兒少保護安置之探討

Abstract

兒少保護事件的發生，不僅對於家庭內部動力有著極大的影響，亦不利於兒少發展。兒少保護安置以公權力強制將孩童安置於家外適當處所，在我國福利政策下為具有急迫性的最後手段，不可濫用，亦不宜過度保守，然而現行有關兒少保護安置的法源，包含兒童及少年福利與權益保障法及兒童及少年性剝削防制條例，皆包含多數不確定法律概念，如何解釋「安置必要性」等構成要件，即有待研究。 為了瞭解實務上對於法條之解釋適用與實踐之困難，並維持跨專業工作者的良好合作，本研究兼採裁判實證分析與實務訪談研究兩種方式，對裁判書之內容進行分析，探究法官對於安置必要性及救濟主張上所表露的心證；後經由訪談，瞭解社工依法進行保護安置上的實踐困難。 研究發現，透過社工結構性評估工具的發展以及法院對社工提出的安置報告書的尊重態度，實務上對於不同安置程序中的「安置必要性」、「安置情狀」已形成一定的共識，但不同專業者考量的因素仍有些許差異，值得注意。而在實踐上最大的困難無非是「法定程序難以恪守」的問題，在緊急安置階段，72小時的安置期間上限代表社工有限的工作時間；在延長安置程序中，每3個月即需重行聲請亦帶來巨大的行政負擔與個案管理考驗。有些社工面臨法定程序的框架，嘗試尋找法外空間，或過度放寬對於安置必要性的審查密度，規避法定程序權利之保障，甚至危及保護安置制度保障兒少人身安全及成長權利的定位。為免本末倒置，有必要反思緊急安置程序中在途期間的設計，並且簡化後續延長安置的書狀負擔、加強數位化個案管理。

Child maltreatmemt, not only have a great affect on family dynamic but also bad for child or youth's development. Child or youth's protective placement is the last resort under our children welfare policy which made a out-of-home placement by public authority compulsory. Protective placement cannot be abused, but also should not be used conservatively. Regulations of child or youth's protective placement includes Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act and The Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act, both of them use lots of ambiguity terms, such as ''necessity of placement'' needs to be further explore by empirical research. In order to understand how social workers and judges apply the laws, and the difficulties they face during the substantive procedures, this paper adopts two methods to analyze questions above: content analysis of court cases and interview of social workers. It is found that social workers and judges have reached a consensus on the evaluation methods of the ambiguity terms, includes ''necessity of placement'', ''situation of placement'' by developing structured decision-making tool and the judges' steady and respectful attitude towards the placement assessment report. However, it is worth noting that there are still slight differences in the factor considered between social workers and judges. When it comes to the substantive procedures, the biggest challenge social workers have faced is ''observation of legal procedures'' ¬— during the phase of emergency placement, social workers need to deal with plenty of things in just 72 hours, and in the phase of continuous placement, social workers have to apply to the court every 3 months—which are a heavy loading to the workers. Facing this challenge, some social workers try to find an out-of-law solution, or overly loose the scrutiny of the placement assessments, as a result, the purpose of legal procedures cannot be achieved, and even endangers the legal and welfare positioning of child or youth's protective placement. To avoid putting the cart before the horse, it is necessary to reflect on the articles of journey's accounts in both Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act and The Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act, also, try to simplify the burden of pleadings asked for continuous placement and strengthen digital case management.