论文部分内容阅读
对《婚姻法》第20条与《婚姻法解释(一)》第21条理解的不同,加之法官在情与理之间的辗转纠葛,导致了其对“成年子女请求父母承担高等教育费”案件的同案不同判。然而,无论基于现实原因抑或理论原因,父母应当承担其成年子女的一般高等教育费。但以此义务“属于亲权或亲权的延伸”或“为抚养义务”的传统理论观点都有其缺陷。结合我国国情并吸收域外法经验,认定“父母应当承担其成年子女的高等教育费”的第三条路径是可行的,即:该义务是抚养义务之补充,且从属于亲属间扶助义务的——父母扶助义务;于此基础上,再综合各要件对父母承担该责任的具体条件和标准予以认定。
The different understanding of Article 20 of the Marriage Law and Article 21 of the Interpretation of Marriage Law (1), combined with the fact that judges have been complicit between love and reason, have led them to demand that their adult children ask their parents to undertake higher education fees. Different cases in different cases. However, parents, irrespective of real or theoretical reasons, should bear the general higher education charge of their adult children. However, the conventional theory of “obligations of parental authority or parental rights” or “obligations of support” has its own defects. Combining with our national conditions and absorbing the experience of extraterritorial law, it is feasible to find the third path of “parents should bear the higher education fee of their adult children ”, that is, this obligation is a supplement to the obligation of support and is subordinated to the obligation of helping relatives - parents to help obligations; on this basis, and then integrated the various elements of the specific conditions and standards to bear the responsibility of parents to be identified.