|
|
|
| A Systematic Interpretation of Adoption Rules in the Civil Code from Triple Perspectives |
| Zhu Jingjing |
| School of Law, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Derived from the Marriage Law and judicial interpretations related to adoption, China’s adoption system was developed in the Adoption Law, and has been incorporated into the Marriage and Family Book, a part of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China. In the process of improvement, the rules of the adoption system have evolved in two dimensions. One is to establish close associations with the Marriage and Family Book, and the other is to introduce the rationale of private law underlying the Civil Code. This fact urges one to change the way of interpreting the rules set out in the Chapter V “Adoption” of the Civil Code from interpreting specific articles independently to following “the principle of serving the best interests of the adoptee”. It requires rule interpretation to be conducted from triple perspectives, namely the micro system of Chapter V “Adoption”, the medium system of the Marriage and Family Book and the macro system of the Civil Code, which constitutes the basic framework for the systematic interpretation of the adoption rules. In terms of the micro system, it is of vital importance to define the scope of adoptees. In order to classify the adoptees as defined in Subparagraphs (1) and (2) of Article 1093 in the Civil Code, such factors as the types of bereaved “parents” and the willingness of parents to abandon their children are worth careful consideration. To understand the adoptees stipulated in Subparagraph (3) of Article 1093, the “unusual difficulties” should be identified in both broad and narrow terms. In a broad sense, “unusual difficulties” include situations where the parents of a minor are both persons without full capacity for civil conduct and may do serious harm to the minor. The identification of these “unusual difficulties” should be connected with the loss of capacity for guardianship. With respect to the medium system of the Marriage and Family Book, the selection of family names for minors should be examined from this perspective. Besides Article 1112 of Chapter V “Adoption” in the Civil Code, Article 1015 is also applicable to the selection of family names for adopted children. However, in the specific process of application, it is necessary to distinguish between whether the adoptive parents determine or they change the family names of their adopted children. In the case of changing the family name of an adopted child, judgement should be made on whether the selected family name is appropriate in accordance with “the principle of serving the best interests of the adoptee”, which is a necessity to realize the mutual applicability of the rules of natural and artificial consanguinity in the Marriage and Family Book. From the perspective of the macro system of the Civil Code, the core issue lies in the effectiveness of adoption and the termination of adoptive relationship. Rules of general juridical acts have limited applicability in adoption. The four forms of general juridical acts, namely “valid”, “invalid”, “validity to be determined”, and “revocable”, are simplified into valid and invalid in adoption. This is due to the last two forms, which violate “the principle of serving the best interests of the adoptee”. This should be evaluated as “invalid”. Similar to the dissolution of contract, the types of termination of adoptive relationship also include dissolution by law, agreement, and appointment. However, to satisfy the need of identity attributes of adoptive relationship and maximizing children’s interests, the causes and procedures for different types of dissolution are strictly limited. The legal effect of termination of adoptive relationship is not exactly identical to the general effect of dissolution of contract. The former has no retroactive effect, in which the related property obligations are mainly manifested as the “compensation” to adoptive parents. On the one hand, this “compensation” has the attribute of fair responsibility and, on the other hand, it also shows the meaning of “damages” according to the scope of compensation and whether the obligor or obligee of the compensation can be blamed for the termination.
|
|
Received: 18 January 2022
|
|
|
|
1 李拥军： 《民法典时代的婚姻家庭立法的突破与局限》，《法制与社会发展》2020年第4期，第133-143页。
2 邓丽： 《收养法的社会化：从亲子法转向儿童法》，《法学研究》2020年第6期，第43-61页。
3 王晨： 《关于〈中华人民共和国民法典（草案）〉的说明——2020年5月22日在第十三届全国人民代表大会第三次会议上》，《中国人大》2020年第12期，第13-20页。
4 蒋新苗： 《收养法比较研究》，北京：北京大学出版社，2005年。
5 最高人民法院民法典贯彻实施工作领导小组主编： 《中华人民共和国民法典婚姻家庭编继承编理解与适用》，北京：人民法院出版社，2020年。
6 黄薇： 《中华人民共和国民法典婚姻家庭编释义》，北京：法律出版社，2020年。
7 德］英格博格·普珀： 《法学思维小学堂》，蔡圣伟译，北京：北京大学出版社，2011年。
8 薛宁兰、谢鸿飞： 《民法典评注：婚姻家庭编》，北京：中国法制出版社，2020年。
9 马忆南： 《婚姻家庭继承法学》（第二版），北京：北京大学出版社，2011年。
10 朱庆育： 《民法总论》（第二版），北京：北京大学出版社，2016年。
11 王歌雅： 《子女姓名权：内涵检审与制度建构》，《求是学刊》2016年第4期，第72-82页。
12 黄薇： 《中华人民共和国民法典人格权编释义》，北京：法律出版社，2020年。
13 石冠彬： 《民法典姓名权制度的解释论》，《东方法学》2020年第6期，第113-124页。
14 许中缘： 《论法律的概念——从民法典的角度》，《私法》2006年第1期，第13-78页。
15 周江洪： 《民法典合同编的制度变迁》，《地方立法研究》2020年第5期，第1-22页。
16 德］维尔纳·弗卢梅： 《法律行为论》，迟颖译，北京：法律出版社，2013年。
17 周友军： 《我国民法典编纂中收养制度的完善》，《广东社会科学》2019年第4期，第247-253页。
18 朱庆育： 《法律行为效力瑕疵体系》，《师大法学》2019年第2辑，第232-246页。
19 陈苇： 《婚姻家庭继承法学》（第三版），北京：中国政法大学出版社，2018年。
20 房绍坤、范李瑛、张洪波： 《婚姻家庭与继承法》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2018年。
21 史尚宽： 《亲属法论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年。
22 郑玉波： 《民法总则》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2003年。
23 杨代雄： 《〈民法典〉第147条（重大误解）评注》，《师大法学》2019年第2期，第147-162页。
24 谢鸿飞： 《〈民法典〉法定解除权的配置机理与统一基础》，《浙江工商大学学报》2020年第6期，第18-29页。
25 王利明、杨立新、王轶等： 《民法学》（下），北京：法律出版社，2020年。
26 王洪亮： 《债法总论》，北京：北京大学出版社，2016年。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
