作者 | 靳益群 中國政法大學碩士
審稿 | 趙文磊 波士頓大學 LL.M.
曾梓栩 萊頓大學 LL.M. Candidate
編輯 | 崔 雪 天津師範大學法學本科
扎恩哈爾 新疆農業大學
責編 | 扎恩哈爾 新疆農業大學
The University of Chicago Law Review Volume 91.2, Number 1| March 2024
《芝加哥大學法律評論》第91卷第2期第1篇
Restating the law in a child wellbeing framework
兒童福祉框架下的法律重述
Elizabeth S. Scott
The Restatement of Children and the Law is scheduled for formal adoption by the American Law Institute in 2024. When this project was first proposed, it was met with some skepticism, on the view that the regulation of children was not a coherent field of law. But after eight years of work on this Restatement, the Reporters have produced a comprehensive account of the law’s treatment of children and clarified that it is, indeed, an integrated and coherent area of law.
《兒童法重述》計劃於 2024 年由美國法學會正式透過。這個專案在最初被提議時遭到一些質疑，理由是針對兒童的規章並非一個連貫的法律領域。但歷經八年來在這部重述上所付諸的努力，彙編者對法律對待兒童的情況進行了全面闡述，並闡明該重述事實上確是個融貫的法律領域。
Our work has uncovered a deep structure and logic that shapes the legal regulation of children in the family, in school, in the justice system, and in the larger society. And it has clarified that the core principle and goal of the law affecting children across these domains is to promote their wellbeing.
我們於此的努力揭示了一種深層次的結構和邏輯，它塑造了家庭、學校、司法系統以及更廣泛的社會中對兒童的法律規制。並且它闡明瞭在諸多領域中關涉兒童法律的核心原則及目標均旨在促進他們的福祉。
This Child Wellbeing framework is embodied in the Restatement. It can be discerned most clearly in youth crime regulation, but it also shapes state intervention in families and parental rights, as well as children’s rights in school and in society.
這種兒童福祉框架於這部《法律重述》中有所體現。其在青少年犯罪規制中最易清晰辨識，但它也影響著國家層面對家庭和父母權利的干預，以及兒童在學校和社會中的權利。
The Child Wellbeing framework bears some similarity to the principles driving the Progressive era reforms, which also elevated the welfare of children—and which ultimately fell short of attaining the reformers’ goals. But the Restatement’s contemporary approach embodies three features that distinguish it from that of the earlier period.
兒童福祉框架與推動進步時代改革的原則有一些相似之處，進步時代的改革也提升了兒童的福利——但最終未能實現改革者的目標。然而，這部《重述》的當代正規化體現了三個有別於早期方法的特徵。
（圖片源於網路）
First, regulation today increasingly is based on research on child and adolescent development, as well as studies on the effectiveness of policy interventions. This empirical evidence provides a sturdier basis for doctrine and policy than the naive and intuitive approach of Progressive lawmakers, and a growing number of courts and legislatures rely on this research.
首先，如今的監管愈發以對兒童和青少年發展以及政策干預有效性的研究為基礎。相比於進步派立法者天真和直覺的方法，這種實證證據為學說理論和政策制定提供了更為堅實的基礎，並且越來越多的法院和立法機構傾向依賴於這一研究。
Second, today’s lawmakers increasingly recognize the broader social welfare benefits of regulation that promotes the wellbeing of children, increasing its political viability. And third, acknowledgement by courts of the ways in which embedded racial and class bias has affected the law’s relationship to children and families has led to tentative steps to ameliorate these pernicious influences.
其次，如今的立法者越來越認識到促進兒童福祉的監管具有更廣泛的社會福利效益，從而增加其政治上的可行性。第三，法院認識到根深蒂固的種族和階級偏見如何影響了法律與兒童和家庭的關係，這促使法院採取嘗試性措施來緩解這些有害影響。
This Essay elaborates on the Child Wellbeing framework, using various Restatement rules as examples of its implementation. It first focuses on the regulation of children in the justice system as the prime example. It then turns to the regulation of the parent-child relationship, explaining that the Restatement’s strong protection of parental rights is solidly grounded in the Child Wellbeing principle.
本文詳細闡述了兒童福祉框架，並舉各種《法律重述》規則為例以釋明其實施情況。首先，本文以司法系統中對兒童的監管為典例。之後轉向對親子關係管控的討論，並從該角度下解釋了《法律重述》對父母權利的有力保護牢固地基於兒童福祉原則。
Finally, the Essay examines children’s rights, clarifying that the Child Wellbeing principle is at work in lawmakers’ decisions to extend or withhold autonomy-based rights, or to maintain or create paternalistic protections.
最後，本文探討了兒童的權利，明確指出，在涉及立法者決定是否擴大或限制基於自主權的權利，抑或是維持或建立家長主義保護措施時，兒童福祉原則發揮了其作用。
INTRODUCTION引言
When the American Law Institute (ALI) began discussions of whether the organization should undertake a Restatement dealing with children and the law,the idea was met with considerable skepticism.One objection was that “Children and the Law” was not a coherent field of law, but rather the stepchild of several fields, with no common foundation or theoretical framework.
當美國法律協會（ALI）開始討論該組織是否應該制定一部涉及兒童法的《法律重述》時，這個想法遭到了相當大的質疑。一種反對意見是，“兒童與法律” 並非一個連貫的法律領域，而是幾個領域的繼承與延伸，缺乏共同的基礎或理論框架。
In family law, the treatment of children is overshadowed by the regulation of family formation and dissolution, with the interests of children relegated to doctrines regarding their custody and support. In many law schools, broader treatment of doctrines and regulation affecting children is not addressed in the basic family law course, but in a supplemental course or in poverty law.
在家庭法中，兒童待遇被家庭形成和分離的管制所掩蓋，兒童的利益被降格為關於家長監護和撫養的學說。在許多法學院，關乎對兒童產生影響的學說和管制寬泛處理並非在基礎家庭法課程中有所涉及，而是設定在補充課程或貧困法領域中。
Similarly, the regulation of youth in the justice system is an afterthought, not part of the mainstream curriculum [or doctrine] in criminal law or procedure.Torts and contract law include isolated doctrines that affect children, but they are not central to these fields. Finally, although family law is primarily state law, federal constitutional doctrine occasionally deals with children, but in a piecemeal way.
同樣地，司法系統中對青少年的監管形同馬後炮，而非刑法或訴訟程式主流課程（或學說）的一部分。侵權法和合同法的體系中涵括一些影響兒童的孤立學說，但它們並非相應領域的核心。最後，家庭法主要為州法律，但聯邦憲法學說仍偶爾會涉及兒童，儘管只是零碎地涉及。
In short, skeptics of the Restatement viewed Children and the Law as a prime example of “The Law of the Horse,” a patchwork of unrelated doctrines united only by the common focus on children.
簡而言之，對《法律重述》持懷疑態度的人認為 “兒童與法律” 是 “馬法” 的典例之一，是由不相關的學說拼湊而成，僅僅經由對兒童的共同關注而被聯絡在一起。
（圖片源於網路）
Beyond the seemingly random dispersal of doctrine affecting children across the legal landscape, other daunting challenges faced any effort to “restate the law” of children in the twenty-first century. Progressive reformers in the early twentieth century aimed to better the lives of wayward children, and to assimilate immigrant families into mainstream American life.
縱觀法律領域，除影響兒童的學說看似隨意地分散之外，在二十一世紀，任何試圖“重述兒童法律”的努力都面臨著其他令人望而生畏的挑戰。二十世紀初期的進步改革者旨在改善任性兒童的生活，並使移民家庭融入美國主流生活。
Toward this end, they created a relatively simple legal framework in which authority over children was divided between parents and the state, while children themselves were presumed to lack legal capacity.But that framework became increasingly complex and unsettled in the second half of the twentieth century.
為此，他們建立了一個相對簡單的法律框架，在這個框架中，對兒童的權力在父母和國家之間劃分，而兒童本身被假定缺乏法律行為能力。但這個框架在二十世紀下半葉變得愈發複雜和不穩定。
Beginning in the 1960s, lawmakers began to treat children as rights-bearing legal persons for some purposes, but not others, complicating the straightforward conception of children as vulnerable, dependent, and incapable of self-determination.
從 20 世紀 60 年代開始，立法者基於某種目的開始將兒童視為擁有權利的法律人，但在其他目的上並非如此，這使兒童作為脆弱、依賴且無法自我決定的簡單概念變得複雜。
Meanwhile, parental rights, which were property-like before the Progressive era, continued to be robust, but were increasingly subject to criticism by scholars and advocates as obsolete in a regime that recognized the person hood of children.
與此同時，在進步時代之前類似所有權的父母權利繼續壯大，但在承認兒童人格的制度背景下，這種觀點越來越受到學者和倡導者的批評，認為其已經過時。
Finally, the role of the state, established in the Progressive era as the protector of children, became increasingly punitive in the late twentieth century, as youth in the justice system were subject to ever harsher treatment.
最後，在進步時代確立為兒童保護者的國家角色在二十世紀後期變得越來越具有懲罰性，因其司法系統中的青少年受到愈發嚴厲的對待。
（圖片源於網路）
Juvenile justice policy in the twenty-first century has seen retrenchment from this approach with a new wave of more benevolent reforms grounded in developmental science, but the pendulum swings have undermined the stability of the state’s regulatory role Observers might well have concluded that achieving the goal of ALI restatements—bringing clarity and coherence to a field of law—was out of reach.
二十一世紀的少年司法政策已經棄用這種方法，出現了一波基於發展科學的更仁慈的改革，但這種鐘擺式的擺動破壞了國家監管角色的穩定性。研究人員很可能會得出結論，實現美國法律協會《法律重述》的目標——為一個法律領域帶來清晰性和連貫性——是遙不可及的。
Despite some reservations, the ALI launched the Restatement of Children and the Law in 2015,10 and the project is nearing completion. In eight years of work on this Restatement, the reporters have produced a comprehensive account of the law’s treatment of children and clarified that it is, indeed, an integrated and coherent area of law.
儘管存在一些保留意見，美國法律協會還是在 2015 年啟動了《兒童與法律重述》，並且該專案已趨於完成。在對這部《法律重述》長達八年的工作中，彙編人對法律對待兒童的情況進行了全面闡述，並闡明瞭實際上它確是一個綜合且連貫的法律領域。
Our work has uncovered a deep structure and logic that shapes the legal regulation of children in the family, in school, in the justice system, and in the larger society. And it has clarified that the core principle and goal of the law affecting children across these domains is to promote their wellbeing.
相關人員的努力揭示了一種深層次的結構和邏輯，它塑造了家庭、學校、司法系統以及更廣泛的社會中對兒童的法律規制。並且它闡明瞭在這些領域中影響兒童的法律的核心原則和目標是促進他們的福祉。
This foundation, which Professor Clare Huntington and I have called the Child Wellbeing framework, is embodied in the Restatement.It can be discerned most clearly in youth crime regulation, but it also shapes state intervention in families and parental rights, as well as children’s rights in school and in society.
筆者和克萊爾・亨廷頓教授將此基礎稱之為兒童福祉框架，其在這部《法律重述》中有所體現，也在青少年犯罪規制中最易清晰辨識。同時它也影響著國家層面對家庭和父母權利的干預，以及兒童在學校和社會中的權利。
The Child Wellbeing framework bears some similarity to the principles driving the Progressive era reforms, which also elevated the welfare of children—and which ultimately fell short of attaining the reformers’ goals. But the Restatement’s contemporary approach embodies three features that distinguish it from that of the earlier period.
兒童福祉框架與推動進步時代改革的原則有一些相似之處，進步時代的改革也提升了兒童的福利——但最終未能實現改革者的目標。然而，這部《重述》的當代正規化體現了三個使其有別於早期方法的特徵。
（圖片源於網路）
First, regulation today increasingly is based on research on child and adolescent development, as well as studies on the effectiveness of policy interventions. This empirical evidence provides a sturdier basis for doctrine and policy than the naive, intuitive approach of Progressive lawmakers, and a growing number of courts and legislatures rely on this research.
首先，如今的監管愈發以對兒童和青少年發展以及政策干預有效性的研究為基礎。相比於進步派立法者天真和直覺的方法，這種實證證據為學說理論和政策制定提供了更為堅實的基礎，並且越來越多的法院和立法機構傾向依賴於這一研究。
Second, today’s lawmakers increasingly recognize the broader social welfare benefits of regulation that promotes the well-being of children, boosting the political viability of modern reforms. And third, acknowledgement by courts of the ways in which embedded racial and class bias has affected the law’s relationship to children and families has led to tentative steps to ameliorate these pernicious influences.
其次，如今的立法者越來越認識到促進兒童福祉的監管具有更廣泛的社會福利效益，從而增加了其政治可行性。第三，法院認識到根深蒂固的種族和階級偏見如何影響了法律與兒童和家庭的關係，這促使法院採取嘗試性措施來緩解這些有害影響。
The three dimensions of the Child Wellbeing framework are most evident in the twenty-first century reforms of the justice system’s response to youth crime; these dimensions have shaped the Restatement sections dealing with children in the justice system.
兒童福祉框架的三個維度在二十一世紀司法系統改革對青少年犯罪的回應中最為明顯；這些維度塑造了《法律重述》中涉及司法系統中兒童的部分。
Lawmakers have rejected the punitive approach of the 1990s, which targeted youth of color, and increasingly embrace a developmental model of youth crime regulation.Both state and federal courts have relied on developmental science, emphasizing that the immaturity and vulnerability of adolescents require that they Receive a broad range of special protections in the justice system.
立法者已經摒棄了 20 世紀 90 年代針對有色人種青少年的懲罰性方法，並且越來越多地採用青少年犯罪規制的發展模式。州和聯邦法院都依賴於發展科學，強調青少年的不成熟和脆弱性要求他們在司法系統中獲得廣泛的特殊保護。
The Restatement has adopted this developmental model, which aims to enhance the well-being of youth in the justice system and to facilitate their transition to productive, noncriminal adulthood,objectives wholly compatible with the core social welfare goal of reducing crime in a cost-effective way.
《法律重述》採用了這種發展模式，旨在提高司法系統中青少年的福祉，並促進他們向富有成效、非犯罪的成年過渡，這些目標與以成本效益方式減少犯罪的核心社會福利目標完全相容。
This science-based approach also indirectly (and sometimes directly) benefits youth of color. However, despite the reforms, Black youth continue to be disproportionately represented in the justice system.
這種基於科學的方法也間接地（有時抑是直接地）使有色人種青少年受益。然而，儘管進行了改革，黑人青少年在司法系統中仍處於比例失調的狀態。
（圖片源於網路）
The core elements of the Child Wellbeing framework shape other areas of regulation affecting children as well, creating unifying themes across legal domains. The framework clarifies that the allocation of legal authority over children is not a zero-sum competition among the state, the parents, and the child, as it is conventionally understood.Instead, it is a regime in which the goal of advancing child well-being melds the interests of the state, parent, and child.
兒童福祉框架的核心要素也同樣其他涉及兒童的監管領域，在不同法律領域創造出統一的主題。該框架闡明，對兒童的法律權力分配並非如傳統理解的，表現為國家、父母和兒童之間的零和競爭的樣式。相反，這是一種具有促進兒童福祉的目標並融合了國家、父母和兒童利益的社會制度。
The Restatement highlights that, under contemporary law, an essential rationale for robust parental rights is that strong protection of parental authority promotes the well-being of children. This rationale is grounded in substantial research emphasizing the importance of stable and secure parent-child bonds to healthy child development.
《法律重述》強調，在當代法律下，強有力的父母權利的一個基本原理是，對父母權威的有力保護促進了兒童的福祉。此原理以大量研究為基礎，這些研究強調穩定和安全的親子關係對兒童健康發展的重要性。
Just as important, parental rights protect low-income families and families of color from excessive and harmful intrusion by the state.And unlike the traditional libertarian justification for parental rights, the modern rationale is self-limiting.
同樣重要的是，家長權利可以保護低收入家庭和有色人種家庭免受政府過度和有害的干預。與傳統自由主義者所主張的父母權利的正當理由不同，現代的理論本身就具有自我限制的性質。
The Child Wellbeing principle also makes sense of the opaque pattern of children’s rights, under which some autonomy-enhancing rights are extended to children and others are withheld. For example, children do not have a right to execute enforceable contracts, but children in public school have a First Amendment right of free expression.
兒童福祉原則也解釋了兒童權利的非透明模式，在這種模式下，一些增強自主權的權利被賦予兒童，而另一些則被保留。例如，兒童沒有執行可強制執行合同的權利，但公立學校的兒童有第一修正案規定的言論自由權利。
Both legal responses enhance children’s well-being. In general, the Restatement embraces the approach of courts and legislatures in giving to children rights that promote their well-being and withholding those that do not.
這兩種法律回應都增強了兒童的福祉。總的來說，《法律重述》效仿了法院和立法機構的做法，即賦予兒童促進其福祉的權利，保留那些不能促進其福祉的權利。
（圖片源於網路）
This Essay proceeds as follows: Part I elaborates on the Child Wellbeing framework adopted by the Restatement, focusing on the regulation of children in the justice system as the prime example. Part II discusses the regulation of the parent-child relationship, explaining that the Restatement’s strong protection of parental rights is solidly grounded in the Child Wellbeing principle. Part III deals with children’s rights, clarifying that the Child Wellbeing principle is at work in lawmakers’ decisions to extend or withhold autonomy-based rights, or to maintain or create paternalistic protections.
本文的行文如下：第一部分詳細闡述了《法律重述》所採用的兒童福祉框架，以司法系統中對兒童的監管為典例。第二部分討論親子關係的監管，解釋了《法律重述》對父母權利的有力保護牢固地基於兒童福祉原則。第三部分涉及兒童的權利，闡明瞭在立法者決定擴大或保留基於自主權的權利，或者維持或建立家長式保護的過程中，兒童福祉原則在發揮作用。
原文連結：
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/restating-law-child-wellbeing-framework