论文部分内容阅读
《最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国婚姻法》若干问题的解释(三)》(以下简称“婚姻法司法解释(三)”)第二条因确立了人民法院审理涉亲子鉴定案件的基本原则,被认为是对未成年子女权利的保护而受到社会舆论充分肯定。但在法院适用该条款的过程中,如何认定当事人提交的是否为“必要证据”、子女拒绝做亲子鉴定时法院能否按照该条款进行推定,成为审判实践中出现的难题。湖北省三级法院审理的一起历时7年的亲子鉴定案件,就遇到了这个问题。
“The Supreme People’s Court on the application of the” Marriage Law of People’s Republic of China, “the interpretation of a number of issues (three)” (hereinafter referred to as “the judicial interpretation of marriage law (three)”) Article 2 established by the people’s court for paternity case hearing the basic principles , Is considered to be fully affirmed by the public opinion on the protection of the rights of underage children. However, in the process of the court applying this article, it becomes a difficult problem in trial practice to determine whether the court submits whether it is “necessary evidence ” and whether the court can presume in accordance with the clause when the children refuse to do the paternity test. Hubei Province, the third-tier court trial with a paternity test case lasted for seven years, it encountered this problem.