未成年人权利保护是社会关注的重点话题之一。我国《民事诉讼法》赋予检察机关在特定情形下提起民事公益诉讼的权利，但是其范围却并未涵盖对未成年人权益的专门性保护。直至2021年，修订后的《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》第106条特别规定了未成年人公益诉讼的制度，赋予了检察机关在未成年人合法权益受损且缺乏相应保障的条件下依法提起公益诉讼的权利，从而强化了对未成年人的司法保护。然而，检察机关提起未成年人民事公益诉讼的模式起步较晚，实践中不完善的制度运用效能在未成年人保护的现实需求下显得“捉襟见肘”，由此导致出现多类问题。其中包括：首先，法律通过“列举+概括”的立法模式规定了检察机关提起公益诉讼的具体情形，但在未成年人保护这一关键领域内却未明确界定受案范围，在一定程度上限制了未成年人检察公益诉讼的探索与发展。其次，法律在未成年人保护过程中对于检察机关适用民事或行政公益诉讼的受案类别也未做明确划分，致使同类型案件适用不同的制度模式，由此产生不同的司法实践效果，影响对未成年人权利的适时保护。为更好了解检察机关提起未成年人民事公益诉讼的司法效能，探索更加全面的未成年人保护方式，法律需要更进一步明晰受案范围和民行交叉的顺序安排。在受案问题上，通过对域外国家民事公益诉讼制度进行比较研究，论证家事诉讼在我国的公益诉讼模式下无法立足的原因，确立受案的公益性条件是至关重要的环节。并参考引用最高人民检察院发布的众多指导案例和典型案例，辅之以其他各类型案例研究，充分探讨在司法实践中出现的较为代表性的民事公益诉讼受案情形，提出以“六大保护”为理论基础构建检察机关在学校、社会、网络三大领域提起未成年人民事公益诉讼的受案框架。在民行交叉的制度安排方面，通过分析多篇案例将实践中出现的民事、行政公益诉讼的区别部分进行整合提炼，提出当未成年人权益侵害更为紧迫、保护诉求更为强烈时应当优先适用民事公益诉讼，其他类型的未成年人保护案件则优先行政公益诉讼的划分规则。而在适用民事公益诉讼的权利保护阶段，法律可赋予检察机关在特殊情形下依职权采取行为保全措施的权利，以此保障未成年人的合法权益在诉讼中得到及时有效的救济，防止侵权结果进一步扩大。同时检察机关也可适当拓宽支持起诉的适用阶段，从证据的寻找固定到诉后执行监督均给予适格主体法律支持，提高社会参与公益诉讼的积极性，实现对未成年人权利的及时救济。

The protection of minors' rights is one of the key topics of social concern. In accordance with China's "Civil Procedure Law," procuratorial organs are authorized to initiate civil public interest litigation under specific circumstances, but its scope does not cover specialized protection for minors' rights and interests. Until 2021, pursuant to Article 106 of the amended "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Minors," a specific mechanism for minors' public interest litigation is outlined, authorizing prosecutorial bodies to legally initiate such litigation in cases where the legitimate rights and interests of minors are infringed upon, and adequate protection mechanisms are absent, thereby strengthening judicial protection for minors. However, the procuratorial organs' model of initiating civil public interest litigation for minors started relatively late, and the inefficient application of imperfect systems in practice appears "inadequate" under the real-world needs of minor protection, leading to various issues. Among them are: firstly, the legislation adopts a combined approach of "enumeration and generalization" to delineate the precise circumstances that authorize procuratorial organs to initiate public interest litigation, but the legislation has failed to explicitly delineate the scope of admissible cases pertaining to the crucial domain of minor protection, thereby constraining the exploration and advancement of procuratorial public interest litigation on behalf of minors to a certain degree. Secondly, the law lacks clarity in distinguishing between the categories of admissible cases that would warrant procuratorial organs to invoke either civil or administrative public interest litigation in the context of minor protection, resulting in different judicial practice effects and affecting the timely protection of minors' rights when applying different system models to similar cases.To enhance the judicial efficacy of procuratorial organs in initiating civil public interest litigation for minors and to delve deeper into comprehensive approaches for minor protection, the legislation requires further clarification of the scope of admissible cases as well as the prioritized sequence for civil and administrative litigation. In addressing the matter pertaining to admissible cases, it is crucial to compare and study the civil public interest litigation systems of foreign countries, demonstrate why family litigation cannot be established under China's public interest litigation model, and establish the public welfare conditions for accepted cases. Drawing upon the comprehensive guidance and exemplary cases issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate, augmented by diverse case studies, we embark on a thorough discussion of the more illustrative instances of civil public interest litigation encountered in judicial practice. Within the three pivotal domains of education, society, and the digital realm, we propose a structured approach for determining the admissibility of cases for minors, wherein procuratorial organs initiate civil public interest litigation, based on the theoretical foundation of "six protections." With regard to the institutional framework at the intersection of civil and administrative litigation, we delve into numerous cases and synthesize the distinctions encountered in practice between civil and administrative public interest litigation. Based on this analysis, we propose a hierarchical approach: in situations where minors' rights are egregiously violated and there is an urgent need for protection, civil public interest litigation should be prioritized. Conversely, in other minor protection cases, the categorization principles of administrative public interest litigation should guide the legal proceedings. During the applicable stage of rights protection in civil public interest litigation, the law can grant procuratorial organs the right to take behavioral preservation measures ex officio under special circumstances to ensure that minors' legitimate rights and interests are promptly and effectively relieved in litigation and prevent the infringement from further expanding. At the same time, procuratorial organs can also appropriately expand the applicable stage of supporting prosecution, providing legal support to eligible entities from evidence collection and fixation to post-litigation execution supervision, enhancing society's enthusiasm for participating in public interest litigation and achieving timely relief for minors' rights.