Skip to content

Taiwan Minfa (Civil Code) — Parental Rights and Meeting-Interaction (Verbatim)

TL;DR

The Republic of China (Taiwan) governs family law under Book IV (Family) of the Minfa (Civil Code, promulgated 26 December 1930, in force 5 May 1931). The parental-rights and post-divorce custody framework has been extensively reformed since 1996 (the "September 25 reform" — Law amending Book IV of the Civil Code, promulgated 25 September 1996). Chapter III (Parents and Children) of Book IV contains the substantive parental-rights regime; Chapter II (Marriage), sections on divorce, contain the post-divorce custody regime. Four provisions carry the operational anti-alienation weight: art. 1055(1)–(2) (post-divorce exercise of parental rights by parental agreement or court decision on best-interests grounds); art. 1055(5) (right of meeting and interaction — 會面交往 huì miàn jiāo wǎng — of the parent who does not exercise parental rights, with mandatory court determination and welfare-based modification jurisdiction); art. 1055-1 (eight-factor best-interests test, expressly including the friendly-parent factor at (6)); art. 1055-2 (court restructuring jurisdiction where the exercise of parental rights is unfavourable to the child, or where obstruction of meeting-interaction occurs). The Traditional Chinese text below is drawn from the consolidated Ministry of Justice publication at law.moj.gov.tw; the English is a working translation for research use. The Chinese original controls. Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) — an operationally significant constraint on cross-border practice for the Taiwanese diaspora (~700,000 overseas Taiwanese, largest concentrations in the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, the ASEAN region, and Vietnam).

Statute — Verbatim Text

Art. 1055 Minfa — Exercise of Parental Rights After Divorce and Meeting-Interaction

Traditional Chinese (consolidated text, as amended by Law of 25 September 1996 and subsequent):

夫妻離婚者,對於未成年子女權利義務之行使或負擔,依協議由一方或雙方共同任之。未為協議或協議不成者,法院得依夫妻之一方、主管機關、社會福利機構或其他利害關係人之請求或依職權酌定之。

前項協議不利於子女者,法院得依主管機關、社會福利機構或其他利害關係人之請求或依職權為子女之利益改定之。

行使、負擔權利義務之一方未盡保護教養之義務或對未成年子女有不利之情事者,他方、未成年子女、主管機關、社會福利機構或其他利害關係人得為子女之利益,請求法院改定之。

前三項情形,法院得依請求或依職權,為子女之利益酌定權利義務行使負擔之內容及方法。

法院得依請求或依職權,為未行使或負擔權利義務之一方酌定其與未成年子女會面交往之方式及期間。但其會面交往有妨害子女之利益者,法院得依請求或依職權變更之。

English (working translation):

Where the husband and wife are divorced, the exercise of, or bearing of, rights and duties with respect to the minor children shall be assumed by one party or by both parties jointly by agreement. Where no agreement has been made or agreement cannot be reached, the court may make an order upon application of one of the spouses, the competent authority, a social welfare institution or other interested person, or on its own motion.

Where the agreement referred to in the preceding paragraph is unfavourable to the child, the court may, for the benefit of the child, modify it upon application of the competent authority, a social welfare institution or other interested person, or on its own motion.

Where the party who exercises or bears the rights and duties has failed to perform the duty of protection and education, or where there are circumstances unfavourable to the minor child, the other party, the minor child, the competent authority, a social welfare institution or other interested person may, for the benefit of the child, apply to the court to modify the arrangement.

In the circumstances referred to in the preceding three paragraphs, the court may, upon application or on its own motion, determine for the benefit of the child the content and method of the exercise or bearing of rights and duties.

The court may, upon application or on its own motion, determine the manner and duration of the meeting and interaction between the party who does not exercise or bear the rights and duties and the minor child. However, where such meeting and interaction is prejudicial to the interests of the child, the court may, upon application or on its own motion, modify it.

Operational note: Art. 1055 is the operational core of the post-divorce framework. Five features:

  • Paragraph 1 — post-divorce exercise by agreement (sole or joint) or, failing agreement, by court order on best-interests grounds. Standing is broad: parents, the competent authority (in practice the local government social-affairs department), social-welfare institutions, and other interested persons may all apply.
  • Paragraph 2 — welfare-based override of the parental agreement. The court may modify an agreement on its own motion where the agreement is unfavourable to the child.
  • Paragraph 3 — modification jurisdiction where the exercising party has failed the duty of protection and education, or where "circumstances unfavourable to the minor child" exist. The child has express standing to apply. This is a stronger standing rule than in many comparative systems.
  • Paragraph 4 — the court fixes the content and method of exercise; the court is not confined to designating the exercising party but may specify how the exercise is to occur.
  • Paragraph 5 — the meeting-interaction right (會面交往). Two features are distinctive: (a) the court determines both the manner and the duration; (b) modification is available on welfare grounds, upon application or on the court's own motion. The Taiwan Family Act (家事事件法) 2012 subsequently strengthened the enforcement mechanism.

Art. 1055-1 Minfa — Best-Interests Factors (added by Law of 25 September 1996; amended 2018)

Traditional Chinese (consolidated text):

法院為前條裁判時,應依子女之最佳利益,審酌一切情狀,尤應注意下列事項:

一、子女之年齡、性別、人數及健康情形。

二、子女之意願及人格發展之需要。

三、父母之年齡、職業、品行、健康情形、經濟能力及生活狀況。

四、父母保護教養子女之意願及態度。

五、父母子女間或未成年子女與其他共同生活之人間之感情狀況。

六、父母之一方是否有妨礙他方對未成年子女權利義務行使負擔之行為。

七、各族群之傳統習俗、文化及價值觀。

前項子女最佳利益之審酌,法院得參考社工人員之訪視報告或家事調查官之調查報告。

English (working translation):

In making an adjudication under the preceding article, the court shall, in accordance with the best interests of the child, consider all circumstances, and shall in particular have regard to the following matters:

  1. The age, sex, number and state of health of the child.

  2. The child's wishes and the needs of the child's personality development.

  3. The age, occupation, character, state of health, economic capacity and living conditions of the parents.

  4. The intention and attitude of the parents to protect and educate the child.

  5. The state of the emotional relationship between the parents and the child, or between the minor child and other persons cohabiting with the child.

  6. Whether one of the parents has engaged in conduct impeding the exercise or bearing of the other's rights and duties toward the minor child.

  7. The traditional customs, culture and values of each ethnic group.

In the consideration of the best interests of the child referred to in the preceding paragraph, the court may have regard to the visit report of a social worker or to the investigation report of the family-affairs investigator.

Operational note: Art. 1055-1(6) is the express statutory friendly-parent factor — "whether one of the parents has engaged in conduct impeding the exercise or bearing of the other's rights and duties toward the minor child". Textually this is one of the clearest formulations in Northeast Asian family law. Three features:

  • The factor is directed specifically at obstruction of the other parent's exercise — the reference-object is the other parent's rights and duties, not merely the child's welfare in the abstract.
  • The factor is enumerated at item 6 among the eight best-interests factors, and by the "shall in particular have regard to" (尤應注意) formulation is a mandatory-consideration factor rather than a permissive one.
  • The 2018 amendment (adding item 7 on ethnic traditional customs) did not alter the friendly-parent factor at item 6.

Art. 1055-1(4) — "the intention and attitude of the parents to protect and educate the child" — provides a second textual anchor for consideration of a parent's willingness to facilitate the other parent's role, since sustaining the child's relationship with the other parent is within the "attitude to protect and educate" formulation.

Art. 1055-1 second paragraph codifies the family-affairs investigator (家事調查官) system, introduced by the Family Act 2012. The investigator produces an independent expert report which the court may consider on the best-interests question.

Art. 1055-2 Minfa — Substitute Person Where Neither Parent Exercises (added 1996)

Traditional Chinese:

父母均不適合行使權利時,法院應依子女之最佳利益並審酌前條各款事項,選定適當之人為子女之監護人,並指定監護之方法、命其父母負擔扶養費用及其方式。

English:

Where neither of the parents is suitable to exercise the rights, the court shall, in accordance with the best interests of the child and having regard to the matters set out in the preceding article, select a suitable person as the guardian of the child, specify the method of guardianship, and order the parents to bear the maintenance costs and the manner thereof.

Operational note: Art. 1055-2 addresses the residual case where neither parent is fit; guardianship falls to a court-selected third person (typically a relative or a social-welfare institution). Not directly the operational core in the ordinary obstruction case but included for completeness of the 1055-series.

Art. 1084 Minfa — Filial Piety and Duty of Protection and Education

Traditional Chinese:

子女應孝敬父母。

父母對於未成年之子女,有保護及教養之權利義務。

English:

The children shall respect and be filial to their parents.

The parents shall have the right and duty of protection and education toward their minor children.

Operational note: Art. 1084 is the substantive-content clause. Paragraph 1 codifies the filial-piety norm (孝敬 xiào jìng) — the Confucian-normative substrate. Paragraph 2 is the parental-side substantive right-and-duty. In alienation practice paragraph 1 reads onto denigration campaigns as a failure of the residential parent's duty under art. 1084(2) to enable the child to be filial to the other parent — the filial norm cuts against alienating conduct.

Traditional Chinese:

父母為其未成年子女之法定代理人。

父母之行為與未成年子女之利益相反,依法不得代理時,法院得依父母、未成年子女、主管機關、社會福利機構或其他利害關係人之聲請或依職權,為未成年子女選任特別代理人。

English:

The parents shall be the legal representatives of their minor children.

Where an act of the parents is contrary to the interests of the minor child, and the parents may not represent the child under the law, the court may, upon application of the parents, the minor child, the competent authority, a social welfare institution or other interested person, or on its own motion, appoint a special representative for the minor child.

Operational note: Art. 1086 provides the ad litem mechanism where the parents' interests conflict with the child's. In alienation practice this is used to appoint a special representative for the child in art. 1055/1055-1 proceedings where the child's own view needs independent representation — particularly relevant where induced influence is alleged and the child's expressed view may not be autonomous.

Art. 1089 Minfa — Joint Exercise During Marriage

Traditional Chinese:

對於未成年子女之權利義務,除法律另有規定外,由父母共同行使或負擔之。父母對於未成年子女重大事項權利之行使意思不一致時,得請求法院依子女之最佳利益酌定之。

父母之一方不能行使權利時,由他方行使之。父母不能共同負擔義務時,由有能力者負擔之。

父母對於未成年子女重大事項權利之行使意思不一致時,得請求法院依子女之最佳利益酌定之。

English:

The exercise or bearing of rights and duties toward minor children shall, except as otherwise provided by law, be exercised or borne by the parents jointly. Where the intentions of the parents in the exercise of rights over major matters concerning the minor child are inconsistent, either parent may apply to the court to have the matter determined in accordance with the best interests of the child.

Where one parent cannot exercise the rights, the other parent shall exercise them. Where the parents cannot jointly bear the duties, the parent who has the capacity shall bear them.

Where the intentions of the parents in the exercise of rights over major matters concerning the minor child are inconsistent, either parent may apply to the court to have the matter determined in accordance with the best interests of the child.

Operational note: Art. 1089(1) is the joint-exercise-during-marriage default. Paragraph 1's court-referral route on major-matter disagreement is the anchor for the "major decisions" analysis in Taiwanese custody practice, comparable to Serbia PZ art. 78(3) but at the pre-divorce stage. The paragraph-3 repetition (unchanged from the pre-1996 text) has been read by commentators as a legislative-drafting inelegance rather than a substantive doubling.

Art. 1089-1 Minfa — Application of art. 1055 Factors Where Parents Do Not Live Together (added 1996)

Traditional Chinese:

父母不繼續共同生活達六個月以上時,關於未成年子女權利義務之行使或負擔,準用第一千零五十五條、第一千零五十五條之一及第一千零五十五條之二之規定。

English:

Where the parents have not continued to live together for a period of six months or more, the exercise or bearing of rights and duties with respect to the minor children shall be governed mutatis mutandis by the provisions of arts. 1055, 1055-1 and 1055-2.

Operational note: Art. 1089-1 extends the post-divorce framework to de facto separation of six months or more, regardless of divorce status. This closes a gap that had existed pre-1996 — cohabiting-but-separated parents and unmarried-separating parents can now access the same court framework as divorced parents. In pleading practice this is significant because the six-month threshold is the entry-point for the meeting-interaction right of art. 1055(5) in non-marital cases.

Art. 1090 Minfa — Limitation of Parental Rights for Abuse

Traditional Chinese:

父母之一方濫用其對於子女之權利時,法院得依他方、未成年子女、主管機關、社會福利機構或其他利害關係人之請求或依職權,為子女之利益,宣告停止其權利之全部或一部。

English:

Where one of the parents abuses the rights over the child, the court may, upon application of the other parent, the minor child, the competent authority, a social welfare institution or other interested person, or on its own motion, declare the suspension of all or part of that parent's rights, for the benefit of the child.

Operational note: Art. 1090 is the abuse-of-parental-rights limitation jurisdiction. "Abuse" (濫用) is textually broad and is read by the Constitutional Court (see below) and by the Supreme Court as reaching persistent obstruction of the other parent's exercise of rights and meeting-interaction where the pattern demonstrably harms the child's development. The paragraph provides for partial suspension, making it a proportionate remedy for the specific issue rather than requiring full loss of rights.

Structural Reading

Seven moving parts:

  1. Art. 1055(1) — Post-divorce exercise by agreement (sole or joint) or court on best-interests grounds; broad standing including child, competent authority, social-welfare institutions, and other interested persons.
  2. Art. 1055(2)–(3) — Welfare-based override of parental agreement; modification jurisdiction where exercising party has failed protection-education duty, with express standing for the child.
  3. Art. 1055(5) — Meeting-interaction right (會面交往) of the non-exercising parent; court determines manner and duration; welfare-based modification jurisdiction sua sponte.
  4. Art. 1055-1 — Eight-factor best-interests test with express friendly-parent factor at item 6 ("whether one of the parents has engaged in conduct impeding the exercise or bearing of the other's rights and duties"); family-affairs investigator report as evidentiary tool.
  5. Art. 1084(2) — Substantive right-and-duty of protection and education; art. 1084(1) filial-piety norm reads onto the residential parent's duty to enable the child to be filial to the other parent.
  6. Art. 1086 — Legal-representation default with ad litem appointment mechanism for conflict-of-interest cases.
  7. Arts. 1089 + 1089-1 + 1090 — Joint exercise during marriage with court referral on major-matter disagreement; mutatis mutandis application to de facto separation of six months or more; art. 1090 abuse-of-parental-rights limitation jurisdiction with partial-suspension remedy.

Two distinguishing features of the Taiwan scheme:

  • Express statutory friendly-parent factor at art. 1055-1(6). Directed specifically at obstruction of the other parent's exercise, with the "shall in particular have regard to" mandatory-consideration framing. In comparative terms, alongside Peru CNA art. 84 closing paragraph, this is one of the strongest single-provision textual formulations of the friendly-parent factor in the codified-civil-law tradition.
  • Filial-piety framing at art. 1084(1) as anti-alienation authority. The Confucian filial-piety norm is a substantive statutory duty of the child to the parents (both parents), which reads back onto the residential parent's duty under art. 1084(2) to enable the child to discharge that filial duty toward the other parent. Alienating conduct that undermines filial piety toward the non-residential parent is a failure of the residential parent's own duty under art. 1084(2).

Supreme Court (最高法院 — Zuìgāo Fǎyuàn) — Interpretive Line

The Supreme Court has a substantial line on arts. 1055/1055-1/1055-2/1090. Case-identifiers are typically in the format XXXX年度台上字第NNNNN號 (year of the Republic of China, Táishàng division, case number). Doctrinal points:

  • Art. 1055-1(6) friendly-parent factor as mandatory consideration. The Supreme Court reads item 6 as requiring the trial court to reason the friendly-parent factor on the face of the judgment; formulaic reliance on parenting capacity without engaging the obstruction record is a ground for cassation.
  • Meeting-interaction right as jus vinculum — not defeasible by child's expressed refusal alone. The Supreme Court has held that the child's expressed refusal, standing alone, cannot defeat the art. 1055(5) meeting-interaction right where the pattern of the residential parent's obstruction under art. 1055-1(6) is documented; independent induced-influence assessment is required.
  • Art. 1055(2) welfare-based override of agreements. The court's sua sponte power to modify unfavourable agreements is regularly exercised where the parties' agreement has failed the child's best interests.
  • Art. 1090 partial-suspension as proportionate remedy. The Supreme Court favours partial suspension of parental rights under art. 1090 over full suspension as the proportionate response to obstruction, unless the obstruction is severe and persistent.
  • Family Act 2012 enforcement. Post-2012, coercive enforcement of meeting-interaction orders runs through the family-court system with fines and, in extreme cases, custody-restructuring under art. 1055(3).

Constitutional Court (憲法法庭 — Xiànfǎ Fǎtíng) — Framing

Taiwan's Constitutional Court has held that the State's obligations under the ROC Constitution (family protection at art. 155; child welfare implicit) run in parallel with the CDN (which Taiwan cannot accede to as a State party but has incorporated by the Implementation Act on the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 4 June 2014). The parallel-obligations framing tracks the wider East-Asian pattern: formally correct meeting-interaction orders that are not enforced do not discharge the State's obligation.

CDN Implementation

Because of Taiwan's international status, Taiwan is not a State party to the CDN. Taiwan implemented the CDN into domestic law by the Implementation Act on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (兒童權利公約施行法) of 4 June 2014, in force 20 November 2014. The Act gives the CDN the force of domestic Taiwanese law, and Article 9 (family-relations rights) is directly enforceable in domestic proceedings.

Cross-Border Framework — The Non-Hague Constraint

  • Hague 1980 non-membership. Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) — again, primarily a function of Taiwan's international-status position. No Hague-return mechanism is available in respect of Taiwanese children removed to or from Taiwan through the multilateral framework.
  • Hague 1996 non-membership. Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility (1996).
  • Bilateral cooperation. Taiwan has bilateral judicial-assistance arrangements with several jurisdictions (including the United States through the American Institute in Taiwan / TECRO framework). These operate on comity rather than treaty base and provide the practical channel for cross-border cooperation.
  • Recognition of foreign orders. Under the Family Act 2012 and the Statute of Choice of Law in Foreign-Related Civil Matters, foreign family-court orders can be recognised in Taiwan on comity and public-policy grounds. Reciprocity is a substantive requirement in practice.
  • Taiwanese diaspora practice. Diaspora concentrations in the United States (~500,000), Canada, Australia, Japan (~55,000), Vietnam (mixed-nationality families, significant), Indonesia (mixed-nationality), Thailand, the Philippines. Substantial cross-border case-flow with each of those jurisdictions, primarily handled through the receiving jurisdiction's domestic framework in the absence of a multilateral treaty base.

Practical Application

Motion Language (Traditional Chinese, statute-anchored)

"相對人以本人為未成年子女之權利義務行使負擔之一方,長期並有系統地妨礙聲請人依民法第一千零五十五條第五項所定之會面交往,並構成民法第一千零五十五條之一第六款所定之妨礙他方權利義務行使負擔之行為。相對人之行為亦構成民法第一千零九十條所定之濫用親權。聲請人聲請鈞院:(一)依民法第一千零五十五條第五項酌定會面交往之方式及期間,並依同項但書排除相對人之妨害;(二)依民法第一千零五十五條之一第六款之審酌事項,考量相對人妨害會面交往之行為,依民法第一千零五十五條第三項改定權利義務之行使負擔;(三)必要時,依民法第一千零九十條宣告停止相對人權利之一部,以會面交往有關之權利為限。"

English (working translation for pleading-support purposes)

"The respondent, being the party who exercises or bears the rights and duties toward the minor children, has for a long period and systematically obstructed the applicant's meeting and interaction under Civil Code art. 1055(5), and has engaged in conduct impeding the exercise or bearing of the other party's rights and duties within the meaning of Civil Code art. 1055-1(6). The respondent's conduct further constitutes abuse of parental rights within the meaning of Civil Code art. 1090. The applicant applies to this Honourable Court: (i) to determine, under Civil Code art. 1055(5), the manner and duration of the meeting and interaction, and to exclude the respondent's obstruction under the proviso of the same paragraph; (ii) to modify the exercise or bearing of rights and duties under Civil Code art. 1055(3), on the basis of the friendly-parent factor at Civil Code art. 1055-1(6); (iii) as necessary, to declare partial suspension of the respondent's rights under Civil Code art. 1090, limited to the rights connected with meeting and interaction."

Pleading Sequence

  1. Establish joint-exercise or the current post-1055 designation via art. 1055(1).
  2. Where the exercise is by parental agreement, invoke the art. 1055(2) welfare-based override where the agreement has failed the child's best interests.
  3. Where the exercising party has failed the duty of protection and education, plead art. 1055(3) modification with the child's express standing.
  4. Plead the art. 1055(5) meeting-interaction right; the court fixes manner and duration; welfare-based modification (including exclusion of obstruction) is sua sponte available.
  5. Reason the friendly-parent factor expressly under art. 1055-1(6) as the mandatory-consideration item in the best-interests analysis.
  6. Where the conduct rises to "abuse of parental rights", seek partial suspension under art. 1090 limited to the specific issue.
  7. In de facto separation of six months or more without divorce, invoke art. 1089-1 to access the 1055-series framework.
  8. Where the child is expressing a refusal, plead the induced-influence assessment requirement per the Supreme Court line reading art. 1055(5)/art. 1055-1(6).
  9. In cross-border cases, note the non-Hague constraint and route through bilateral cooperation, comity recognition of foreign orders, or the receiving jurisdiction's domestic framework.

Citing Posts on antialienate.com

Post URL
Taiwan + Taiwanese diaspora PA guide https://antialienate.com/blog/taiwan-taiwanese-diaspora-parental-alienation
Northeast Asia PA overview https://antialienate.com/blog/northeast-asia-parental-alienation
Confucian filial-piety and anti-alienation duty https://antialienate.com/blog/confucian-filial-piety-parental-alienation
Friendly-parent statutes — comparative note https://antialienate.com/blog/friendly-parent-comparative-statute-note
International custody battles — cross-border rights https://antialienate.com/blog/international-custody-battles-your-rights

Sources

By Alan Markson. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Disclaimer. This is a research summary of Taiwanese statute text with a working English translation. It is not legal advice, it is not an official translation, and it is not a substitute for a Taiwanese family-law 律師 (lǜshī — attorney specialising in family law). The Traditional Chinese text at the Ministry of Justice consolidated publication (law.moj.gov.tw) is the authoritative source; where the working English rendering diverges from the Chinese original, the Chinese controls. Supreme Court case-identifiers must be verified against the Judicial Yuan case-law publication before pleading.