查看原文
其他

“同性伴侣子女监护权纠纷案”进展之一:是否应当查明、适用美国法律?|明月说法

明月说法 婚姻家庭与资本市场
2024-08-23


关于明月律师团队代理的同性伴侣子女监护权纠纷案件,北京市丰台区人民法院(以下简称丰台法院)于8月17日组织双方进行证据交换,并于11月10日正式庭。根据明月律师团队的建议,丰台法院已经将案由变更为监护权纠纷。庭审双方争议的焦点之一,即:本案是否应当适用美国加州的法律?

作为原告方的代理人,明月律师团队早已于2020年4月20日向浙江省舟山市定海区人民法院提交书面申请,要求法庭查明并适用美国加利福尼亚州法律及判例。后因被告提出管辖权异议案件,案件被移送至丰台法院审理。明月律师团队在正式开庭前,再次致函丰台法院,要求法院查明美国加州法律及案例,并在本案中予以适用。

01丨关于法律适用


在写给法院的书面函件中,明月律师团队指出:本案为监护权纠纷案件,考虑到被监护人系两名美国国籍的未成年人,因此本案应当适用《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》关于监护的“冲突法选择”之规定。该法第三十条规定:“监护,适用一方当事人经常居所地法律或者国籍国法律中有利于保护被监护人权益的法律,也就是说,法院应当从经常居所地法律(中国法律)以及国籍国法律(美国法律)中选择更有利于保护被监护人(两个未成年子女)权益的法律。

明月律师团队注意到,最高人民法院民法典贯彻实施工作领导小组主编的《中华人民共和国民法典婚姻家庭编继承编理解与适用》(人民法院出版社2020年7月第1版),也引入了对本案的评析意见。该书认为:本案存在涉外因素,应当选择最有利于保护被监护人利益的法律,且应当遵循联合国《儿童权利公约》确立的“儿童利益最大化”原则,最大限度保护未成子女的合法权益。

明月律师认为:毕竟是最高人民法院出的书,多少也值得丰台法院参考一二吧。


《中华人民共和国民法典婚姻家庭编继承编理解与适用》


02丨关于法律查明


在涉外民事案件司法实务中,确定准据法之前提是要先查明相关法律。《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十条规定:“涉外民事关系适用的外国法律,由人民法院、仲裁机构或者行政机关查明。当事人选择适用外国法律的,应当提供该国法律”。明月律师团队虽已多次提交查明外国法律之申请,但令人遗憾的是,丰台法院至今尚未启动外国法查明程序。

丰台法院没有回应,明月律师团队决定自己动手,查明外国法律。之后,在“同志平等权益促进会”的帮助下,明月律师团队主动检索了美国加州的法律以及判例,并提交至丰台法院。与此同时,明月律师团队还联系到了美国加州大学戴维斯分校的考尼特.乔斯林教授,其主动为本案提交书面的《法律意见》。明月律师团队已将考尼特.乔斯林教授的意见翻译成中英文对照版,一并提交给了丰台法院。

考尼特.乔斯林教授认为:依据加州法律,无论婚姻状况如何,本案双方当事人(以下简称女A和女B)都是两个孩子的在法律意义上的双亲。早在加州允许同性伴侣结婚数年之前,加州的法院已经裁定认为,在加州法律下一个孩子可以在法律上有两个母亲。例如Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660, 670 (Cal. 2005)(本案判决认为,未婚女同性恋伴侣二人均为其通过辅助生殖受孕并在伴侣关系持续期间出生的双胞胎的合法父母。)

考尼特.乔斯林教授还认为,在本案中,双方已经办理同性婚姻登记,“双方当事人(以下简称女A和女B)都是两个孩子的在法律意义上的双亲”毫无争议,退一步讲,即使双方没有在加州办理同性婚姻登记(或中国法律尚不承认同性婚姻之因素),女A和女B仍是两个孩子在法律意义上的双亲。

丰台法院的案件中,涉及到两个孩子与女A和女B关系之认定,按照考尼特.乔斯林教授的法律意见,不难得出结论:

1、女儿,原告分娩(被告提供的卵子);结论:原被告均为女儿的合法双亲;
2、儿子,被告分娩(被告提供的卵子);结论:原被告均为儿子的合法双亲;

为什么原告也可以成为 “既非自己基因,亦非自己分娩” 的儿子的母亲?考尼特.乔斯林教授的法律意见简要概括为以下两点::

一、Consent to Assisted Reproduction – Cal. Fam. Code § 7613(a)

一、 同意辅助生殖说——《加利福尼亚州家庭法典》§ 7613(a)


California Family Code § 7613(a) provides: “If a woman conceived through assisted reproduction with sperm … donated by a donor who is not the woman’s spouse, with the consent of another intended parent, that intended parent is treated in law as if that intended parent is the natural parent of a child thereby conceived.” The statute further provides that the required consent can be established either by proof of written consent, or by proof by clear and convincing evidence that “prior to the conception of the child, the woman and the intended parent had an oral agreement that the woman and the intended parent would both be parents of the child.” CAL. FAM. CODE § 7613(a)(2). 


加州家庭法典§ 7613(a)规定:如果一个女性在另一个预期的双亲同意下通过精子辅助生殖受孕……精子捐献者并非该女子配偶,那么另一个预期的双亲就有和孩子的自然父母一样的法律地位。该法还规定,可以通过书面同意证明或通过明确而有说服力的证据证明“在受孕之前,那位女性和另一个预期的双亲已经口头约定二者都是孩子的双亲。” 《加利福尼亚州家庭法典》 § 7613(a)(2).


Under § 7613(a), a person who consents consistent with the statute is a parent; this is true regardless of whether the person has a genetic connection to the resulting child. Thus, the statute provides that the intended parent is a parent of the resulting child even if both the sperm and the ova are donated by donors. This provision applies equally to all intended parents, regardless of their sex or marital status. See, e.g., CAL. FAM. CODE § 7613(a) (providing that “that intended parent is treated in law” as a legal parent).  Parentage is based on the person’s deliberate conduct in bringing a child into the world through assisted reproduction with the intention of parenting the child with the person who gives birth. 


在 § 7613(a)下,无论这个人是否同所生孩子有遗传亲缘联系,符合规定表示同意的人就是双亲之一 。因此,该法规规定,即使精子和卵子都是由捐赠者捐赠的,预期的双亲也是所生孩子的双亲。这项规定平等地适用于所有预期的双亲,无论其性别或婚姻状况如何。例如参见 《加利福尼亚州家庭法典》 § 7613(a) (规定“在法律上将预期的双亲视为合法双亲”。).  亲子关系是基于这个人以同分娩母亲一同养育为目的,通过辅助生殖技术有意将孩子生下而建立的。


二、Living with the Child and Holding the Child Out as One’s Child – Cal. Fam. Code § 7611(d)

二、和孩子一起居住并视如己出——《加利福尼亚州家庭法典》§ 7611(d)


Woman A’s parentage of Child B could also be established under the “holding out” presumption of parentage. Under California law, a person is presumed to be a legal parent if, during the child’s minority, the person “received the child into their home and openly holds out the child as their natural child.” CAL. FAM. CODE § 7611(d).  

女A和孩子B的亲权也可以根据“抚养”亲权推定。在加州法律中,如果一个人在孩子儿童时期接纳其进入自己家庭,并将其当做自己的亲生孩子抚养,这个人就被推定为孩子的法定双亲之一。


This provision applies equally to all persons, regardless of marital status or sex. See, e.g., Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660, 670 (Cal. 2005) (holding that an unmarried same-sex partner was a parent of twin children conceived through assisted reproduction and birthed by her former same-sex partner). 

这项规定平等地适用于所有人,不论其婚姻状况或性别。例如在Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660, 670 (Cal. 2005)案中,法院认为一个未婚的女同性恋者是利用辅助生殖技术并由其前任生下的双胞胎的双亲之一。


As a matter of California law, it is clear that a person can be a legal parent under this provision even if they are not, and know they are not, the child’s genetic parent. See, e.g., In re Nicholas H., 46 P.3d 932, 934 (Cal. 2002) (holding that an unmarried man was a legal parent under the holding out presumption even though he was not, and knew he was not, the child’s genetic parent).

在加州法律体系下,该条款可以明确,即使某人不是该孩子的遗传学父母,也知道自己不是该孩子的遗传学父母,这个人也可以是合法双亲之一。例如,在In re Nicholas H. 46 P.3d 932, 934 (Cal. 2002)案中,法院认为一个未婚男性即使明知自己不是孩子的遗传学父母,也可以通过抚养被推定为合法父母。


Indeed, fifteen years ago, the California Supreme Court held that an unmarried lesbian partner was a legal parent under this provision of twin children birthed by her former partner and conceived through assisted reproduction. The woman was presumed to be a parent of the twins “because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children.” Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660, 670 (Cal. 2005). While this presumption of parentage can be rebutted under some circumstances, the California Supreme Court went on to hold that it was “not an appropriate action in which to rebut the presumption that Elisa is the twins’ parent with proof that she is not the children’s biological mother because she actively participated in causing the children to be conceived with the understanding that she would raise the children as her own together with the birth mother, she voluntarily accepted the rights and obligations of parenthood after the children were born, and there are no competing claims to her being the children’s second parent.” Elisa B., 117 P.3d at 670. 

其实在十五年前,加州最高法院就依据此规定裁定一个未婚的女同性恋者是一对由她的前任伴侣通过辅助生殖技术受孕并产下的双胞胎的合法双亲之一。这名女性被推测是双胞胎的双亲之一,“因为她把孩子们带进了家里,并公开地把他们当成她的亲生孩子”。Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660, 670 (Cal. 2005). 尽管这种亲子关系的推定在某些情况下可以被推翻,加州最高法院仍然认为“以其不是双胞胎的生物学母亲的证据推翻这种亲子关系的推论非常不恰当,因为她抱着自己和生母一同把孩子视如己出的目的,积极地参与到孩子受孕的过程中,她在孩子降生后主动接受了作为双亲的权利和义务,无疑是孩子除生母外的另一个双亲。” Elisa B.案 117 P.3d at 670.


Where the parties jointly decided to bring the child into the world through assisted reproduction with the intention that they would both parent the resulting child, even short periods of living together with the child and holding the child out as one’s own can be sufficient to establish legal parentage under the “holding out presumption.” For example, in Charisma R. v. Kristina S., 175 Cal. App. 4th 361, 367 (Cal. App. Ct. 2009), the California Court of Appeal court held that a woman was the legal parent of a child conceived through assisted reproduction and born to her former partner based on evidence that the woman lived with the child and jointly parented the child for approximately 13 weeks before the birth mother moved out with the child. 

如果双方以共同抚养孩子为目的,共同决定通过辅助生殖技术使孩子降生,即使同孩子只有短暂的共同居住并将孩子视如己出,也足够通过“抚养推定”建立法定亲子关系。例如,在Charisma R. v. Kristina S., 175 Cal. App. 4th 361, 367 (Cal. App. Ct. 2009)案中,加州上诉法院将一位女性裁定为一个借助辅助生殖技术并由她前任生下的孩子的法定母亲,因为有证据证明这位女性在孩子的生母和孩子一同搬走前和孩子住在一起并和生母一起抚养了孩子达十三周。


Accordingly, regardless of Woman A’s marital status, Woman A would be a parent under California’s holding out presumption. Woman A would be entitled to the presumption because she received the child into the home in which she was living and held the child out as her own. It would not be an appropriate action in which to find the presumption rebutted under California law because in the hypothetical, Woman A participated in the joint decision to bring Child B into the world through assisted reproduction with the intention of jointly parenting Child B, she accepted the rights and responsibilities of parenthood for Child B, and, because the parties used a sperm donor, there is no other person who could claim parentage of Child B.  

因此,无论女A的婚姻状况如何,在加州法律的“抚养推定”中,女A都是双亲之一,她之所以有权被这样推定,是因为她和孩子一同在她家居住,并将孩子视如己出.女A抱着共同抚养孩子B的意图,参与作出了使用辅助生殖技术生育孩子B的决定,她接受了作为孩子B双亲的权利和义务,而且因为受孕的精子是捐献而来,不会有其他人主张同B的亲子关系。 


(案件进展待续……)


参考阅读:
首例同性伴侣抚养权争夺案,“是为身后的少数群体发声”
首例同性伴侣抚养权争夺案始末
看不到孩子的妈妈:首例同性伴侣抚养权争夺案始末
爱成家:评“同性伴侣争夺子女抚养权”
女子与同性伴侣赴美结婚生子,如今分手2个孩子归谁?
媒体解读:中国首例同性伴侣争夺抚养权案件立案
国内同性伴侣争夺子女抚养权纠纷已获法院立案

继续滑动看下一个
婚姻家庭与资本市场
向上滑动看下一个

您可能也对以下帖子感兴趣

文章有问题?点此查看未经处理的缓存