。家事事件法並未明確規範在子女人身照顧之事件應使子女本人以「言詞」方式陳述其意見，家事法院原則上應加聽取其意見之陳述並加以審酌顧慮。於甚小之子女（例如小於3歲之子女），法院未獲取親自之印象是否應通知其到場？而且我國現行法並未明確規定何種例外情形為保障未成年子女之利益而不適合意見之聽取。於法院應以言詞方式親自聽取未成年子女陳述意見之情形，於實務上法院應如何進行未成年子女以言詞方式陳述意見？於子女本人為陳述時，父母與訴訟代理人可否在場？程序輔助人是否應到場？凡此均有從保障未成年子女最佳利益之觀點加以分析與研討之必要。現行家事事件法對於未成年子女憲法上保障陳述意見聽審請求權仍有如何不足之處？家事事件法對於未成年子女憲法上陳述意見聽審請求權保障上，即使有立法規範上之不足，但基於保障未成年子女於該等程序陳述意見之聽審請求權，是否應承認其可直接援引憲法上聽審請求權保障之規定，而提起憲法上聽審請求權之救濟？此將於本文作更深入之分析。臺灣家事事件法關於程序監理人之規定與德國家事事件法關於程序輔助人二者之間之差異性何在，值得作更深入研究。德國新家事事件法第158條第4項就程序輔助人之任務有明文規定，程序輔助人應確定子女之利益使其明確化，並於法院程序中提出。就上述之重要事項，我國家事事件法並未明文規定，有作詳細探討之必要。本文之目的乃在透過探討上述關於未成年子女利益如何維護之問題，致力於建構一完整保障未成年子女最佳利益之子女關係事件之程序或親子非訟事件之程序。

The Taiwan Family Procedure Law does not stipulate that the place of residence of the children, the right to meet and interact, and the procedures related to the delivery of the children and the harm to the interests of the children should take precedence over other procedures and to deal with them promptly. The court is required to determine the discussion conference within one month after the start of the procedure, and it is necessary to analyze it from the viewpoint of safeguarding the rights of the participants in the procedure to have a verbal discussion date and to proceed with the child relationship issue promptly. In order to protect the interests of minor children, should this priority and prompt procedure be implemented? Will the Taiwan Family Procedure Law also add the same and similar provisions in the future? All of these require more research. Article 108 of Taiwan’s Family Procedure Law stipulates that before the court makes a ruling on the incident in Article 107 and other parent-child non-litigation, it shall inform the child in an appropriate manner, both inside and outside the court, according to the child’s age and physical and mental conditions such as ability to identify. The influence of the judgment result gives them the opportunity to express their wishes or express their opinions; if necessary, children psychologists or other professionals may be requested to assist. It does not clearly stipulate that in the event of personal care of a child, the child should state his opinion in “words”. In principle, the family court should listen to the statement of his opinion and consider it. For very young children (such as children under the age of three), should the court not have the impression of being in person, should they be notified of their presence? Moreover, the current law does not clearly stipulate which exceptions are not suitable for hearing opinions. In the case that the court should personally hear the opinion of minor children verbally, in practice, how should the court proceed with the opinions of minor children verbally? Can parents and litigation representatives be present when the child is making a statement? Should procedural assistants be present? All these are necessary to analyze and discuss from the perspective of protecting the best interests of minor children. What are the deficiencies of Taiwan‘s Family Procedure Law regarding the constitutional protection of minor children’s right to request a hearing for representation? To protect the right of minor children to express their opinions in these procedures, should it be recognized that they can directly invoke the provisions on the protection of the right to a hearing request in the Constitution?