‘가정’법원의 역할 확대와 가정‘법원’의 바람직한 기능 - 미국 통합가정법원(UFC)에 대한 비판론을 중심으로 - = Reevaluating the Family Court Reform: A Critical Study on the Concept of Therapeutic Justice

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Over the last twenty years, family justice systems have been challenged seriously.
Enormous changes in economic structure and social demographics have created complicated circumstances in daily living for families to navigate. As a result, they have turned to the court for help to resolve a variety of matters not encountered previously. The wide array of potential underlying issues in family and children cases has become quite complex and can require protracted planning involving social service interventions. To keep with this situation, it can be widely agreede that an upgraded Family Court is urgently needed. This article, however, highlights several of the potential problems with the so-called ‘Problem-Solving Court’, based on the discourse about the Unified Family Courts in U. S. It is not a condemnation of unified family courts per se ; it is simply a suggestion that reformers proceed with their eyes open, taking time to consider the potential demerits of the unified family court system before using valuable resources for its implementation.
In U. S., the Unified Family Courts have been introduced and operated in many states. In fact,there is no agreed-on definition of what family courts are. But the general definition of a unified family court includes five elements: (a) comprehensive jurisdiction, (b) a one judge-one family system, (c) a therapeutic justice approach, (d) training of judges and court personnel, and (e)coordinated case management procedures. Much has been written about the potential success of unified family courts. Unified family court proponents share great optimism and enthusiasm for what they see as a solution to several of the problems facing court systems today.
This enthusiasm should be applauded. As with any reform, however, unified family court advocates must stop to consider the possible drawbacks to the system that they propose. It can be summarized as three poins. First, UFCs proffer the judiciary to the citizen-consumer as a delivery organization at the “street level”, that play the role of the judicial bureaucracy as the administrator of social welfare and child protection. The adoption and development of such a policy initiative does not, however, answer important questions about the consequences of an organizational evolution. Second, it should be kept in mind whether these courts would preserve the substantive due process right of “family integrity” that protects the rights of parents to raise their children as they choose and allows children to grow up with their own unique family. It is needless to say that even the Problem-solving courts, believing they could assist the families anyway, should not ignore those constitutional and statutory restrictions. Third, Unified family courts have been so widely discussed and accepted that they risk becoming an easy political “solution” to systemic problems that poor families face. If the public believes that all family problems can be solved with the creation of a unified family court, advocates for children and families may move on to other problems. However, there is no evidence to suggest that courts are better at handing out therapeutic justice than other agency.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

지금까지의 가정법원 제도 운영에 대해서는 긍정적인 평가가 지배적이지만 가정법원이 주어진 역할을 더 잘 수행할 수 있게 하기 위한 개선 방안의 모색도 꾸준하게 이어지고 있다. 이러한 입법론의 핵심은 작게는 가사사건 절차를 겪으면서 당사자들 사이의 인간관계가 더 이상 악화되는 것을 방지하고 크게는 가정법원이 가족 간의 갈등을 근본적으로 해결하기 위하여 적극적인 역할을 수행하여야한다는 것이다.
이와 관련하여 미국의 통합가정법원(Uniform Family Court) 제도에 관한 논의는 시사하는 바가 적지 않다. 한편으로는 이 제도의 도입 취지인 가정법원의 기능 강화, 치료사법의 구현 등을 고려할 필요가 있고 다른 한편으로는 이에 대한 비판론, 즉 삼권분립 원칙, 적법절차 원칙과의 긴장관계나, 통합가정법원이 실제로 가족문제를 효율적으로 해결할 수 있는지에 대한 의문에 대해서도 유의할 필요가 있다.
2012년에 이르러서야 비로소 가정법원이 전국적으로 설치되기 시작한 우리나라의 현실을 감안한다면위와 같은 미국의 논의들 중 후자 즉 비판적인 주장은 기우라고 볼 수도 있다. 그렇지만 미국의 사례에 비추어 볼 때 가정법원 제도의 ‘지나친’ 활성화는 뜻밖의 부작용을 낳을 수도 있다는 것도 감안하여미리 최적의 대안을 모색할 필요가 있는 것이다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "헌법재판소 2000. 6. 1. 선고 98헌바8 결정"

2 "헌법재판소 2000. 4. 27. 98헌가16, 98헌마429 (병합) 결정"

3 "헌법재판소 1992. 12. 24. 92헌가8 결정"

4 허영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 708-, 2012

5 한계레신문, "자유롭거나 외롭거나…1인가구, 한국의 가구형태 ‘주류’로"

6 이동수, "일선공무원의 행정행태에 미치는 영향요인 연구: 합리적 행위이론의 적용을 중심으로" 한국공공관리학회 21 (21): 143-164, 2007

7 김신규, "유죄협상(Plea Bargaining)제도에 대한 비판적 검토" 미국헌법학회 22 (22): 87-132, 2011

8 이용식, "유죄답변협상제도의 도입에 대한 비판적 검토-피해자의 관점에서 제기하는 반론-" 한국형사법학회 19 (19): 207-228, 2007

9 임상혁, "법원의 ADR" 한국민사소송법학회 12 (12): 33-47, 2008

10 이경희, "미국의 가사중재" 한국가족법학회 24 (24): 179-208, 2010

11 정승원, "가정법원의 후견적 역할과 임무" 3-7, 2011

12 이유정, "가정법원의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국가족법학회 22 (22): 1-66, 2008

13 선재성, "가사소송에서의 신모델의 향후 과제 : 가사소송의 비송화 및 상담조정기능의 확충" 대법원 법원행정처 106 : 2005

14 권재문, "가사소송법 제17조의 연혁과 문제점" 한국법사학회 (29) : 251-272, 2004

15 윤진수, "美國 家庭法院의 現況과 改善 論議" 한국가족법학회 22 (22): 151-204, 2008

16 문재완, "司法消極主義의 再檢討" 법학연구소 (27) : 137-166, 2007

17 Amy Sinden, "“Why Won’t Mom Cooperate? : A Critique of Informality in Child Welfare Proceedings" 11 : 339-391, 1999

18 Mae C. Quinn, "Whose Team Am I on Anyway? Musings of a Public Defender about Drug Treatment Court Practice" 26 : 37-, 2000

19 Barbara A. Babb, "Where We Stand : An Analysis of America’s Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Unified Family Courts" 32 : 31-, 1998

20 Stephanie Domitrovich, "Utilizing an Effective Economic Approach to Family Court: A Proposal for a Statutory Unified Family Court in Pennsylvania" 37 : 1-3, 1998

21 Dana E. Prescott, "Unified Family Courts and the Modern Judiciary as a “Street-Level Bureaucracy” : To What End for the “Mythical” Role of Judges in a Democracy" 27 : 55-57, 2002

22 Harvard Law Review Association, "Unified Family Courts and the Child Protection Dilemma" 116 : 2099-2103, 2003

23 Anne H. Geraghty, "Unified Family Courts : Tempering Enthusiasm with Caution" 40 : 435-438, 2002

24 John Lande, "The Revolution in Family Law Dispute Resolution" 24 : 411-, 2012

25 Lipsky, M., "Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services" Russell Sage Foundation 1980

26 Jane M. Spinak, "Romancing the Court" 46 : 258-259, 2008

27 Jane C. Murphy, "Revitalizing the Adversary System in Family Law" 78 : 891-892, 2010

28 Deborah J. Chase, "Pro Se Justice and Unified Family Courts" 37 : 403-, 2003

29 Andrew Schepard, "Preventing Trauma for the Children of Divorce Through Education and Professional Responsibility" 16 : 767-775, 1992

30 Shelley Kierstead, "Parent Education Programs in Family Courts: Balancing Autonomy and State Intervention" 49 : 140-, 2011

31 Shelley Kierstead, "Parent Education Programs in Family Courts : Balancing Autonomy and State Intervention" 49 : 140-, 2011

32 Statewide Family Law Advisory Comm., "Oregon Judicial Dep’t, Oregon’s Integrated Family Court of the Future" 40 : 474-, 2002

33 "Olmstead v. United States, 48 S. Ct. 564, 572-73"

34 Mary E. O’Connell, "Mandated Custody Evaluations and the Limits of Judicial Power" 47 : 304-315, 2009

35 Mary E. O’Connell, "Mandated Custody Evaluations and the Limits of Judicial Power" 47 : 304-305, 2009

36 "In re Report of Fam. Ct. Steering Comm."

37 Jay Folberg, "Family Courts: Assessing the Trade-Offs" 37 : 448-453, 1999

38 Edward P. Mulvey, "Family Courts : The Issue of Reasonable Goals" 6 : 49-56, 1982

39 Timothy M. Tippins, "Empirical and Ethical Problems with Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance" 43 : 193-215, 2005

40 Walter F. Murphy, "Elements of Judicial Strategy" University of Chicago Press 17-, 1964

41 Katherine C. Pearson, "Cooperate or We’ll Take Your Child : The Parents’ Fictional Voluntary Separation Decision and a Proposal for Change" 65 : 835-, 1998

42 Goldstein, "Beyond the Best Interests of the Child" Free Press 1984

43 Gerald W. Hardcastle, "Adversarialism and the Family Court : A Family Court Judge’s Perspective" 9 : 57-, 2005

44 "Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997"

45 "Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980"

46 "387 U.S. 1"

47 Peggy C. Davis, ""There is a Book Out …" An Analysis of Judicial Absorption of Legislative Facts" 100 : 1539-, 1987