直接抚养权归属判定中未成年子女意见的证据定性与适用  

Identification and Application of Evidence of Minor Children's Opinions in the Jud gment of Direct Custody

作　　者：吴如巧[1] Wu Ruqiao

机构地区：[1]重庆大学法学院

出　　处：《中国应用法学》2025年第1期168-180,共13页China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence

基　　金：教育部社科规划基金项目“程序分立背景下民事公私益诉讼融合研究”(编号:23YJA820029);重庆市社科规划项目“以习近平法治思想引领新时代多元解纷机制建构研究”(编号:2023NDYB40)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：民事诉讼中“事实”与“证据”之间存在界限,直接抚养权归属判定中未成年子女意见应被定性为“证据”而非“事实”。在未成年子女意见所涉及的四类意见证据中,可通过排除法将鉴定意见、勘验笔录、当事人陈述等三类证据予以排除,未成年子女意见应属于证人证言,且未成年子女符合证人作证的适格条件。未成年子女意见在适用时可参照证人证言的一般规则,但因其自身具备的特殊性,故应在意见形成及展示、作证方式、质证、认证等方面作适当例外处理,以确保意见的真实性。同时应为未成年子女意见的诉讼适用提供硬件、技术、人员等多方面保障。未来应将实践及现行立法所创设的保障机制予以法定化和细化。“Fact”and“Evidence”are not the same in civil action.The minor children's opinion in the judgment of direct custody should be defined as“Evidence”rather than“Fact”.Of the four types of opinion evidence involved in the opinions of minor children,three types of evidence,such as expert opinions,inspection records and the statements of the parties,can be excluded by the method of elimination,and minor children's opinions should belong to the testimony of witnesses,and meet the qualifications of the witness to testify.The opinions of minor children may refer to the general rules of witness testimony when they are applied,but due to their own particularity,they should make appropriate exceptions in the aspects of formation and presentation of opinions,mode of testimony,cross-examination,certification,etc.,to ensure the authenticity of the opinions.We should provide the hardware,technology and personnel for the application of minor children's opinions in litigation.In the future,the safeguard mechanism created by practice and current legislation should be legalized and refined.

关 键 词：直接抚养权 未成年子女意见 证据 适用 民法典 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]