지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
When we are discussing the measures to prevent child abuse in our society, the issue of parental authority should be considered. In reality, about 80 percent of child abuse offenders are parents. Therefore, proper state intervention for the parental authority is needed to prevent child abuse. It can be understood in this context that the protection orders for child victims under the ACT ON SPECIAL CASES CONCERNING THE PUNISHMENT OF CHILD ABUSE CRIMES include measures concerning the parental authority, such as restriction on or suspension of the exercise of parental authority.
After the ACT ON SPECIAL CASES CONCERNING THE PUNISHMENT OF CHILD ABUSE CRIMES was enacted, the regulation of the Civil Act on the parental authority was amended. However, the revised regulation of the Civil Act for the loss of parental authority has flaws that can not be overcome by interpretation alone, and there is confusion in interpretation of the regulation due to the uncertainty of the concept.
The current Article 924 of the Civil Act stipulates the abuse of parental authority and the violation of the child interests is needed as a requirement of loss or temporary suspension of parental authority. Compared to the current regulation, the previous Article 924 described that if only there is a gross misconduct or any other serious reasons for not allowing the parent to exercise parental authority, then the Family Court may adjudicate on the loss of parental authority. However, new Article 924 eliminated the requirements of “gross misconduct” and “any other serious reasons for not allowing the parent to exercise parental authority” without a reasonable reason. As a result, the family court can not adjudicate the parents the loss of the parental authority even if the parents did gross misconduct.
The concept of “any cause making it impracticable or inappropriate for father or mother to exercise his or her parental authority” as a requirement for partial restriction of parental authority (Article 924-2 of the Civil Act) is equivocal. Discussions in the legislative process also indicate that it can not be different from the abuse of parental authority, a requirement of the loss or temporary suspension of parental authority. This is because Commissioners for the Reform Act consistently cite cases of parents refusing to treat their children, which correspond to passive abuse of the parental authority. However, given the context of the relevant regulations it could be interpreted as a different concept from the abuse of the parental authority. Even if interpreted literally, it is a different concept from the abuse of parental authority.
The concept of partial restriction of parental authority is unclear, and it causes confusion in the interpretation. If the family court adjudicate partial restriction of parental authority, the father or mother may not exercise the part of the parental authority that was restricted by the court"s adjudication. The father or mother can not exercise parental authority again until the Family Court adjudicates on the recovery of the lost parental authority according to Article 926 of the Civil Act. This means that partial restriction of parental authority of the Article 924-2 has the same legal force as the loss of parental authority. If the legislator intended the partial loss of parental authority by using the words “partial restriction of parental authority”, they should have described that expression clearly in the context.
The revised Civil Act on the loss or temporary suspension of parental authority and partial restriction of parental authority has legal defects that cannot be overcome by interpretation. There is also confusion in the interpretation due to the equivocalness of the new concepts and terms used in the revised Civil Act.
I would argue that it should be amended to solve this problem.
After the ACT ON SPECIAL CASES CONCERNING THE PUNISHMENT OF CHILD ABUSE CRIMES was enacted, the regulation of the Civil Act on the parental authority was amended. However, the revised regulation of the Civil Act for the loss of parental authority has flaws that can not be overcome by interpretation alone, and there is confusion in interpretation of the regulation due to the uncertainty of the concept.
The current Article 924 of the Civil Act stipulates the abuse of parental authority and the violation of the child interests is needed as a requirement of loss or temporary suspension of parental authority. Compared to the current regulation, the previous Article 924 described that if only there is a gross misconduct or any other serious reasons for not allowing the parent to exercise parental authority, then the Family Court may adjudicate on the loss of parental authority. However, new Article 924 eliminated the requirements of “gross misconduct” and “any other serious reasons for not allowing the parent to exercise parental authority” without a reasonable reason. As a result, the family court can not adjudicate the parents the loss of the parental authority even if the parents did gross misconduct.
The concept of “any cause making it impracticable or inappropriate for father or mother to exercise his or her parental authority” as a requirement for partial restriction of parental authority (Article 924-2 of the Civil Act) is equivocal. Discussions in the legislative process also indicate that it can not be different from the abuse of parental authority, a requirement of the loss or temporary suspension of parental authority. This is because Commissioners for the Reform Act consistently cite cases of parents refusing to treat their children, which correspond to passive abuse of the parental authority. However, given the context of the relevant regulations it could be interpreted as a different concept from the abuse of the parental authority. Even if interpreted literally, it is a different concept from the abuse of parental authority.
The concept of partial restriction of parental authority is unclear, and it causes confusion in the interpretation. If the family court adjudicate partial restriction of parental authority, the father or mother may not exercise the part of the parental authority that was restricted by the court"s adjudication. The father or mother can not exercise parental authority again until the Family Court adjudicates on the recovery of the lost parental authority according to Article 926 of the Civil Act. This means that partial restriction of parental authority of the Article 924-2 has the same legal force as the loss of parental authority. If the legislator intended the partial loss of parental authority by using the words “partial restriction of parental authority”, they should have described that expression clearly in the context.
The revised Civil Act on the loss or temporary suspension of parental authority and partial restriction of parental authority has legal defects that cannot be overcome by interpretation. There is also confusion in the interpretation due to the equivocalness of the new concepts and terms used in the revised Civil Act.
I would argue that it should be amended to solve this problem.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 아동학대처벌법상 피해아동보호명령
Ⅲ. 친권상실 등에 관한 개정민법 규정의 문제점과 개선방향
Ⅳ. 맺음말
참고문헌
국문초록
Abstract
참고문헌 (17)
참고문헌 신청
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 권재문 / 2014 / 친권의 제한·정지 제도 도입을 위한 검토사항 / 가족법연구 28 (1) : 31 ~ 60
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김민중 / 2009 / 의료계약의 당사자로서의 「환자」와 관련한 문제에 대한 검토 / 의료법학 10 (2) : 253 ~ 286
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김상용 / 2016 / 부모가 장기간 소재불명인 경우 미성년자녀에 대한 후견개시 여부에 대한 고찰 / 중앙법학 18 (4) : 207 ~ 232
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김유미 / 1997 / 현행 친권상실선고제도의 문제점과 대응책 / 가족법연구 (11)
[단행본] - 김주수 / 2018 / 친족·상속법 / 법문사
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김민중 / 2009 / 의료계약의 당사자로서의 「환자」와 관련한 문제에 대한 검토 / 의료법학 10 (2) : 253 ~ 286
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김상용 / 2016 / 부모가 장기간 소재불명인 경우 미성년자녀에 대한 후견개시 여부에 대한 고찰 / 중앙법학 18 (4) : 207 ~ 232
[학술지(정기간행물)] - 김유미 / 1997 / 현행 친권상실선고제도의 문제점과 대응책 / 가족법연구 (11)
[단행본] - 김주수 / 2018 / 친족·상속법 / 법문사
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
서울동부지방법원 2010. 10. 21.자 2010카합2341 결정
[1] 신생아는 자기결정권을 가지고 있으나 문제되는 진료행위를 받을 것인지 여부를 판단하고 그러한 의사를 표시할 수 있는 능력이 없다. 이러한 경우 친권자가 자녀를 대신하여 진료행위에 대한 동의를 하게 되는데, 이러한 친권자의 동의는 자기결정권이 일신전속적인 성격을 갖고 있음을 고려할 때 자녀의 자기결정권을 대리하여 행사하는 것이 아니라 자
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
이혼시 친권자 공동지정과 친권 일부 제한 - 친권자 공동지정에 따른 공시방법에 관한 실무상 검토 -
가족법연구
2016 .07
-
청소년 자녀를 둔 어머니의 학부모 역할 스트레스, 가족응집력, 가족적응력이 부모 효능감에 미치는 영향
Human Ecology Research
2016 .01
-
다문화 부부와 한국부부의 부모역할 공평성 가치관과 부모역할 만족도
한국가족복지학
2017 .01
-
[논문] 피학대아동에 대한 법적 보호 : 민법상 친권제한제도를 중심으로
법학연구
2015 .12
-
피해아동의 분리 보호와 친권의 제한
가족법연구
2019 .01
-
미성년자 입양 시 부모의 동의에 관한 민법 제870조 규정의 이해
법학논총
2017 .01
-
중국 부모교육 연구동향 분석 - 학술지를 중심으로 -
동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집
2024 .06
-
아동학대에 대한 친권제한의 실효적 적용에 관한 고찰 : 일본의 아동학대 방지 관련 법제와의 비교를 중심으로
법학연구
2016 .05
-
아버지의 부모역할지능과 훈육방식 간의 관계
한국유아교육연구
2019 .01
-
중국 부모교육 연구동향 분석- 학술지를 중심으로 -
동북아 문화연구
2024 .09
-
어린이집 이용 부모의 역할 책임에 대한 부모의 인식과 실행 차이
한국보육지원학회지
2019 .01
-
친권의 본질에 관한 검토 - ‘친자법’과 ‘혼인법·이혼법’의 관계 재정립 -
가족법연구
2016 .03
-
3-5세 유아기 어머니의 불확실성에 대한 인내력 부족, 양육불안과 부모소진 간의 관계에서 부모소명의 조절된 매개효과
아동학회지
2024 .11
-
대학생의 아동기 학대경험, 부모의 알코올 중독, 우울, 취업스트레스의 구조적 관계
알코올과 건강행동연구
2017 .01
-
재산적 효력에 관한 친권 제한 제도에 관한 고찰
입법과 정책
2015 .01
-
친권자의 대리권과 재산관리권에 대한 상실 선고의 청구권자
법학연구
2017 .09
-
친권정지와 면접교섭권
법학논총
2015 .01
-
Rethinking the Role of the Same-Gender Parent : Impacts of Parental Migration and Parental Emotional Support on Life Satisfaction of Adolescent Boys and Girls
한국사회학회 심포지움 논문집
2018 .05
-
부모기대에 부응하지 못한다고 지각하는 대학생들의 부모기대에 대한 경험: 합의적 질적연구
한국심리학회지: 상담 및 심리치료
2018 .01
-
영유아 어머니의 자녀돌봄시간 사용 유형화와 유형별 시간사용만족도 및 시간부족감
한국보육지원학회지
2018 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
아동보호 공적책임 강화를 위한 아동학대 사망 사례연구 －기초 지자체의 학대아동 조기발굴 체계를 중심으로－
최현임
한국아동복지학
2020
.03
상속의 이념과 방향 : 민법 상속편 개정, 어떻게 할 것인가?
이진기
비교사법
2019
.02
가정폭력·아동학대에 대한 경찰개입의 한계요인과 개선방안
김혁
,
김학경
경찰학연구
2018
.03
위탁아동의 친권과 후견 : 보호의 공백에 처한 아동들
김상용
중앙법학
2017
.12
「아동학대범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법」상 아동학대범죄의 의미와 수사기관의 긴급임시조치에 대한 검토 및 개선방안
강동욱
법학연구
2017
.09
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-360-003597591