政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/49709

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/49709

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51052854 Online Users : 920

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Law > Master of Laws Program for Executives > Theses > Item 140.119/49709

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49709

Title:	成年監護制度之研究 The study of adult guardianship
Authors:	蔡佩伃 Tsai, Peiyu
Contributors:	林秀雄蔡佩伃 Tsai, Peiyu
Keywords:	成年監護法日本成年監護制度德國成年照護法英國2005年意思能力法美國2006年統一代理權授與授權法意定監護制度 adult guardianship law voluntarily nominated guardian German adult guardianship law Japan adult guardianship law Mental Capacity Act 2005 Unifrom Power of Attorney Act 2006
Date:	2009
Issue Date:	2010-12-08 17:30:10 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本研究以民國97年5月23日總統公布民法總則編修正條文第14條、15條，增訂第15條之1及第15條之2，民法親屬編第4章監護與輔助制度之新規定，以及法院實務運作為探討重心，輔以分析比較大陸法系國家--德國成年照護制度與日本成年後見制度，以及英美法系國家--英國2005年意思能力法案與美國2006年統一代理權授與授權法之制度，以針對我國學者對於新成年監護制度之見解與目前實務運作所產生之問題為之探討，以提出以下結論與建議：一、基於尊重本人自主權之理念，未來應制定意定監護制度。二、法定監護制度之修正：(1)意思能力之判斷原則應有明確規範，並以英國2005年意思能力法五項指導原則為判斷守則。(2)不應一律剝奪受監護宣告人之行為能力。(3)監護聲請權人應增列未成年監護人、同居人與同性生活伴侶。(4)受破產宣告之人雖不可為財產管理之監護人，但可為身上照護之監護人。(5)監護事務方面，關於重大醫療照護等身上監護事項應明文規定交由法院審查。(6)受監護人之自主權與保護受監護人之利益應有所平衡。(7)建議增列繼任監護人，以及解決監護關係相對終了，因監護人無繼承人時，無人管理受監護人財產移交與結算事項等問題。(8)輔助宣告方面：因輔助人只有同意權無代理權可代受輔助人行使所物返還請求權，為保護受輔助人，可由法院賦予輔助人行使特定財產行為之代理權。(9)最佳利益原則：法院應鼓勵受監護人參與監護事務之決定，並考量受監護宣告之人過去、現在願望與感受，以及受監護宣告之人之價值觀和信仰如何影響其決定，亦即受監護人即便現在欠缺意思能力，其意見仍應予以尊重。三、監護監督制度是監護制度成功與否之重要機制，鑒於國外成年監護制度均設有監護監督機構，以支援法院為監護監督工作，又考量監護品質之維護，我國未來應設立協助法院監督之機關。 This research is intended to study the amendments of Civil Code, Article 14, Article 15, Article 15-1, Article 15-2, and Section 2 Guardianship and Assistantship over Adults of Chapter IV announced by the President on May 23, 2008, and to investigate the adult guardianship cases. Furthermore, this research chooses four advanced countries--Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States to compare and analyze their legal systems of adult guardianship. Those countries’ adult guardianship legal systems and the scholars’ viewpoint provide the following conclusions and suggestions: First, according to the underlying philosophy of respecting decision-making power of the ward, we should establish the voluntarily nominated guardian model. Secondly, the Adult Guardianship Act should be amended：(1) A definite standard for a person’s capacity of evaluation should be clarified. We can adopt the UK Mental Capacity Act 2005, the five statutory principles to help evaluate if a person lacks capacity. (2) The Act should not deprive a person of all his legal capacity, when once a person is declared incapacity by the family court. (3) The Act’s applicants should include minor guardian and civil partnership. (4) Guardians who are bankrupt will no longer be allowed to act as guardians for property and affairs but can still act as guardians for personal welfare. (5) The ward’s personal welfare decisions on serious healthcare and treatment should be put before the family court for approval. (6) The act should aim to balance an individual’s right to make decisions for themselves with their right to be protected from harm if they lack capacity to make decisions to protect themselves. (7) The guardian’s authority terminates when the guardian dies. However, a problem will arise from it. The problem is that if the guardian does not have a successor, the guardian cannot transfer the ward’s property to a new guardian. To solve the problem, adopting a successor guardian may be a good method. (8)The assistance (advisory) system：Because assistants do not have authority to take actions to ask the third person to give back the person’s property, the authority should be granted to assistants by the family court in order to protect their interests. (9) Best interests: The family court must consider the ward’s past and present wishes, feelings, beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his/her decision if he or she had capacity. Thirdly, monitoring guardian system can help adult guardianship system to operate successfully, and protect those wards. Many countries such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States are all devoted to developing their monitoring guardian system. In taking the quality of the adult guardianship into consideration, our country should establish monitoring guardian system in the future.
Reference:	一、中文資料王育慧 (2004)。論高齡者財產管理法制。中央警察大學法學論文集，第9期。內政部資訊服務網 (2010)。內政統計98年底我國戶籍登記人口結構分析。(2010年1月10日)。取自：http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/. 司法院法學資料檢索系統 (2010)。民事裁定書。(2010年3月23日)。取自：http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/Index.htm 李沃實 (1999)。德國成年照護法之解析。中央警察大學法學論文集，第4期。李沃實 (2003)。美日信託法制運用於高齡化社會對我國之啟示。中央警察大法學論文集，第8期。李沃實 (2006)。英國2005年意思能力法之概述。中央警察大學法學論文集。第13期。李沃實 (2008)。日本新法定成年監護制度暨運作上衍生之問題。中央警察大學法學論文集，第15期。李沃實 (2009)。日本任意監護法制暨其運用上衍生問題。中央警察大學法學論文集，第16期。林秀雄 (2009)。論我國新修正之成年監護制度。月旦法學雜誌，第164期。林孟皇 (2001)。高齡社會下我國成年監護制度改革芻議。立法院院聞，第29卷第2期。林雪玉 (2009)。論我國之新成年監護制度。稻江學報。第3卷第3期。林誠二 (2008)。民法總則禁治產宣告告修正草案--成年監護制度之評析。法令月刊，第59卷第1期。周世珍等 (2002)。民法成年監護制度之研究。法務部91年委託計畫。法務部全球資訊網 (2008)。民法總則編部分修正條文對照表--中華民國97年5月23日總統華總一義字第09700059171號令公布。(2008年9月20日)。取自：http://www.moj.gov.tw/mp001.html. 孫一信 (2004)。銀行浮濫發卡、保護虛晃一招：呼籲財政主管機關及銀行重視社會責任、保障註記者權益。中華民國智障者家長總會會訊，第43期。孫一信 (2009)。民法成年監護新制：監護人職務內涵初探，中華民國智障者家長總會會訊，第60期。孫一信 (2009)。漠視民法監護新制就是漠視弱勢者人權。中華民國智障者家長總會會訊，第62期。高一書 (2007)。成年監護之意能力判定，中央警察大學法學論文集，第13期。郭明政 (1997)。禁治產與成年監護制度之檢討--德國輔導法及其對於台灣之啟示。固有民事法制與當代民事法學--載東雄教授六華誕祝壽論文集。臺北市：三民書局。許聲胤 (2006年12月15日)。假冒社會局詐騙獨居老人。聯合報，C2版。陳棋炎、黃宗樂、郭振恭等 (2007)。民法親屬新論(6版)。臺北市：三民書局。陳惠馨 (1993)。德國有關成年人監護及保護制度之改革--德國聯邦照顧法。法學叢刊，第149期。陳慈陽 (2005)。憲法學。臺北市：元照出版社。陳衛佐 (2004)。德國民法典。北京市：法律出版社。渠濤 (2006)。最新日本民法--日本民法典。北京市：法律出版社。楊惠雯 (2003)。從美國法論我國高齡監護法制。國立政治大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。楊熾光 (2010年1月22日)。監護及輔助宣告之意思能力判定。司法周刋，第1476期，第3版。鄧學仁 (1998)。高齡社會之成年監護。中央警察大學法學論文集，第3期。鄧學仁 (2000)。邁入新世紀之親屬法。月旦法學雜誌，第62期。鄧學仁 (2008年8月14日)。監護制度修正簡介及評釋(上)。司法周刋，第1402期，第2版。鄧學仁 (2008年8月22日)。監護制度修正簡介及評釋(下)。司法周刋，第1403期，第2版。潘秀菊 (2008)。信託理財面面觀。臺北市：元照出版社。戴瑀如 (2009)。初探德國成年輔助法--兼論我國成年監護制度。月旦法學雜誌，第167期。劉得寛 (1993)。成年「監護」法之檢討與改革。政大法學評論，第62期。劉得寬 (1998)。德國成年監護制度之改革--廢止禁治產宣告，加強保護高齡者、知能障礙者。法學叢刊，第170期。劉得寬 (1999)。意定監護制度立法上之必要性--以成年（高齡者）監護制度為中心。法學叢刊，第174期。劉得寬 (2000)。日本新成年後見（監護）制度。法學叢刊，第180期。劉得寬 (2003)。成年「監護」制度之比較研究--以日、台、德為中心。月旦法學雜誌，第101期。藍凰嘉 (2007)。成年監護之研究。天主教輔仁大學法律學系碩士論文。二、英文資料 Abe , T. (2004). Adult Guardianship and the Aging Society--Enhancing Society`s Role to Ensure the Quality of Life. NLI Research Institute. BGB-English translation (2010). German Civil Code, Retrieved from, January16, 2010, from the World WideWeb: http://bundesrecht.juris.de/englisch_bgb/index.html#Section91 Donnelly, M.(2009). Best interests, patient participation and the mental capacity? 17 MEDICAL LAW REVIEW 1. Department for Constitutional Affairs (2007). Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice, U K：The Stationary Office printed. Frolik, L. A. (2007). Is a guardian the alter ego of the ward? 37 STESTON L. REV 53. Herring, J. (2008). Entering the fog: On the borderlines of mental capacity. 83 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 1619. Johns, F. A. (1999). Ten Years After: Where is the constitutional crisis with procedural safeguards and due process in guardianship adjudication. 7 ELDER LAW JOURNAL 33. Karp, N. & Wood, E. F. (2007). Guardianship monitoring: a national survey of court practices？ 37 STETSON L. REV.143. Knauer, N. J. (2003). Defining capacity: balancing the competing interests of autonomy and need. 12 TEMPLE POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 321. Maclean, A. R. (2008). Advance directives and the rocky waters of anticipatory decision-making？16 Medical Law Review 1. Martin, A. (2008). Powers of attorney -Peace of mind or out of control. Conv. 2008, 1. McManus, P. C. (2006). A therapeutic jurisprudential approach to guardianship of persons with mild cognitive impairment. 36 STETSON HALL LAW REVIEW 591. Teaste. P. B., Wood, E. F., Karp, N., Lawrence, S. A., & Schmidt, W. C. (2007). Wards of the state: A national study of public guardianship. 37 STETSON L. REV.193. Teaste, P. B., Wood, E. F., Karp, N., Lawrence, S. A., & Schmidt, W. C.& Mendiondo (2002). Wards of the State--A national study of public guardianship, Retrieved from, January 10, 2009,from the World WideWeb: http://www.abanet.org/aging/publications/docs/wardofstatefinal.pdf. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (2005), Retrieved from, October 16, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050009_en_1 Uniform Power of Attorney Act 2006 (2006), Retrieved from, September 17, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/dpoaa/2008_final.htm. Whitton, L. S. (2005). Guardianship actions against individuals who have selected an agent as power of attorney：When should the courts say “No”? 7 MARQ. ELDER’S ADVISOR 83. Whitton, L. S. (2002). National Durable Power of Attorney Survey Results and Analysis. Retrieved from, December 18, 2009, from the World WideWeb: http:// www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/dpoaa/surveyoct2002.htm. Whitton, L. S. (2007). Durable powers as an alternative to guardianship: Lessons we have learned, 37 Stetson L. Rev.7.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學法學院碩士在職專班 95961201 98
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095961201
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Master of Laws Program for Executives] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
120101.pdf	1330Kb	Adobe PDF2	4173	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback