受虐兒童及少年家外安置的抉擇──從兒童少年保護社會工作者觀點出發

Abstract

台灣的社會和家庭型態在近年來快速變遷，家中存在的壓力使兒童及少年成為容易受傷害的一群，許多關於兒少保護的資料皆顯示出兒童及少年受虐的比例逐年不斷地攀升。兒少保護工作具有相當高的危險性和挑戰性，各縣市從事兒少保護的社工員即擔負此重責大任，當發現兒少有危險或原生家庭無法提供其適當的照顧時，則社工員會運用公權力將兒少帶離原生家庭。家外安置是根據兒童及少年福利法而建立的制度，根據法規的精神，若受虐兒少存在立即的危險情況或原生家庭目前不適合居住等情形時，則社工員會進行家外安置，以確保兒少的利益。\n 本研究透過質性研究的方法，探討兒保社工員在面對受虐兒少是否需進行繼續安置時，其抉擇的因素為何，並了解其在抉擇的過程中面臨到的問題及處理方式為何。透過本研究希望瞭解：第一，兒少保社工員對於家外安置的看法為何？第二，影響兒少保社工員採取繼續安置的抉擇因素為何？第三，兒少保社工員在繼續安置抉擇過程中面臨到的問題及處理方式為何？本研究並進行北部五縣市（台北縣、桃園縣、基隆市、新竹縣、新竹市）跨區域的比較，了解北部各縣市的差異性。最後，將研究結果形成建議，提供兒少保護相關領域的社工員未來在面對這樣議題時的參考。\n 依據研究目的，研究者邀請北部地區十七位在兒少保護機構工作超過一年以上的社工員進行一對一的深度訪談，研究結果如下列幾點：\n一、社工員認為家外安置的功能是：「公權力的示範」、「給孩子一個安全的生活環境」、「可能產生負面效果的權宜之計」、以及「暫時舒緩家中存在的壓力」。\n二、社工員考量受虐兒少是否繼續安置的抉擇因素包括：兒少年齡、兒少意願和自主性、兒少與原生家庭的依附程度、兒少身心狀況、兒少自我保護功能、兒少人身安全、兒少受虐程度、兒少受虐歷史、兒少受虐型態、施虐者施虐原因、施虐者身心狀況、施虐者親職功能、施虐者對於處遇的配合程度、施虐者改變的動力和程度、其他親屬的照顧資源、家庭其他成員的保護能力、安置能否發揮功能、社工員人身安全的考量、安置資源有無、施虐者對兒少的脅迫。\n三、決定受虐兒少需進行繼續安置最關鍵的因素為兒少人身安全是否可確保以及家庭功能的整體評估。\n四、各個縣市在安置處理模式和安置資源使用狀況存在差異性。\n五、兒少保社工員對於緊急安置和繼續安置考量的差異在於：行政裁量VS.法院裁定；公權力初步展現VS.較長期的家庭重建；立即性保護兒少安全VS.長期間掌控兒少的風險。\n六、社工員在安置過程中面臨到的困境主要有兩類，一為評估面上的困難，包括教養的尺度難以衡定、客觀證據力不足時該如何判斷、如何評斷出什麼是正確的資訊、精神虐待類型難以評估；二為執行面上的困難，包括安置資源不足、72小時的時間限制、後送單位品質的問題、青少年後續配套資源的不足、關於安置的法律議題不熟悉、相關網絡成員的壓力、來自外界聲音的壓力、社工員人身安全的憂慮。\n 最後，本研究對於社會工作實務、政府政策、以及進一步研究的部份提出建議，提供給相關領域的機構和工作人員作為參考。

In Taiwan, types of the society and families are changing rapidly in recent years. Pressure at home makes children and adolescents vulnerable. Statistical data about child and adolescent protection indicates that the percentage of abuse is climbing year after year. Jobs of child and adolescent protection are highly dangerous and challenging. Social workers in different cities and counties take these great responsibilities. When they find out any children/adolescents are in danger or families-of-origin can not provide proper care, the social workers would use public power to bring those children away from their families-of-origin. Out-of-home placement is a system based on Child and Youth Welfare Law. According to spirit of law, if there exists immediate danger for children and adolescents, or families-of-origin are not appropriate for living, social workers would proceed with out-of-home placement to ensure their well-being. \nThis research is using qualitative method to discuss what determines social workers’ decisions to proceed with continuous placement, and what problems they face in the process of making decisions and how they deal with them. This research aims at understanding the following questions. First, what are child and adolescent protection social workers’ point of views regarding out-of-home placement? Second, what affects social workers’ decisions to proceed with continuous placement? Third, what problems do child and adolescent protection social workers face when they are making decisions of continuous placement and how do they cope with those problems? This research also conducted a cross area comparison between five cities/counties in north part of Taiwan including Taipei County, Taoyuan County, Keelung City, Hsin-Chu County, and Hsin-Chu City to understand difference in them. Finally, suggestions are made based on research results to provide reference for child and adolescent protection social workers when in the future they face these kinds of issues. \n Based on objectives of the research, the researcher invited seventeen social workers that have worked over one year in child and adolescent protection institutions in north part of Taiwan for one-to-one in-depth interviews. Research results are as follows.\n First, social workers think the functions of out-of-home placement are, “demonstration of public power”, “to provide a safe environment for children”, “a tentative strategy with negative effects” and “a temporary release of stress at home”.\nSecond, the factors that determine social workers’ decisions of continuous placement include children and adolescents’ ages, their inclination, autonomy, attachment to their family-of-origin, physical and psychological conditions, self-protection function, personal safety, children and adolescents’ degree of abuse, history of abuse, types of abuse, and abusers’ reasons to abuse, abusers’ physical and psychological conditions, abusers’ parenting function, degree of cooperation with placement, abusers’ motivation and degree of change, other family caring resource, other family members’ abilities of protection, effectiveness of placement, safety consideration for social workers, availability of placement resource, abusers’ threats to children and adolescents. \nThird, the key factors to decide continuous placement for abused children and adolescents are whether safety of children and adolescents can be assured and overall evaluation of family function. \nForth, cities and counties are different in terms of placement types and usage of placement methods. \nFifth, the difference between considerations of emergent and continuous placement is: administrative discretion VS. court discretion, preliminary effect of public power VS. longer-term family reconstruction, immediate protection of children and adolescents VS. risk of long-term control of children and adolescents \nSixth, the main difficulties that social workers face in the process of placement fall into two categories. One is difficulty of evaluation, including difficulty to judge whether the discipline is appropriate, how to judge when there is no enough objective evidences, how to screen the right information, difficulties to determine types of mental abuse. The other is difficulty of implementation, including insufficiency of placement resource, time limit of 72 hours, problems of placement family quality, insufficiency of supporting resources for adolescents afterwards, unfamiliarity with legal issues of placement, pressure from other network members, pressure from the public voices, and concerns about social workers’ safety. \nLast, the research provides suggestions regarding social work practices, government policies, and further research for related institutions and workers’ reference.