監調社工與家事調查官分工下的子女最佳利益──以親權酌定事件為例

Abstract

2013年家事事件法上路後，家事法院有了更多空間職權介入親權、會面交往及扶養費的安排，原本只有監調社工進行親權調查的案件，有些也加入家事調查官的調查。然而，當今研究卻鮮少探討新型的親權調查機制納入監調社工與家事調查官的觀點後，是否、如何影響子女最佳利益。因此本研究試圖了解在形成子女最佳利益的共同目標下，監調社工與家事調查官於親權酌定事件法院心證形成過程中如何分工，又其分工模式及對於子女最佳利益造成之影響為何。 本文以內容分析法及深入訪談法作為研究方法。在內容分析法的部分，本文以91份2013-2017年間同時引用監調社工與家事調查官的裁判書為分析對象，將之以20種針對子女最佳利益之考量因素及5種專業互動模式進行編碼，並深入訪談7位家事調查官。 本文研究發現，首先，由於監調社工的案量僅容許其進行單次訪視、調查權力又較為受限，故其調查資訊的量與深度無法與家事調查官相比，家事調查官在此情況下將監調社工當做「篩案者」，形成功能互補的分工。此分工之下，家事調查官提供的調查資訊已經成為法院重要心證來源。再者，若就法院引用監調社工及家事調查官報告的結果看來，監調社工家事調查官與法院在運用子女最佳利益考量因素的方法上，皆重視照顧品質相關之因素，例如親職能力、父母子女感情及主要照顧者原則，但卻在友善父母原則有所差異。整體而言，家事調查官的加入確實讓法院在友善父母原則上的倡導上更加積極。 據此，本文建議尚未訂立明確家事調查官案量上限及分案標準的法院儘速完成，避免同時發交監調社工與家事調查官的情況發生。再者，應持續檢討監調社工作為篩案者的適切性，並持續增加家事調查官的員額，讓調查工作有機會往一案到底的模式發展。另外，訴訟中友善父母原則日趨受到重視之際，協助會面交往順利進行之社福資源應同步到位，且友善父母原則將來會透過何種方式對親權觀念、裁判方式產生影響，有待後續研究者把關。其三，本文建議法官、監調社工及家事調查官應停止以幼年從母原則、同性別原則傳遞性別刻板印象，回歸親職能力、父母子女感情及主要照顧等原則判斷子女最佳利益。

Family Act was enacted in 2013. Family courts are authorized to intervene child custody decision, child-parent meeting arrangement, and child care expense distribution. Also, a new position, the family matters investigation officer, was created in the Act who would investigate facts regarding to the best interest of child custody. In the past, only social workers from social welfare departments involves in custody investigation. With family matter investigation officers joining the investigation, how they would interact with social workers in the investigation? And how the two investigations would influence the moral conviction of judges from family courts? And how the best interest of child custody would look like in the end of investigation? A mixed method of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used to examine the above questions. First, the study sampled ninety-one ruling reports on custody investigation between 2013 and 2017 from online system of family courts. Content analysis was used to extract the key indicators considered in making judgment on appropriate custody from court judges, family matter investigation officers, and social workers from social welfare departments. Afterwards, seven family matter investigation officers were in-depth interviewed about how they interact with social workers in custody investigation and what they thought about the key indicators to address the best interest of child custody. Findings indicated that social workers carried only one time investigation as a function of initial screening for the courts. And then the courts would assign family matter investigation officers to follow up the investigation, if necessary for the judges to make appropriate custody. The investigations could be more than one time. In helping the court to form the moral conviction on the custody, social workers and family matter investigation officers seemed to work with a supplementary role on investigation. However, regarding the key indicators for the best interest of child custody, family matter investigation officers seemed to put more emphasis on friendly-parent principles as an important indicator for a good custody. Otherwise, both seemed to have much agreement on the indicator of quality of care, such as parenting abilities, main-caregiver principles and relationships between children and parents. In conclusion, the study questions whether the overlapping investigation from family matter investigation officers and social workers is necessary. It seems that family matter investigation officers, a new position for the family court, carried out the custody investigation in the same way with social workers from social welfare departments. But in considering only few family matter investigation officers in position, the current system of overlapping investigations would last for some time. To be effective, it is strongly suggested that family courts should expand the current man power of family matter investigation officers more quickly than ever. In indicators considered in the custody ruling, it is observed that friendly-parent principle is emphasized more than quality of care. How the principle could influence the logic of courts’ ruling on the best interest of child custody is needed to be examined further.