| 關 鍵 詞： |
法學方法；法官依法裁判；法律解釋；法續造；憲法訴訟 |
| 中文摘要： |
關於同性配偶關係中之收養範圍，過去行政與司法實務基於司法院釋字第七四八號解釋施行法第 20 條的規範文義，僅限於一方收養他方配偶親生子女，始得為之。惟臺灣高雄少年及家事法院一則民事裁定則突破該施行法第 20 條規範文義限制，認為亦得收養他方之養子女。就同性配偶收養的議題而言，本為國內重大的政治、社會、性別及文化爭議聚焦之所在，法官就此尤應留意立法者對此所為之規範目的與規範意旨，否則即有僭越立法者與輕忽方法拘束之疑慮。本文之作亦旨在提請留意，縱令目的正當，亦不可忽略法官依法裁判與方法忠誠之憲法要求。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
legal methodology；judicial discretion bound by laws (or by the rule of law)；legal interpretation；law gap filling；constitutional litigation |
| 英文摘要： |
In the past, administrative and judicial practices only allow one party in same-sex spousal relationships to adopt the genetic child of the other party according to Article 20 of the Act for the Implementation of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748 (the "Act"), which stipulated that adoption was only permissible when one party adopted the biological children of the other spouse. However, a civil ruling by the Kaohsiung Juvenile and Family Court has surpassed the limitations of Article 20 of the Act and stated that one party may adopt the other party’s adopted child. In the context of adoption by samesex spouses, this is a significant focal point of political, social, gender, and cultural controversy in Taiwan. When interpreting laws, judges should be mindful of the purpose and the intent of the legislators. Otherwise, there will be a concern of overstepping legislative authority and neglecting the constrains of the legal interpretation doctrines. This article aims to draw attention to the importance of considering, with legitimate objectives, the constitutional requirements for judges to faithfully adhere to the rule of aw and legal methodology.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、緣起：由高雄少年及家事法院 110 年度司養聲字第 85 號同性配偶收養裁定所突顯的方法問題
貳、法適用任務與依法審判
一、司法的法解釋與法適用任務
二、方法忠誠作為權力分立與民主原則下之憲法誡命
參、法解釋與法續造的基本理解
一、探求規範目的作為法解釋之任務
二、法官法續造作為憲法問題
三、法續造與憲法訴訟
肆、欠缺方法意識的同性配偶收養裁定
一、釋字第七四八號解釋施行法第 20 條的法律解釋
二、本件收養裁定誤用漏洞、反面推論與準用等方法論內涵
三、法官拒絕適用法律與憲法訴訟
四、兒童權利公約或家庭權作為法官續造之基礎？
五、透過修法以達合憲之法政策變遷
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|