家事調查官在臺灣－新興專業引入之實務初探

Abstract

隨著家事事件法的通過以及實施，無論是專家學者、民間團體或是司法實務工作者，皆期待其能達到協助家庭解決糾紛的功能；而為了達成此目的，除了審理程序以及實體規範的訂定之外，此法亦為提升裁判者的主動調查權而引進了日本的家事調查制度。緣此，本文所欲探討的，即是此新興專業－「家事調查官」於我國本土的運作情形，透過了解其是否如立法者所預期般地協助法官進行調解或裁判任務，從而真正地協助家庭解決問題。 本研究為質性研究取向，以深度訪談及焦點座談作為收集資料的研究設計，透過與3位家事調查官、8位法官以及3位司法社會工作者的訪談，了解家事調查官於實務中的運作情形。研究呈現了家事調查官於實務中的組織位置、工作樣貌、所受的教育訓練、應具備的能力、對繫屬中家事事件的助益及其所面臨的工作困境，以及其與司法社會工作、程序監理人間調查工作之初步比較結果。 研究結果顯示，在實務中，家事調查官依循著法定的內容進行職務，即其工作內容包含資料收集、調查訪視、陳述意見、履行勸告及資源連結等；其中，以資料收集、訪視調查為大宗，履行勸告、陳述意見及資源連結較少；而除了前述職務內容外，尚有部分家事調查官表示曾做過其他法院派給之法定職務外的行政工作，如：調解委員的選任、受訓及考評，辦理親職教育講座等。另在家事調查官教育訓練方面，除了任職前的實習階段外，司法院尚辦有年度式、不分屆次之集中式在職教育訓練，並持續不斷地修正教育訓練內容，以期提供符合家事調查官需求的訓練內容；除此之外，許多受訪者不約而同地提出應建立「督導制度」，以期能更即時地協助家事調查官，同時於調查工作中提供具體的幫助。研究參與者表示家事調查官的工作乃為一新興跨專業領域，無論其原來所具備的專業背景為何，皆可透過持續的進修以及對於實務工作的反省、經驗的累積，逐步地成為一名適任的家事調查官。另本研究亦發現同為法院所運用的調查者，包括社會工作者、程序監理人以及家事調查官，其間的分工多呈現以社會工作者的調查為基礎，家事調查官或程序監理人為輔助的情形。 依據本研究結果所提出的建議有：為提供家事調查專業友善的發展環境，應加速少年及家事組織之變革、人力儘速補足、調查的案量管制、建立專業資源網絡以及適度的行政支援工作；引進督導制度，以加速家事調查專業發展的速度，同時提供家事調查官執行職務後回饋的能量，降低崩熬的可能。未來的研究建議可朝社會工作者、家事調查官以及程序監理人間的分工與合作的方向進行探討。

The aim of this study is to understand the actual operation of an emerging profession, family affairs investigators. This study adopted a qualitative research approach to analyze the data obtained from in-depth interviews and focused groups with 3 family affair investigators, 8 judges and 3 forensic social workers. The research results showed the following dimensions: the practical situation, the family affair investigators' organizational position, typical job descriptions of a family affair investigator, training and required abilities, the helpfulness of the family affair investigators, the problems related to the practice, and comparisons among a family affair investigator, a forensic social worker and a representative of the family proceeding. The research results showed that the job description of family affair investigator is consistent with the legal statutes, covering: following the instructions of the judge, investigating the facts, collecting needed information, giving forensic opinions, connecting resources, making inquiries and giving advice to the fulfillment of debt obligations. Although family affair investigators spend most of their time on investigating the facts and collecting needed information; some of them are in charge of administrative work, including recruiting, training and evaluating mediation members, conducting parenting education, etc. When it comes to family affair investigators’ on-the-job training, in addition to orientation training, there are yearly and intensive on-the-job training. The court keeps modifying the training courses so that it can become more helpful to family affair investigators. In addition to training, many research participants recommend supervision to provide immediate help for family affair investigators’ work. Research participants consider a ‘family affair investigator’ as an emerging professional; no matter what education background one might have, one can become a competent family affair investigator by training, self-reflection and accumulating experience. Furthermore, this study found that a court might employ three types of investigators: forensic social worker, family affair investigator, and a representative of family proceedings. Normally, forensic social workers conduct the custody evaluations first. If the judge needs further information, a family affair investigator or a representative might conduct further evaluations. This study suggests that: for the improvement of the family affair investigator, advanced organization reconstruction, increased manpower, proper case load, building a network of social recourses and adequate administrated tasks, providing supervision to increase the development of the family affair investigators, as well as giving them feedback, will help to prevent them from experiencing burnout. Further research can draw on the collaboration among social worker, family affair investigator, and the representative of family proceedings.