【摘要】：與一般的民事案件相比,建立在婚姻、血緣關(guān)系基礎(chǔ)上的家事案件的當(dāng)事人之間通常具有復(fù)雜的感情因素,法院作出裁判后雙方當(dāng)事人之間通常還需要進(jìn)行密切的往來(lái),這就需要法院采取多種方式探知家事糾紛背后的深層其原因。在此基礎(chǔ)之上,以妥適的方式依法對(duì)當(dāng)事人之間的實(shí)體權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系做出合情合理的裁決。與以往法律關(guān)系較為單一的家事案件相比,隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)的發(fā)展,家事案件不僅涉及到當(dāng)事人之間身份關(guān)系的糾紛,而且其利益糾紛也趨于多元化和復(fù)雜化,有時(shí)還涉及到其他主體的利益。面對(duì)復(fù)雜多變的家事案件,囿于法官的專(zhuān)業(yè)限制以及中立性的要求,法官?zèng)]有時(shí)間和精力去探究家事案件的深層次原因。法官雖然能夠依法對(duì)家事案件作出相應(yīng)的裁判,但是這并不意味著家事糾紛得到了圓滿(mǎn)解決。為了家事糾紛的圓滿(mǎn)解決,這就需要借助具有社工、心理、教育等專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)人員在家事案件審理前對(duì)當(dāng)事人或關(guān)系人進(jìn)行事實(shí)調(diào)查,在家事裁判結(jié)束后采取必要的措施促使負(fù)有履行義務(wù)一方積極履行義務(wù)。近年來(lái),面對(duì)家事糾紛矛盾突發(fā)的情況,以及一般民事裁判的局限性,我國(guó)開(kāi)始逐步推行家事審判改革。部分地區(qū)的試點(diǎn)法院開(kāi)始啟用家事調(diào)查官1協(xié)助法官進(jìn)行事實(shí)調(diào)查,進(jìn)行案后回訪等工作,并取得了良好的社會(huì)效果。但是有關(guān)家事調(diào)查官制度的法理基礎(chǔ)、功能以及價(jià)值追求,我們不得而知。同時(shí),由于我國(guó)立法并沒(méi)有有關(guān)家事調(diào)查官制度的規(guī)范,在這種情況下對(duì)國(guó)外以及我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)家事調(diào)查官制度的研究就很有必要。家事調(diào)查官制度是指特定人員根據(jù)法官的命令,在必要的情況下以其社工、教育、心理等專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)就家事案件中的特定事項(xiàng)以實(shí)地探訪的方式展開(kāi)事實(shí)調(diào)查,在事實(shí)調(diào)查的基礎(chǔ)上提出調(diào)查報(bào)告,以協(xié)助法官厘清案件事實(shí);在家事案件執(zhí)行階段應(yīng)以其專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)對(duì)負(fù)有履行義務(wù)的一方行履行勸告之責(zé),以圓滿(mǎn)解決家事糾紛的制度�？紤]到我國(guó)在家事裁判中也存在家事案件事實(shí)難以查明以及家事案件"執(zhí)行難"的現(xiàn)實(shí)問(wèn)題。本文嘗試通過(guò)對(duì)日本、我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)家事調(diào)查官制度進(jìn)行分析,同時(shí)借鑒諸如韓國(guó)、澳大利亞、英國(guó)、德國(guó)、法國(guó)等國(guó)家的立法經(jīng)驗(yàn),以厘清諸如家事調(diào)查官制度的含義、法理基礎(chǔ)、功能、價(jià)值追求等基本問(wèn)題。在此基礎(chǔ)之上,剖析我國(guó)家事裁判制度存在的問(wèn)題,分析我國(guó)家事調(diào)查官制度構(gòu)建的必要性,結(jié)合國(guó)外以及我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的立法經(jīng)驗(yàn),并以我國(guó)正在推行的家事審判改革和家事調(diào)查官試點(diǎn)工作為參照,梳理我國(guó)家事調(diào)查官制度構(gòu)建的可行性。最后,對(duì)我國(guó)家事調(diào)查官制度的構(gòu)建提供一些可供參考的建議。
[Abstract]:Compared with ordinary civil cases, the parties involved in family cases based on marriage and blood relations usually have complex emotional factors, and after the court makes a decision, they usually need to have close exchanges between the parties. This requires the court to take a variety of ways to find out the underlying causes of family disputes. On the basis of this, the relationship between the parties' rights and obligations is reasonably and reasonably adjudicated in a proper manner. Compared with the family cases with single legal relationship in the past, with the development of the economy and society, the family cases not only involve the disputes of the identity relations between the parties, but also tend to diversify and complicate the interests disputes. Sometimes it also involves the interests of other subjects. Faced with complex and changeable family cases, due to the professional limitations of judges and neutral requirements, judges do not have the time and energy to explore the deep-seated causes of family cases. Although the judge can judge the family case according to law, this does not mean that the family dispute has been resolved satisfactorily. In order to resolve the family disputes satisfactorily, it is necessary to investigate the facts of the parties or related persons before the family cases are tried with the help of professionals with social work, psychology, education, etc. Take necessary measures after the conclusion of the family judgment to urge the party who has fulfilled the obligation to do so actively. In recent years, in the face of the sudden conflicts of family disputes, as well as the limitations of general civil adjudication, China began to gradually implement the family trial reform. The pilot courts in some areas began to use the Family Investigator 1 to assist the judges in the investigation of facts and to return to the case after the case, and achieved good social results. However, we do not know the legal basis, function and value pursuit of the family ombudsman system. At the same time, because there is no norm about the system of family inspector in our country's legislation, it is necessary to study the system of household inspector in foreign countries and Taiwan area in this situation. The family ombudsman system means that a particular person, on the order of a judge, conducts, if necessary, a fact-finding investigation in the form of a field visit on a particular matter in a family case with his professional knowledge of social work, education, psychology, etc. In order to assist the judge in clarifying the facts of the case, the investigation report should be put forward on the basis of the investigation, and the professional knowledge of the family case should be used to perform the duty of advice to the party who is responsible for the performance of the obligation, so as to satisfactorily resolve the family dispute system during the execution stage of the family case. In view of the fact that the family cases are difficult to find out and the family cases are difficult to carry out in our country. This paper attempts to analyze the system of family surveyors in Japan and Taiwan, and at the same time draw lessons from the legislative experience of countries such as Korea, Australia, Britain, Germany, France, and so on, in order to clarify the meaning of such a system. Legal basis, function, value pursuit and other basic issues. On this basis, this paper analyzes the problems existing in the system of family adjudication in our country, analyzes the necessity of the establishment of the system of family surveyors in our country, and combines the legislative experience of foreign countries and the Taiwan region of our country. Taking the family trial reform and the pilot work of the family investigator as the reference, the feasibility of the construction of the family investigation officer system in our country is combed. Finally, some suggestions are provided for the construction of the system of family surveyors in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.9

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馮勛勝;當(dāng)事人隱瞞證據(jù)會(huì)敗訴嗎?[J];律師世界;2001年11期

2 蘭仁迅;當(dāng)事人概念評(píng)析——以訴訟邏輯為分析系統(tǒng)[J];華僑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期

3 林國(guó)強(qiáng);;檢察官客觀義務(wù)和當(dāng)事人化之關(guān)系[J];河南公安高等專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

4 王海鋒;;當(dāng)事人自認(rèn)的相關(guān)法理辨析[J];河套大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

5 "以當(dāng)事人為本"司法理念課題組;丁義軍;;“以當(dāng)事人為本”司法理念專(zhuān)題研究報(bào)告[J];山東審判;2008年03期

6 季金華,金成富;自治與權(quán)威:當(dāng)事人主義訴訟模式的價(jià)值機(jī)理[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2002年02期

7 唐力;;事實(shí)探知:當(dāng)事人對(duì)論構(gòu)造的法理分析——以裁判形成過(guò)程中當(dāng)事人程序權(quán)的保障機(jī)制為中心[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2006年04期

8 王合靜;;論當(dāng)事人之訴訟促進(jìn)義務(wù)[J];河北法學(xué);2009年06期

9 趙會(huì)平;;當(dāng)事人的戀母情結(jié)與司法的母性關(guān)懷[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2007年09期

10 李艷霞;從起訴條件看對(duì)當(dāng)事人起訴權(quán)利的保護(hù)[J];和田師范專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2005年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前7條

1 袁紅兵;;當(dāng)事人主義訴訟模式中審判者的訴訟職能[A];首屆貴州法學(xué)論壇文集[C];2000年

2 趙允玲;;當(dāng)事人處分權(quán)和辯論權(quán)與法院審判權(quán)之間的互動(dòng)關(guān)系[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2002年

3 饒艾;曾紅宇;;當(dāng)事人主義訴訟模式與判例法[A];全國(guó)外國(guó)法制史研究會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)叢書(shū)——20世紀(jì)外國(guó)司法制度的變革[C];2002年

4 周偉;;論民事司法中的程序協(xié)商——以彌合審判公正感差異為視角[A];全國(guó)法院第25屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募汗痉ㄅc行政法實(shí)施問(wèn)題研究（上冊(cè)）[C];2013年

5 宣錦虹;譚云;;堅(jiān)守與前行:法官角色的職業(yè)化定位——以2012年度全國(guó)法院部分優(yōu)秀法官為分析樣本[A];全國(guó)法院第25屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募汗痉ㄅc行政法實(shí)施問(wèn)題研究（上冊(cè)）[C];2013年

6 單云娟;周立;;能動(dòng)司法背景下的民商事案件爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)整理技術(shù)方法分析——以保障審判權(quán)有效運(yùn)行為視角[A];全國(guó)法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

7 李岳;;民事審判權(quán)缺位的程序性規(guī)制——“不予處理”式判決的實(shí)證考察和規(guī)范化思考[A];全國(guó)法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 秦明文;重審程序可適當(dāng)簡(jiǎn)化[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

2 毛玲;當(dāng)事人自主權(quán)與法官程序控制權(quán)的平衡[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

3 本報(bào)記者 韓元恒 丁力辛;一切為了人民[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

4 云利珍;樹(shù)立法律權(quán)威從程序公正開(kāi)始[N];學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)報(bào);2008年

5 晏向華;訴訟制度：符合國(guó)情才是最好的[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2004年

6 孫永全;試論民事訴訟中當(dāng)事人的沉默權(quán)[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

7 山東省臨沂市中級(jí)人民法院 邵澤毅;九步走來(lái)天地寬[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

8 常旭日;為促進(jìn)山西改革開(kāi)放提供司法保障[N];中國(guó)貿(mào)易報(bào);2008年

9 劉立霞;證據(jù)交換立法尚需細(xì)化[N];中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)報(bào);2001年

10 黃長(zhǎng)營(yíng);美國(guó)法院的審判效率[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 王健;民事訴訟法律責(zé)任研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

2 王玲;當(dāng)事人真實(shí)義務(wù)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

3 唐力;民事訴訟構(gòu)造研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2003年

4 楊藝紅;訴訟突襲及其法律規(guī)制[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

5 崔婕;民事訴訟準(zhǔn)備程序研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2002年

6 朱福勇;論民事法官能動(dòng)性[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 李夏;民事訴訟觀的類(lèi)型與變遷研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

2 陶磊;民事調(diào)審關(guān)系影響因素研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2015年

3 黃靖淇;論民事訴訟中法院調(diào)查取證制度[D];沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué);2016年

4 杜威;論民事?tīng)?zhēng)點(diǎn)整理程序[D];浙江大學(xué);2016年

5 張克松;民事訴訟中法院調(diào)查取證制度研究[D];河北大學(xué);2015年

6 鄒蓉蓉;民事訴訟中的訴訟指揮權(quán)的探究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2015年

7 齊賽楠;論我國(guó)民事訴訟中當(dāng)事人真實(shí)陳述義務(wù)[D];大連海事大學(xué);2016年

8 逄勃;論民事訴訟自認(rèn)制度[D];延邊大學(xué);2017年

9 劉倩;家事調(diào)查官制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2017年

10 陳雪;論民事訴訟中當(dāng)事人的“不知”陳述[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2256015