Child born out of wedlock - child born out of wedlock

Japanese: 嫡出でない子 - ちゃくしゅつでないこ

A child born out of wedlock is one whose parents were never legally married from conception to birth. The Civil Code states that a child is "out of wedlock" (Article 779), but it is also called an illegitimate child, a child born out of wedlock, or a child born out of wedlock. This includes children born to common-law couples. Even for a child born out of wedlock, the relationship with the mother is clear from the fact of birth, so precedents have said that, in principle, an illegitimate mother-child relationship arises automatically from the fact of birth, without the need for recognition. In theory, even for children born out of wedlock, the provision on presumption of legitimacy in the Civil Code (Article 772 of the same code) can be applied mutatis mutandis to distinguish between children born 200 days after the establishment of a common-law marriage or within 300 days after the dissolution of the marriage, that is, illegitimate children who are presumed to be the children of the common-law husband, and other children, but the legal father-child relationship is not recognized unless the father acknowledges it. Therefore, there are children born out of wedlock who are not acknowledged by their fathers, that is, children who only have a mother-child relationship (formerly known as illegitimate children, but no longer legally used), and children who are acknowledged by their fathers, that is, children who have a parent-child relationship with both parents (formerly known as illegitimate children, but no longer legally used).

A child born out of wedlock takes the mother's surname, is registered in the mother's family register, and is subject to the mother's parental authority. Even if the father acknowledges paternity, the surname and family register do not change, and the child is not subject to the father's parental authority. Before the revision of the Civil Code in 2013, if there was a legitimate child and an illegitimate child, the statutory share of the illegitimate child (if acknowledged) was half that of the legitimate child (Article 900, Clause 4, proviso of the Civil Code). However, on September 4 of the same year, the Supreme Court Grand Bench ruled that this provision violated Article 14, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which provides for equality under the law (Minshu, Vol. 67, No. 6, p. 1320). In response to this, the part of Article 900, Clause 4, proviso of the Civil Code that stipulated that the inheritance share of an illegitimate child was half that of a legitimate child was deleted, and the inheritance shares of legitimate and illegitimate children became equal.

[Masanori Yamamoto and Masamitsu Nozawa, May 19, 2016]

Status of children born out of wedlock abroad

In the past, the term used to describe a child born out of wedlock in English-speaking countries was "an illegitimate child," which has a strong connotation of illegality, but now the morally neutral "a child born out of marriage" is used. In other countries, the term has also changed to simply describe whether the child was born within or outside of marriage.

The birth rate of children born out of wedlock varies considerably by country, region, and era, and was high in the West Indies, Central and South America, and southern Africa, but has also increased rapidly since the 1960s in developed countries, reaching over 40% in 2010: 54.1% in Sweden, 53.7% in France, 47.0% in Denmark, 46.9% in the UK, and 40.8% in the US. The reasons for this increase include the decline in the influence of Christianity, the sexual liberation movement, an increase in cohabitation, and the easing of criticism and discrimination against children born out of wedlock.

The status of children born out of wedlock changes depending on the nature of inheritance based on the social relations of production, sexual norms, and awareness of human rights. In medieval Europe, in the marriages of feudal aristocrats, children born out of wedlock were incorporated into the social structure of the feudal aristocracy, and children born out of wedlock were accepted. Marriage or not was not clearly stated even in canon law (church law), and the distinction between children born within marriage and children born out of wedlock was itself unclear in society. In modern times, the legal system of monogamous marriage was established, and Christian morals on sex and marriage, which view sexual relations outside of marriage as sinful, became widespread. Children born out of wedlock were considered to be the "fruit of sin" and should atone for the sins of their parents, and were placed in miserable circumstances. In the 20th century, efforts were made to improve the status of children born out of wedlock from the perspective of child welfare, and compulsory recognition of paternity, the right to claim support, and legitimation of marriage were introduced. In the former Soviet Union, discriminatory laws against illegitimate children were abolished (1918), and the German "Weimar Constitution" (1919) declared that "illegitimate children shall be maintained by law in the same physical, mental and social development as legitimate children" (Article 121). The spirit of modern law is that a person should not be punished for matters over which he or she has no control. The marital status of the parents is a matter that an illegitimate child cannot control at all, and the injustice of discrimination against illegitimate children was discussed from the perspective of "children's human rights." After World War II, various declarations and treaties, mainly those of the United Nations, advocated the prohibition of discrimination against illegitimate children, and since the late 1960s, the legal status of illegitimate children has improved dramatically, including the equalization of inheritance. Furthermore, the existence of illegitimate children has been recognized from the perspective of "lifestyle neutrality," which means "recognizing the various ways of living of parents." In addition, countries such as Sweden (1976), the UK (1987), Belgium (1987), Germany (1997), and France (2005) have removed the terms "legitimate" and "illegitimate" from their laws, because they believe that these terms create discriminatory feelings. Furthermore, based on the perspective of the "right to be raised by both parents" as stated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, these countries have recognized custody and visitation rights for unmarried fathers.

[Kyoko Yoshizumi, May 19, 2016]

Japan's Situation and Challenges

Japan's birth rate of children born out of wedlock was 3.9% in 1886 (Meiji 19), when a statistical distinction between "legitimate children" and "illegitimate children (including bastards)" was first made. Subsequently, the Meiji Civil Code (1890) introduced the system of marriage by notification and established conditions for marriage, such as "consent of parents and head of household" and "prohibition of a legal heir to marry into another family." The birth rate of children born out of wedlock rose, reaching 9.3% in 1901 (Meiji 34). The background to the high birth rate during this period was the large number of common-law marriages resulting from the polygamous marriage system and the widespread practice of common-law marriage among the common people. The birth rate of children born out of wedlock remained in the 9% range until the early Taisho period, but then began to decline, especially after World War II.
(1) Establishment of Monogamy
(2) The relaxation of marriage requirements due to the revision of the Civil Code and the spread of marriage registration have led to a decrease in common-law marriages
(3) The number of children born out of wedlock dropped sharply due to the legalization of abortion and the decline in unwanted pregnancies and births as a result of the widespread use of contraceptive technology. Since then, the number has increased slightly from a low of 0.8% in 1978 to 1.4% in 1997, 2.0% in 2007, and 2.4% in 2013. However, the norm of legitimate birth, which holds that "children should be born within marriage," has taken root among the people of Japan, and the number remains extremely low compared to Europe and the United States.

Meanwhile, a citizen movement was launched to question discrimination against unmarried mothers and children born out of wedlock, and people came to recognize discrimination against children born out of wedlock as a problem of "children's human rights," and the system has gradually been improved. The relationship to the head of the household on the resident's card was unified to "child" regardless of whether the child was born out of wedlock, in wedlock, or adopted (1995), and the provision that child support allowances paid to single-mother households were suspended if the father acknowledged the child was abolished (1998). In addition, in the family register, children born out of wedlock used to be listed as "male/female" in the relationship column to their parents, but this was changed to "eldest son/eldest daughter/second son/second daughter," indicating the mother's number of children, and became the same as children born within marriage (2004). Furthermore, children born out of wedlock to a mother with foreign nationality and a father with Japanese nationality could only acquire Japanese nationality if the parents later married, even if the father acknowledged the child, but Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Nationality Act was amended to allow children to acquire Japanese nationality by the father's acknowledgement and filing a notification of acquisition of Japanese nationality (2008).

With regard to inheritance, the provision in Article 900, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code, which stipulated that the legal share of inheritance for a child born out of wedlock is half that of a child born in wedlock, has now been deleted, and the inheritance shares of children born out of wedlock and children born in wedlock are now equal. However, it was a long journey before this provision was deleted. In 1979, the Counsellor of the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice published the "Draft of the Civil Code Revision on Inheritance" based on deliberations by the Subcommittee on Personal Status Law of the Civil Law Division of the Legislative Council, which proposed that "the legal share of inheritance for legitimate children and illegitimate children should be equal." In a 1993 ruling by the Tokyo High Court, this inheritance provision was found unconstitutional. In a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, it was found constitutional, but called on the legislature to amend the law. In 1996, the Legislative Council submitted a report to the Minister of Justice entitled "Outline of a Bill to Partially Revision the Civil Code," which clearly stated that the shares of inheritance should be made equal. However, within the ruling coalition at the time, the Liberal Democratic Party, there was strong opposition to the elimination of discrimination against children born out of wedlock, and the bill was not even tabled in the Diet as a government bill. During this time, the UN Human Rights Committee (1998, 2008), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2001, 2013), the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2003, 2009), and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (1998, 2004, 2010) repeatedly recommended the elimination of discrimination against children born out of wedlock. After a ruling of unconstitutionality in 2011 by the Osaka High Court, the Supreme Court Grand Bench unanimously ruled unconstitutional on September 4, 2013. In this decision, the justification of discrimination in inheritance shares based on respect for legal marriage was denied, and using the words "dignity of the individual" and "respect for children as individuals" that appear in the Constitution, it was determined that the provision of the proviso to Article 900, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code violates Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates "equality under the law." On December 5th of the same year, an amendment was made to remove this provision, and the inheritance shares of children born out of wedlock and children born within wedlock became equal.

This provision was seen as symbolizing the social inferiority of children born out of wedlock, not just in terms of inheritance, and it was hoped that the removal of this provision would also eliminate other discriminatory laws against children born out of wedlock. However, the Family Registration Act (Article 49, Paragraph 1), which stipulates the form of birth notification to check whether a child is "legitimate" or "illegitimate," has not been revised, and the term "illegitimate child" and the concept of "legitimate" remain in the Civil Code and the Family Registration Act. Furthermore, discrimination in the legal system remains, such as parents not being granted joint custody of a child born out of wedlock, the need for permission from the family court to change the child's surname from the mother's to the father's, and the ineligibility of widow's deduction for unmarried mothers.

The character "嫡" originally means "the heir born to the legitimate wife" or "legitimate." Some parents of children born out of wedlock have expressed discomfort with the term "illegitimate child," which they believe is a discriminatory term that implies "illegitimate child." As a result, there has been a trend of submitting birth certificates without filling in the "legitimate child" or "illegitimate child" section.

The Japanese government has been called upon by various UN human rights committees to rectify discrimination against children born out of wedlock. In 2016, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued a recommendation stating, "Despite the abolition of discriminatory provisions against children born out of wedlock in terms of inheritance in December 2013, many discriminatory provisions remain in place, including provisions in the Family Registration Act regarding discriminatory entries in birth registrations," and, "Abolish all discriminatory provisions concerning children born out of wedlock and ensure that the law protects children born out of wedlock and their mothers from social stigma and discrimination."

[Kyoko Yoshizumi, May 19, 2016]

Parent-child relationships under private international law

Laws regarding parent-child relationships vary from country to country, and it is almost impossible to unify them due to differences in religion, culture, etc. Regarding children born out of wedlock (illegitimate children), there are countries, including Japan, that adopt a system called Romanism, which distinguishes between legitimate children born out of wedlock and does not recognize the establishment of illegitimate parent-child relationships until there is recognition, and that determines the status of children uniformly and uniformly through recognition, while other countries adopt a system called Germanism, which does not uniformly determine the status of children, and requires evidence to be provided for each individual case in which the existence of a parent-child relationship is an issue. As a result, in international families where the nationalities and habitual residences of the father, mother, and child are different, order is provided by international private law, which determines which country's law governs the parent-child relationship. Article 29 of the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws (Act No. 78 of 2006), which is Japan's private international law code, stipulates the applicable law for the establishment of illegitimate parent-child relationships, and Article 32 stipulates the applicable law for legal relationships such as parental rights between parents and children that are established in this way.

According to Article 29 of the "General Rules for Application of Laws Act," the establishment of an illegitimate parent-child relationship is generally governed by the father's national law at the time of the child's birth, and by the mother's national law at the time. In addition, in the case of acknowledgment, even if the parent-child relationship is not established according to the applicable law, if the parent-child relationship is established according to the national law of the acknowledging person or the child at the time of acknowledgment, the establishment of an illegitimate parent-child relationship is recognized. However, since there is a risk that the acknowledgment will be recognized according to the national law of the acknowledging person, which may result in a result that is against the interests of the acknowledged child, it is stipulated that if the national law of the child at the time of acknowledgment requires the consent or agreement of the child or a third party, that requirement must also be met. For example, in the case of a parent who neglects a child when he or she is young and then appears when the child has made money and seeks to claim support after acknowledging the child, even if there is no provision to protect the child's interests in the parent's national law, if the national law of the child stipulates requirements such as the child's consent, the child's consent is required for the establishment of such an acknowledgment. In addition, with regard to acknowledgment, Article 34 of the same law provides that the method, i.e., the external form of acknowledgment, may of course be determined by the applicable law of the establishment of acknowledgment, but may also be accompanied by the method prescribed by the law of the place where the act is performed. In this way, when a law with a recognition system is applied, the applicable law becomes somewhat complicated, whereas under a law based on facts, the parent-child relationship of each parent is simply determined by the national law of each parent at the time of the child's birth, which is simple.

As a matter of the order of application of the provisions of the General Law concerning the application of laws, the above-mentioned Article 29 applies when the establishment of a legitimate parent-child relationship is denied by the applicable law determined by Article 28. Moreover, what is determined by the applicable law determined by Article 29 is only whether or not an illegitimate parent-child relationship is established, and even if a legitimate parent-child relationship is established according to that law, that issue is not subject to the application of Article 29 in the first place, and therefore a legitimate parent-child relationship is not established as a result.

[Masato Michigauchi May 19, 2016]

"I Want to Live Out of Wedlock: Questioning Discrimination Against Children Born Out of Wedlock" edited by Yoshizumi Kyoko (1992, Aoki Shoten) " ▽ "Sociology of Children Born Out of Wedlock" by Yoshizumi Kyoko (1993, Sekai Shisosha) " ▽ "Beyond the 'Modern Family': The Voices of Non-Legal Married Couples" by Yoshizumi Kyoko (1997, Aoki Shoten)" ▽ "Unmarried Parents and Children Born Out of Wedlock: Toward a Tomorrow Without Discrimination" edited by Konsakai (2004, Aoki Shoten) ▽ "Restatement of the Foreign Family Registration Law" by Sato Yayoi and Michigauchi Masato (2007, Nihon Kajo Publishing)" ▽ "Ninomiya Shuhei: "Discrimination against Children on the Basis of Birth is Unconstitutional: Discrimination Against Inheritance of Children Born Out of Wedlock and the Revision of the Civil Code" (Human Rights and Buraku Issues No. 857, pp. 31-39, 2014, Buraku Issues Research Institute)" ▽ "Sakakibara Fujiko: "Remaining Issues Concerning Children Born Out of Wedlock" (Freedom and Justice Vol. 65, No.3, pp.31-35, 2014, Japan Federation of Bar Associations)

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

嫡出以外の子、すなわち、子の懐胎から出生までの間、父母の間に一度も法律上、婚姻関係のなかった子をいう。民法の条文での表記は「嫡出でない子」であるが（同法779条）、非嫡出子ないし非嫡の子、婚外子ともよばれる。内縁の夫婦間に生まれた子などがそれである。嫡出でない子も母との関係は、分娩(ぶんべん)の事実によって明らかであるから、判例も非嫡出母子関係は、原則として認知をまたず、分娩の事実によって当然に生ずるとしている。理論上は、嫡出でない子についても、民法の嫡出の推定規定（同法772条）を準用して内縁関係成立から200日後または内縁解消後300日以内に生まれた子、いわば、内縁の夫の子と推定される嫡出でない子と、そうでない子との区別が考えられるが、法律上の父子関係は、あくまで父の認知がなければ認められないとされている。したがって、嫡出でない子には、父に認知されていない子、すなわち母子関係だけある子（古くは私生子とよばれていたが、現在法律上は用いられない）と、父に認知された子、すなわち父母双方と親子関係のある子（古くは、父に対し庶子とよばれていたが、現在法律上は用いられない）とがある。

　嫡出でない子は、母の氏を称し、母の戸籍に入り、母の親権に服する。父が認知しても、当然ながら氏や戸籍が変わることもないし、また父の親権に服することもない。2013年（平成25）の民法改正前は、嫡出子と嫡出でない子とがいれば、非嫡出子（認知されている場合）の法定相続分は嫡出子の2分の1であるとされていた（同法900条4号但書）。しかし、同年9月4日、最高裁判所の大法廷は、同規定が法の下の平等を定める憲法14条1項に違反する旨を決定した（民集67巻6号1320頁）。これを受けて、民法900条4号但書のうち、非嫡出子の相続分を嫡出子の相続分の2分の1とする旨を定める部分が削除され、嫡出子と嫡出でない子の相続分は同等となった。

［山本正憲・野澤正充　2016年5月19日］

外国における婚外子の地位

婚外子（嫡出でない子）を表す用語として、英語圏ではかつては非合法のニュアンスの強い「an illegitimate child」(直訳すると「違法な子」)が使用されてきたが、現在では道徳的に中立的な「a child born out of marriage」が使われる。他の国でも、子の出生が婚姻の内か外かを単純に表現する用語に変化している。

　婚外子の出生率は、国・地域や時代によってかなり差があり、西インド諸島・中南米・アフリカ南部の地域で高かったが、先進諸外国でも1960年代以降急激に増加し、2010年にはスウェーデン54.1％、フランス53.7％、デンマーク47.0％、イギリス46.9％、アメリカ40.8％と4割以上に達している。増加の背景には、キリスト教の影響力低下、性解放運動、同棲(どうせい)の増加、婚外子への非難・差別の緩和などがある。

　婚外子の地位は社会の生産関係に基づく相続のあり方、性規範、人権意識で変化する。中世のヨーロッパでは、封建貴族の結婚では、妾腹子(しょうふくし)が封建貴族の社会構造のなかに組み込まれ、婚外子は受け入れられていた。結婚の有無がカノン法（教会法）でも明確でなく、婚内子・婚外子の区別自体が社会的に不明瞭であった。近代になると、一夫一妻の法律婚制度が確立し、婚外の性関係を罪悪視するキリスト教の性・結婚のモラルが浸透し、「罪の果実」として婚外子は親の罪を代贖(だいしょく)すべきと考えられ、悲惨な境遇に置かれた。20世紀に入ると、子どもの福祉の観点から、婚外子の地位改善が図られ、強制認知・扶養請求権・婚姻準正などが導入された。旧ソ連では非嫡出子差別法が廃止され（1918）、ドイツの「ワイマール憲法」（1919）では「非嫡出子は法律によって肉体的・精神的および社会的に嫡出子と同じ発育が保持されるべきである」（121条）と宣言された。近代法の精神はその人が関与できない事柄で罰してはならないとしている。父母の婚姻関係の有無は婚外子にとってまったく関与できない事柄であり、婚外子差別の不当さが「子どもの人権論」から論じられた。第二次世界大戦後、国連を中心にさまざまな宣言・条約で婚外子差別禁止が唱えられ、1960年代後半から相続の平等化など婚外子の法的地位が飛躍的に改善された。さらに、「親のいろいろな生き方を認める」という「ライフスタイルの中立性」の観点からも、婚外子の存在が認められてきている。なお、スウェーデン（1976）・イギリス（1987）・ベルギー（1987）・ドイツ（1997）・フランス（2005）などでは、嫡出子・非嫡出子の用語そのものが差別意識を生むとして法律から削除し、「嫡出」という概念を廃止した。さらに、子どもの権利条約で謳(うた)われている「父母によって養育される権利」の視点から、非婚の父親に養育権や面会権を認めてきている。

［善積京子　2016年5月19日］

日本の状況と課題

日本の婚外子の出生率は、「公生（嫡出）子」と「私生子（庶子を含む）」の区別が統計上初めてなされた1886年（明治19）は3.9％であった。その後、明治民法（1890）で届出婚主義が導入され、「親・戸主の同意」「法定推定家督相続人の他家に入る婚姻の禁止」など婚姻成立要件が定められ、婚外子出生率は上昇、1901年（明治34）には9.3％に達した。この時期、出生率が高くなった背景には、一夫多妻的婚姻制度と庶民の間で浸透していた事実婚主義による内縁関係の大量発生がある。婚外子出生率は、大正初期まで9％台を維持していたが、その後下降、とくに第二次世界大戦後は、
(1)一夫一妻婚主義の確立
(2)民法改正での婚姻要件の緩和、婚姻届出の浸透による内縁関係の減少
(3)人工妊娠中絶の合法化、避妊技術の普及による望まない妊娠・出産の減少
などにより婚外子は急減していった。その後は、1978年（昭和53）の0.8％を最低に、1997年（平成9）1.4％、2007年（平成19）2.0％、2013年2.4％と微増しているものの、日本では「婚姻内で子どもを産むべきである」という嫡出制の規範が人々に浸透し、欧米に比較すると現在でもきわめて低い値にとどまっている。

　一方、非婚の母や婚外子への差別を問う市民運動が展開され、婚外子差別は「子どもの人権」の問題として人々に認識され、徐々に制度的改善がなされている。住民票の世帯主との続柄記載は、婚外子・婚内子・養子の別なく「子」に統一され（1995）、母子家庭に支給される児童扶養手当では、父の認知で支給停止としていた規定が廃止された（1998）。また、戸籍の父母との続柄欄には、婚外子は以前は「男・女」と記載されていたが、母の何番目の子かを示す「長男・長女・二男・二女」型に変更され、婚内子と同じ表記になった（2004）。さらに、外国籍の母と日本国籍の父から生まれた婚外子は、父が認知しても、その後父母が婚姻した場合にしか日本国籍を取得できなかったが、父の認知と国籍取得の届出によって日本国籍を取得できるように国籍法第3条1項が改正された（2008）。

　相続については現在、婚外子の法定相続分を婚内子の半分とする民法第900条4号但書の規定は削除され、婚外子と婚内子の相続分は平等になっている。しかし、この規定が削除されるまでには、長い道程があった。1979年に法務省民事局参事により法制審議会民法部会身分法小委員会の審議に基づくものとして公表された「相続に関する民法改正要綱試案」では「嫡出子と嫡出でない子の法定相続分を平等とする」旨の案が示された。1993年の東京高等裁判所判決ではこの相続規定を違憲とする判断が出された。1995年の最高裁判所判決は、合憲の判断を示すものの、立法府に法改正を求めるものであった。1996年に法制審議会が法務大臣に答申した「民法の一部を改正する法律案要綱」では、相続分の同等化が明記された。しかしながら当時の連立与党であった自民党内において婚外子差別撤廃への反対意見が強く、政府案として国会上程すらされない状態が続いてきた。この間、婚外子差別をなくすべきだという勧告がいくたびにわたって、国連の人権規約委員会（1998・2008）、社会権規約委員会（2001・2013）、女性差別撤廃委員会（2003・2009）、子どもの権利委員会（1998・2004・2010）から出されていた。2011年の大阪高等裁判所での違憲判断を経て、ついに、2013年9月4日、最高裁判所大法廷において裁判官14名全員一致で違憲の決定が出された。この決定では、法律婚の尊重による相続分差別の正当化を否定し、「個人の尊厳」「子を個人として尊重」という憲法に表されている文言を使い、民法900条4号但書の規定は「法の下の平等」を定めた憲法14条1項に違反しているとの判断を示した。同年12月5日にこの規定を削除する改正が行われ、婚外子と婚内子の相続分は同等となった。

　この規定は、相続分にとどまらず、婚外子の社会的劣位を象徴するものとみなされ、この規定の削除で、他の婚外子差別法制もなくなることが期待されていた。しかし、「嫡出子」「嫡出でない子」をチェックする出生届の様式を定めた戸籍法（49条1項）は改正されず、「嫡出でない子」という用語および「嫡出」の概念は民法や戸籍法のなかに残ったままである。さらに、婚外子の場合は父母の共同親権が認められない、子の氏を母から父の氏へ変更する場合に家庭裁判所の許可が必要、非婚の母には寡婦控除が適用されない、など法制度上の差別が残っている。

　「嫡」の字にはもともと「正妻の産んだ跡継ぎ」や「正統」といった意味がある。婚外子の親の一部からは、「嫡出でない子」とは「正統でない子」を含意する差別的用語であると不快感が示され、出生届の「嫡出子」「嫡出でない子」の区別欄を無記入で提出する動きが続いている。

　これまでにも日本政府は、国連の人権に関する各委員会から婚外子差別の是正が求められてきた。2016年に女性差別撤廃委員会から「相続における婚外子差別規定が2013年12月に廃止されたにもかかわらず、出生届における差別的記載に関する戸籍法の規定を含む多くの差別的規定が維持されている」「婚外子に関するすべての差別的な規定を廃止し、法が社会的な汚名と差別から婚外子とその母親を確実に保護するように」と勧告が出されている。

［善積京子　2016年5月19日］

国際私法上の親子関係

親子関係をめぐる法律は国によって異なり、それを統一することは宗教、文化などの違いによりほとんど不可能である。嫡出でない子（非嫡出子）については、婚姻から生まれた嫡出子と区別し、しかも、認知があるまでは非嫡出親子関係の成立も認めず、認知によって画一的統一的に子の地位を決定するローマ主義とよばれる制度を採用する日本を含む国々と、親子関係の存在が問題となる個別の問題ごとに親子関係が存在するか否かを証拠によって立証することとし、一律に子の地位を定めないゲルマン主義とよばれる制度を採用する国とがある。その結果、父、母そして子の国籍や常居所地国が異なる国際的な家族においては、国際私法により、いずれの国の法律によって親子関係を規律するかを定めることによって、秩序が与えられている。日本の国際私法典である「法の適用に関する通則法」（平成18年法律第78号）では、第29条で非嫡出親子関係の成立の準拠法を定め、第32条ではそうして成立した親子間の親権等の法律関係の準拠法を定めている。

　「法の適用に関する通則法」第29条によれば、非嫡出親子関係の成立は、一般的には、父との間では子の出生当時の父の本国法により、母との間ではその当時の母の本国法による。これに加え、認知による場合には、前記の準拠法によれば親子関係が成立しない場合であっても、認知当時の認知者または子の本国法によれば親子関係が成立するときには、非嫡出親子関係の成立を認める。ただし、認知者の本国法によって認知が認められることとすると、認知される子の利益に反する結果となるおそれがあるので、認知当時の子の本国法上、その子または第三者の承諾・同意を要求しているときは、その要件も満たさなければならないと規定されている。たとえば、子が幼いときには放置しておいて、子が財をなしたころになって現れ、子を認知したうえで扶養請求をしようという親に対して、親の本国法上は子の利益を保護する規定がなくても、子の本国法上に子の同意等の要件が規定されているときには、そのような認知の成立には子の同意が必要とされるのである。また、認知については、同法第34条により、その方式、すなわち、外部形式としてどのような形で認知すればよいかについては、認知の成立の準拠法によることでよいのはもちろん、その行為をする地の法律に定める方式を具備することでもよいとされている。このように、認知制度のある法律が適用される場合には、やや複雑な準拠法の適用となるのに対し、事実主義の法律のもとでは、子の出生当時の父母それぞれの本国法によってそれぞれの親子関係が定まるだけであり単純である。

　なお、法の適用に関する通則法の規定の適用順序の問題として、前記の第29条が適用されるのは、第28条により定まる準拠法によって嫡出親子関係の成立が否定された場合である。また、第29条により定める準拠法によって判断されるのは非嫡出親子関係が成立するか否かだけであって、たとえその法律によれば嫡出親子関係が成立するとしても、その問題はそもそも第29条の適用対象ではないので、そのことによって嫡出親子関係が成立するわけではない。

［道垣内正人　2016年5月19日］

『善積京子編『非婚を生きたい――婚外子の差別を問う』（1992・青木書店）』▽『善積京子著『婚外子の社会学』（1993・世界思想社）』▽『善積京子著『「近代家族」を超える――非法律婚カップルの声』（1997・青木書店）』▽『婚差会編『非婚の親と婚外子――差別なき明日に向かって』（2004・青木書店）』▽『佐藤やよひ・道垣内正人著『渉外戸籍法リステイトメント』（2007・日本加除出版）』▽『二宮周平「出生による子どもの差別は違憲――婚外子相続差別と民法改正」（『人権と部落問題　No.857』pp.31-39・2014・部落問題研究所）』▽『榊原富士子「婚外子について残された課題」（『自由と正義　Vol.65, No.3』pp.31-35・2014・日本弁護士連合会）』