22
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1992
BILL TO GIVE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN LEGAL RIGHTS
THE PARENT AND CHILD BILL 1992 INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY) SOUGHT TO AMEND THE PRESENT LAW THAT PLACED AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD AT A LEGAL DISADVANTAGE.
MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL IN THE COUNCIL, THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR JAMES FINDLAY, SAID THE DISADVANTAGE AROSE FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS BIRTH, CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH THE CHILD HIMSELF COULD CLEARLY HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY.
"ARTICLE 20(1) OF THE HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS ORDINANCE 1991, PROVIDES THAT EVERY CHILD IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION AS A MINOR, WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION AS TO HIS BIRTH.
"ARTICLE 22 PROVIDES THAT ALL PERSONS ARE ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND OF BIRTH.
"IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE EXISTING LAW, IN THIS AREA, INCONSISTENT WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS, MR FINDLAY SAID.
||
IS
THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILD WAS DISADVANTAGED BY THE EXISTING LAW IN, FOR INSTANCE, SUCCESSION MATTERS.
UNLIKE A LEGITIMATE CHILD, HE COULD NOT SUCCEED TO HIS FATHER'S ESTATE ON THE FATHER'S DEATH INTESTATE.
MAINTENANCE
WHERE SUPPORT WAS CONCERNED, THE RANGE OF AVAILABLE TO THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILD WAS MORE LIMITED.
ORDERS
HE HAD TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR THESE BY WAY OF A SPECIAL PROCEDURE WHICH DID NOT APPLY TO LEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
IN CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, THE CHILD'S WELFARE WAS NORMALLY THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION FOR THE COURT BUT, WHERE AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD WAS CONCERNED, THE COURT HAD TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE MOTHER'S SUPERIOR CLAIM TO CUSTODY RATHER THAN THE CHILD'S WELFARE.
THE AIM OF THIS BILL, WHICH IMPLEMENTED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION, WAS TO ENSURE THAT AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD WOULD, SO FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE, BE TREATED BY THE LAW IN THE SAME WAY AS A LEGITIMATE CHILD.
MR FINDLAY SAID: "THE NUMBERS OF THOSE AFFECTED BY THE PRESENT LAW MAY BE SMALL BUT IT IS CLEARLY DESIRABLE THAT THE PRESENT DISCRIMINATORY ASPECTS OF THE LAW SHOULD BE RECTIFIED.
THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION FOUND STRONG PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THEIR
PROPOSALS.
IN ANSWER TO ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE PRESENT LAW SERVED TO UPHOLD MORAL STANDARDS AND TO SUPPORT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, THE COMMISSION SAID "THE LAW SHOULD PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AND THAT THE FAMILY IS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF SOCIETY BUT DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT DISCRIMINATION ACHIEVED VERY MUCH IN THAT REGARD".
/AS THE