法律说抚养费请求权的主体是孩子，理由是条文主语写的是”未成年子女”。但这在逻辑上站不住：一个婴儿，连自己被侵犯了都不知道，更别说去法院起诉了。说一项权利归属于一个根本无法行使它的主体，这不是在保护他，是在虚构一个权利主体。
权利的意义在于能被主张、能被实现。不能行使的权利，等于没有。法律之所以这么写，是出于”保护孩子”的目的，但目的不能替代逻辑——为了保护孩子，就硬说权利是他的，这是立法技术上的偷懒。
抚养费本质上是父母之间的义务分配：谁养孩子，另一方就该出钱。这是父母之间的关系，不是孩子对父母的债权。把它说成孩子的权利，然后再由父母”代”孩子行使，绕了一圈，实际行使的还是父母，那为什么不直接承认这就是父母的权利？
法律在我这里不过是一种观点，而且未必是最高明的观点。条文怎么写是一回事，道理讲不讲得通是另一回事。
English Version
Who has the right to claim child support? I think the law itself is wrong on this point.
The law says the subject of the right to claim child support is the child, because the statute uses “minor children” as the grammatical subject. But this does not hold logically: an infant does not even know when their rights are violated, let alone file a lawsuit. To say a right belongs to someone who fundamentally cannot exercise it is not protecting them—it is fabricating a right-holder.
A right means nothing if it cannot be asserted and realized. A right that cannot be exercised is no right at all. The law drafts it this way for the purpose of protecting the child, but purpose cannot replace logic. To protect a child by insisting the right is theirs is a shortcut in legislative technique.
Child support is essentially an allocation of obligations between parents: whoever raises the child, the other should pay. This is a relationship between parents, not a debt the child holds against the parent. Calling it the child’s right, then having parents exercise it on behalf of the child—after going in circles, the one actually exercising it is still the parent. So why not just admit it is the parent’s right?
To me, law is just one perspective, and not necessarily the most insightful one. What the statute says is one thing; whether the reasoning makes sense is another.
具体见 / See also: 抚养费请求权与抚养权：主体之辨（完整讨论）
发表回复