譯者 | 舒方正 北京大學國際法學院
一審 | 曾梓栩 萊頓大學 LL.M. Candidate
二審 | 陳博敏 清華大學法律碩士
編輯 | 楊詠文 中南財經政法大學碩士
責編 |馬語謙 武漢理工大學法學本科
The University of Chicago Law Review Volume 91.2, Number 9 | March 2024
《芝加哥法律評論》第91.2卷第9篇
Parental Rights: Rhetoric Versus Doctrine
父母權利： 語彙 VS 理論
Clare Huntington
Professor Josh Gupta-Kagan observes that the Restatement of Children and the Law does not transform the law of child abuse and neglect. As he contends, this is neither a feature nor a bug. It is simply the reality of a restatement, which can only nudge, not reform, the law. I agree with Gupta-Kagan that only political will, not the American Law Institute (ALI), can fix the significant problems with the family regulation system. For advocates and scholars—including both of us—who seek structural and doctrinal change, the ALI has principles projects, and there is a broader ecosystem for law reform. But the nature of a restatement is to restate.
Josh Gupta-Kagan教授認為，《兒童與法律重述（第二版）》（簡稱《重述》）並沒有改變有關虐待和忽視兒童的法律。正如他所說，這既不是特點，也不是缺點。這只是法律重述的現實，它只能推動而不是改革法律。我同意Gupta-Kagan的觀點，只有政治意願，而不是美國法學會（ALI），才能解決家庭法規體系的重大問題。對於尋求結構和理論變革的倡導者和學者（包括筆者和Josh Gupta-Kagan教授）來說，美國法學會有原則性專案，（但在此之外）也有更廣泛的生態系統需要法律改革。但重述的本質就是重述。
Notwithstanding this inherent constraint, I want to underscore one aspect of Gupta-Kagan’s argument and suggest that the Restatement does more than may first meet the eye. Gupta-Kagan applauds the Restatement’s embrace of parental rights for families facing coercive state intervention through the family regulation system. He demonstrates that at several doctrinal forks, the Restatement relies on parental rights to choose the rule that is more protective of family integrity. As Gupta-Kagan shows, by emphasizing these rights, the Restatement reinforces the doctrinal shield that helps protect marginalized families from state intervention. I second the value of this shield, but in my view, the Restatement does something else as well.
儘管存在這一固有的限制，我還是想強調Gupta-Kagan論點的一個方面，並指出《重述》所做的比乍看起來要多。Gupta-Kagan稱讚《重述》透過家庭法規體系為面臨國家強制干預的家庭提供了父母權利。他認為，在幾個理論岔路口，《重述》依靠父母權利選擇了更能保護家庭完整性的規則。正如Gupta-Kagan所展示的，透過強調這些權利，《重述》強化了有助於保護邊緣化家庭免受國家干預的理論盾牌。我贊同這種保護的價值，但在我看來《重述》還做了其他一些事情。
（圖片來源於網路）
By restating the doctrine of parental rights—as it applies in the family regulation system and more broadly—the Restatement offers an institutional counterbalance to the heated partisan rhetoric around parental rights. Across the country, political leaders and advocates are claiming that these rights mean parents can control school curricula, minors cannot access reproductive health care without parental involvement, and parents must know about a child’s exploration of gender identity outside the home. This invocation of parental rights is not an attempt to recalibrate doctrine. It is a political strategy for advancing a world view. And it is highly effective, leading to considerable legislative success, at least for the moment.
透過重述父母權利的理論（它適用於家庭法規體系和更廣泛的範圍），《重述》為圍繞父母權利激烈的基於黨派政治立場而不同的說辭提供了一種制度上的制衡。在全國範圍內，政治領袖和倡導者都聲稱，這些權利意味著父母可以控制學校課程，未成年人不能在沒有父母參與的情況下獲得生殖健康服務，父母必須瞭解孩子在家庭之外對性別認同的探索。這種對父母權利的援引並非試圖重新調整理論。它是一種推進某種世界觀的政治策略。這種策略非常有效，至少目前在立法上取得了相當大的成功。
Legal scholars appropriately identify the dangers in this political strategy, but, as I argue in this brief response Essay, even as we recognize the problems with the rhetorical invocation of parental rights, we cannot lose sight of the doctrinal importance of parental rights. As I elaborate below, in both its process and substance, the Restatement quietly and steadily affirms existing legal doctrine. The Restatement identifies the core interest at stake in parental rights: the relationship of a parent and child and the ability for one to be with the other. Protecting the parent-child relationship is important for all families, but it is especially critical for marginalized families, who are at heightened risk of family separation. And by underscoring these interests and their deep doctrinal roots, the Restatement may (optimistically), provide a counterbalance to the ongoing culture wars.
法律學者們恰當地指出了這一政治策略的危險性，但是，正如我在這篇簡短的回應文章中所論述的，即使我們認識到在言辭上援引父母權利的問題，我們也不能忽視父母權利在理論上的重要性。正如我在下文中所闡述的，《重述》在其過程和實質上都悄悄地、穩步地肯定了現有的法律理論。《重述》指出了父母權利所涉及的核心利益：父母與子女的關係以及一方與另一方在一起的能力。保護親子關係對所有家庭都很重要，但對邊緣化家庭尤為關鍵，因為這些家庭面臨家庭破裂的風險更高。透過強調這些利益及其深刻的理論根源，《重述》可能（樂觀地）為正在進行的文化戰爭提供一種制衡。
I. 重述的侷限性和此《重述》
I appreciate Gupta-Kagan’s observations about where the Restatement falls short of even the modest goal of nudging the law to better serve children and families. Fortunately, the Restatement is still a work in progress, and there is time to fix some of the discrete issues he identifies. For example, he helpfully points out that some of the illustrations in the section on physical neglect reflect pathology logics. It is not too late to change the language of “choice” and “substance use.” And notwithstanding the ALI’s preference for bookend illustrations with clear-cut fact patterns, it is possible to include a bit more nuance in the illustrations to give better guidance to courts and advocates on gray areas of the law.
我很欣賞Gupta-Kagan的觀點，他指出了《重述》甚至沒有達到促使法律更好地為兒童和家庭服務這一微不足道的目標。幸運的是，《重述》仍是一項正在進行中的工作，還有時間來解決他所指出的一些不連貫的問題。例如，他指出身體忽視一節中的一些插圖反映了病理學邏輯，這很有幫助。現在改變“選擇”和 “物質使用”的措辭還為時不晚。儘管ALI更傾向於以清晰的事真實模式作為書末插圖，但仍有可能在插圖中加入更多細微差別，從而在法律的灰色地帶為法院和倡導者提供更好的指導。
More broadly, however, some of the shortcomings Gupta-Kagan identifies are because of the underlying law. It is true, as he argues, that the section on physical neglect places most of the burden on parents, rather than the state, to address the causes of physical neglect. Unfortunately, this is the law. Take housing, for example. Around the country, many families struggle with the lack of affordable, livable housing. And for some families, housing instability is a contributing factor leading to state intervention through the family regulation system. If a child is removed from the care of a parent due, at least in part, to housing instability, the state has an obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. As the Restatement clarifies, this obligation requires state agencies to help parents find housing, but it does not require the state agency to pay for that housing, even if this means not reunifying the family. In other words, the Restatement reflects U.S. law and policy: the state does not have an affirmative obligation to address poverty. Thus, although I agree that the Restatement does not grapple with structural inequality and instead places responsibility on parents, this is because the law does so.
然而，從更廣泛的意義上講，Gupta-Kagan所指出的一些缺陷是基本法律造成的。誠如他所言，關於身體忽視的章節將解決身體忽視原因的大部分責任放在了父母身上，而不是國家身上。不幸的是，這就是法律。以住房為例。在全國各地，許多家庭都在為缺乏負擔得起的宜居住房而苦苦掙扎。對一些家庭來說，住房不穩定是導致國家透過家庭法規體系進行干預的一個因素。如果由於住房不穩定而導致至少部分兒童脫離父母的照料，那麼國家就有義務做出合理的努力使家庭團聚。正如《重述》所闡明的，這一義務要求州政府機構幫助父母尋找住房，但並不要求州政府機構支付住房費用，即使這意味著不能使家庭團聚。換句話說，《重述》反映了美國的法律和政策：州政府沒有解決貧困問題的積極義務。因此，儘管我同意《重述》沒有解決結構性不平等問題，而是將責任歸咎於父母，但這是因為法律這樣做了。
（圖片來源於網路）
More generally, parental rights go only so far in helping marginalized families. Mississippi is a good example. As Gupta-Kagan shows, Mississippi has low rates of child removal and termination of parental rights. It is unclear whether these statistics reflect a strong view of parental rights or state indifference to children. But it is clear that the state has some of the worst outcomes for children: the highest rate of child poverty in the country, the second highest teenage birth rate, and the highest infant mortality rates. As many other scholars and I have argued, the right to be shielded from state intervention does not translate into an affirmative right to support from the state, notwithstanding the critical importance of this support for child well-being.
在更宏觀的角度，父母權利在幫助邊緣化家庭方面的作用有限。密西西比州就是一個很好的例子。正如Gupta-Kagan所展示的，密西西比州兒童帶離父母監護和父母權利被終止的比例很低。目前還不清楚這些資料是反映了密西西比州對父母權利的重視，還是反映了該州對兒童的漠不關心。但顯而易見的是，密西西比州的一些兒童狀況是最糟糕的：兒童貧困率居全國之首，青少年生育率居全國第二，嬰兒死亡率居全國之首。正如許多其他學者和我所主張的那樣，免受國家干預的權利並沒有轉化為獲得國家支援的肯定權利，但是這種支援對兒童的福祉至關重要。
In short, I agree with much of Gupta-Kagan’s critique, but I am not sure the Restatement could do more, given the state of the law. As the next Part shows, parental rights face an additional challenge: politicians and advocates invoking these rights as a political hammer. But here, the Restatement does offer some relief—or at least a counterweight to the rhetoric.
簡而言之，我同意Gupta-Kagan的大部分批評意見，但鑑於法律的現狀，我不確定《重述》還能做得更多。正如下一部分所示，父母權利還面臨著另一個挑戰：政客和擁護者援引這些權利作為政治砝碼。但是，《重述》確實提供了一些救濟，或者至少是對這些言論的一種抗衡。
II. 言辭 VS 理論
Parental rights are in the news. And not in a good way. In multiple contexts, movement conservatives are invoking parental rights to advance a socially conservative political agenda. As scholars in different disciplines have shown, there is nothing new in this strategy. But as we—legal scholars, advocates, and members of the public—express concern about the weaponization of parental rights, it is critical to distinguish parental-rights rhetoric from parental-rights doctrine.
父母權利出現在新聞，而且是不好的新聞中。在多種情況下，運動保守派（movement conservatives）都在援引父母權利來推進社會保守派的政治議程。正如不同學科的學者所指出的，這種策略並不新鮮。但是，當我們（法律學者、倡導者和公眾成員）表達對父母權利武器化的擔憂時，將父母權利言論與父母權利理論區分開來至關重要。
（圖片來源於網路）
As Professor Elizabeth Scott and I have argued, the doctrine of parental rights promotes child well-being for two main reasons. First, by restricting the state’s authority to intervene in families, parental rights promote the stability of the parent-child relationship. This protection furthers healthy child development for all children, but it is especially important for low-income families and families of color, who are subject to intensive state scrutiny. Second, parental rights ensure that in most contexts, parents, rather than a state actor, make decisions about what advances a particular child’s interests. The legal system defers to parents’ decisions about their children both because parents are well positioned to know what their child needs and because state intervention exposes the child to the risk of family disruption and contentious litigation. To be sure, some legal scholars take issue with this distribution of decision-making authority, but these debates are good-faith conversations about which legal rules best serve the interests of children.
正如Elizabeth Scott教授和我所論證的那樣，父母權利理論促進兒童福祉的主要原因有兩個。首先，透過限制國家干預家庭的權力，父母權利促進了親子關係的穩定。這種保護促進了所有兒童的健康成長，但對低收入家庭和有色人種家庭尤為重要，因為這些家庭受到國家的嚴格審查。其次，父母權利確保在大多數情況下，由父母而非國家行為者來決定如何促進特定兒童的利益。法律制度尊重父母對其子女的決定，這既是因為父母能夠很好地瞭解他們的子女需要什麼，也是因為國家干預會使兒童面臨家庭破裂和訴訟的風險。可以肯定的是，一些法律學者對這種決策權的分配持有異議，但這些爭論（僅僅是）是關於哪些法律規則最符合兒童利益的善意對話。
By contrast, the rhetorical invocation of parental rights is a political strategy for a polarized era. For example, Democrats and Republicans disagree sharply about the government’s role in addressing racial inequity. Conservative advocates are framing this issue in the language of parental rights to indirectly advance a view that is harder to advance directly: movement conservatives do not want to argue against racial justice, so they make a parental-rights argument against schools teaching critical race theory. Similarly, marriage equality is settled as a legal matter, so instead of attacking that right, conservatives invoke parental rights to claim that schools should not teach young children about same-sex relationships.
相比之下，在言辭上援引父母權利是一個兩極分化時代的政治策略。例如，民主黨人和共和黨人對於政府在解決種族不平等問題上的作用存在著尖銳的分歧。保守派擁護者用父母權利的話語來闡述這個問題，間接地提出了一個很難直接提出的觀點：運動保守派不想反對種族公正，所以他們用父母權利的觀點來反對學校教授批判性種族理論。同樣，婚姻平等作為一個法律問題已經得到確認，因此保守派不是攻擊這一權利，而是援引家長權利，聲稱學校不應該向幼兒教授同性關係。
（圖片來源於網路）
By naming something “rhetorical,” I do not mean to underplay the impact of these political moves. But these political assertions of parental rights are decidedly not an effort to change doctrine. Indeed, an embrace of parental rights would lead to some outcomes that the same advocates presumably do not want. For example, a strong regime of parental rights might mean that a school must inform a parent about a child’s gender expression at school, but this regime would also mean that a parent, not the state, makes healthcare decisions for a child, including whether to seek and obtain gender-affirming care. Indeed, a strong theory of parental rights is at the heart of litigation seeking to enjoin state laws that restrict minors’ access to gender-affirming care.
我將某些事情命名為“言辭”，並不是要低估這些政治舉動的影響。但這些關於父母權利的政治主張顯然不是為了改變理論。事實上，對父母權利的擁護會導致一些擁護者可能並不希望看到的結果。例如，一個強有力的父母權利制度可能意味著學校必須將孩子在學校的性別表現告知父母，但這一制度也意味著父母，而不是國家，為孩子做出醫療決定，包括是否尋求和獲得性別確認護理（gender-affirming care）。事實上，強有力的父母權利理論是尋求禁止限制未成年人獲得性別確認護理的州法律的訴訟核心。
In both its process and substance, the Restatement can—potentially—help focus attention on what children and families need, as opposed to what politicians are doing to garner votes. As a process matter, reporters spend years sifting through hundreds of cases to find through lines, and the process of writing a restatement includes multiple, iterative opportunities for collaboration and consultation. Each black-letter section proceeds through three, sometimes four, layers of review and input. Reporters meet regularly with advisers who specialize in the field—judges, academics, and practicing lawyers—for input on early drafts and sharing of perspectives, and then each substantive section in a restatement is reviewed and discussed by the ALI Council and finally the full membership. This process, with repeated opportunities for listening and learning from varying perspectives, is decidedly different from politicians and advocates using family law as a wedge issue to gain political power.
無論是在程式上還是在實體上，《重述》都有可能幫助人們關注兒童和家庭需要什麼，而不是政客們為了拉選票而做什麼。就過程而言，記者要花費數年時間從數百個案例中篩選出貫穿始終的條款，而《重述》的撰寫過程包括多次反覆的合作與協商機會。每個黑體字部分都要經過三級，有時是四級的審查和意見反饋。報告人定期與該領域的專業顧問（法官、學者和執業律師）會面，就初稿提出意見並分享觀點，然後重述中的每個實質性部分都要經過ALI理事會的審查和討論，最後由全體成員進行討論。這一過程提供了傾聽和學習不同觀點的很多機會，與政客和倡導者利用家庭法作為撬動政治權力的支點顯然不同。
As a substantive matter, even as many family law scholars express concern about the political deployment of parental rights, we should not lose sight of the doctrinal importance of parental rights for all families and especially those caught up in the family regulation system. Gupta-Kagan reminds us that parental rights make it harder for the state to intervene in family life and harder to remove a child from the care of a parent. Parental rights also impose affirmative obligations on the state to try to reunite the family if a child has been placed in state custody. The Restatement’s black-letter rules set forth these and other protections for families, and the rules are rooted in both the Constitution and social science evidence about the importance of stability in the parent-child relationship. These protections are especially salient in light of new evidence coming out of the pandemic showing that when state agencies stopped removing children during the early days of COVID-19, child outcomes remained positive along a range of metrics. Thus, properly enforced, parental rights can make a significant difference in the lives of children and families-especially the most vulnerable. The Restatement will not resolve polarization in the United States. But by offering both a process and venue for different interests to come together and a finished product that can help guide courts, the Restatement offers stability and grounding in this contentious time.
作為一個實質性問題，即使許多家庭法學者對父母權利的政治部署表示擔憂，我們也不應忽視父母權利在理論上對所有家庭的重要性，尤其是那些陷入家庭法規體系的家庭。Gupta-Kagan提醒我們，父母權利使國家更難干預家庭生活，也更難將孩子從父母的照顧下帶走。父母權利還意味著，如果兒童被置於國家監護之下，國家有義務努力使家庭團聚。《重述》的黑體字規則規定了對家庭的這些和其他保護，這些規則既植根於憲法，也植根於關於親子關係穩定重要性的社會科學證據。有新證據表明，當各州機構在COVID-19初期停止帶走兒童時，兒童在一系列指標上的結果仍然是積極的。因此，只要執行得當，父母權利可以為兒童和家庭（尤其是最弱勢的兒童和家庭）的生活帶來重大改變。《重述》不會解決美國的兩極分化問題。但是，《重述》既為不同的利益群體提供了匯聚一堂的程式和場域，又提供了有助於指導法院的成品，從而在這個充滿爭議的時代提供了穩定性和基礎。
（圖片來源於網路）
Like Gupta-Kagan, I, too, look forward to a Restatement (Second) of Children and the Law that reflects a sea change in the state’s support of families. Until then, advocates and legal scholars should continue to name and critique the misuse of parental-rights rhetoric while also reaffirming the importance of parental-rights doctrine in promoting the well-being of children.
與Gupta-Kagan一樣，我也期待《兒童與法律重述（第二版）》能反映出國家對家庭支援的巨大變化。在此之前，倡導者和法律學者應繼續指出並批評濫用父母權利的言論，同時重申父母權利理論在促進兒童福祉方面的重要性。
原文連結：
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/strange-career-antisubordination