Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112234
|
| Title: | 家暴相對人對「未成年子女會面交往服務」之經驗與改變內涵及影響因素之探討
Batterers’ Experiences, Changes, and Catalysts for Change in Supervised Visitation Program |
| Authors: | 陳祈安
Chen, Chi An |
| Contributors: | 宋麗玉
Song, Li Yu
陳祈安
Chen, Chi An |
| Keywords: | 未成年子女會面交往服務
家庭暴力
相對人
The Supervised Visitation Program
Family violence
The batterers |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-08-28 11:54:12 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 「未成年子女會面交往服務」乃是透過社工人員協助，在確保安全之前提下提供高衝突家庭親子會面。本研究旨探討家暴相對人進入未成年子女會面交往服務後，接受服務的經驗及改變內涵，並分析其中影響相對人改變之因素。本研究運用質性研究深度訪談法，採用半結構式訪談大綱，訪談了五位參與服務之家暴相對人及四位社工。運用主題分析法進行資料之分析，研究結果如下：
1.接受服務之經驗：相對人明確指出了會面服務的助益及社工協助的重要性，正向經驗的累積成為循環；負向經驗來自會面中的挫折，也看見相對人面對家暴指控及社工預設立場的掙扎與無奈。
2.家暴相對人的改變內涵：相對人自述的改變包含人際互動、復原力、自我成長及親子互動的提升；社工則觀察到親子關係提升、與同住方關係提昇、專業關係提昇、自我成長等改變內涵。子女和同住方也因會面而受益。
3.影響改變之因素：影響因素可分為兩大類：促進改變與阻礙改變。分析相對人訪談資料，促進因素為社工專業關係及維繫親情的動力；阻礙因素為聚焦於衝突及怨懟、父母雙方衝突及司法訴訟。社工則認為促進因素為社工專業關係、維繫親情的動力、相對人狀態的改變及支持資源；阻礙因素為過度聚焦於負面想法、同住方的阻礙、司法訴訟及自身侷限。
研究結果證實會面服務有助於相對人同理心及親子關係的促進且利於復原力的發展，形成正向循環。維繫親情的情感連結及身為父母的責任感是激發改變的基礎，社工的工作技巧運用在改變過程中佔有一定的影響力。過度聚焦於衝突及怨懟則阻礙改變動力的形成。最後，研究者依據本研究之結果提出實務與政策上之建議。
The Supervised Visitation Program (SVP) provides parent-child meetings for high-conflict families with social workers’ help to ensure safety on the premises. This study addressed batterers’ experiences with SVP services and the changes they experienced because of the SVP services through an analysis of the factors that influenced those changes. In-depth qualitative interviews with five batterers and four social workers involved in SVP were conducted using a semi-structured interview schedule. This study analyzed the interview data in a thematic analysis. The research findings are summarized as follows.
1.Experiences receiving the SVP services. The batterers explicitly pointed out the helpfulness of the SVP services and the importance of the social workers’ assistance. Positive experiences were cyclically accumulated. The negative experiences were accumulated from the sense of frustration present during the meetings and their psychological struggles and helplessness related to the accusations of domestic violence and the perspectives and opinions of the social workers.
2.Changes experienced by the batterers: The batterers stated that the changes they experienced included improved interpersonal interactions, ability to recuperate, personal growth, and parent-child interactions. The changes observed by the social workers included the batterers’ personal growth and improvements in parent-child relationships, relationship with roommates, and professional relationships. The batterers’ children and roommates also benefited from the SVP.
3.Factors that influenced the changes: The influencing factors were classified as promotive factors or obstructive factors. The analysis of the batterer interview data found that the promotive factors included the social workers’ professionalism and motivational influences on maintaining family affections. The obstructive factors included overemphasis on conflicts and resentments, inter-parental conflicts, and judicial litigations. In the social workers’ opinions, the promotive factors included the social workers’ professionalism, their motivational influences on maintaining family affections, changes to the batterers’ states, and their supportive resources; the obstructive factors included excessive negativity, obstructions by roommates, judicial litigations, and the batterers’ personal limitations.
The results found that SVP was beneficial for promoting the batterers’ sense of empathy, parent-child relationships, and for developing the ability to recuperate, thus creating a positive cycle. Family affections and a sense of parental responsibility were the basis of stimulating the batterers’ changes, and the social workers’ professional expertise exerted an influence on the process of the changes. In contrast, overemphasis on conflicts and resentments obstructed the formation of motivational influences for change. Suggestions for practice and policy are presented based on the study’s results. |
| Reference: | 一、英文部分
Amato, P. R., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children`s relations with parents and subjective well‐being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 222-235.
Areán, J. C., & Mederos, F. (2008). Fathering after violence: Working with abusive fathers in supervised visitation. Futures Without Violence.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385-405.
Bancroft, L., Silverman, J. G., & Ritchie, D. (2011). The batterer as parent:Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. New York, NY :Sage publications.
Benoit, M. B. (1997). The role of psychological factors on teenagers who become parents out-of-wedlock. Children and Youth Services Review, 19(5/6), 401-413.
Boeije, H. (2009). Analysis in qualitative research. New York, NY : Sage publications.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. II. Some principles of psychotherapy. The fiftieth Maudsley Lecture. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 130(5), 421-431.
Birnbaum, R., & Alaggia, R. (2006). Supervised visitation: A call for a second generation of research. Family Court Review, 44(1), 119-134.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Catlett, B. S., Toews, M. L., & Walilko, V. (2010). Men’s gendered constructions of intimate partner violence as predictors of court-mandated batterer treatment drop out. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1-2), 107-123.
Crook, W. P., & Oehme, K. (2007). Characteristics of supervised visitation programs serving child maltreatment and other cases. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7(4), 291.
Cuevas, D. A., & Bui, N. H. (2016). Social factors affecting the completion of a batterer intervention program. Journal of family violence, 31(1), 95-107.
Dunn, J. H., Flory, B. E., & Berg‐Weger, M. (2004).An exploratory study of supervised access and custody exchange services: The children`s experience. Family Court Review, 42(1), 60-73.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Flory, B. E., Dunn, J., Berg‐Weger, M., & Milstead, M. (2001). An exploratory study of supervised access and custody exchange services. Family Court Review, 39(4), 469-482.
Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and violent behavior, 9(6), 605-631.
Goodrum, S., Umberson, D., & Anderson, K. L. (2001). The batterer`s view of the self and others in domestic violence. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 221-240.
McWey, L. M., & Mullis, A. K. (2004). Improving the lives of children in foster care:The impact of supervised visitation. Family Relations, 53(3), 293-300.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Labarre, M., Bourassa, C., Holden, G. W., Turcotte, P., & Letourneau, N. (2016). Intervening with fathers in the context of intimate partner violence: An analysis of ten programs and suggestions for a research agenda. Journal of child custody, 13(1), 1-29.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . New York, NY : Sage publications.
Oehme, K., & O`Rourke, K. (2011). Protecting Victims and Their Children Through Supervised Visitation: A Study of Domestic Violence Injunctions. Faulkner L. Rev., 3, 261-276.
Oehme, K., & Stern, M. J. (2014). Supervised Visitation and Family Financial Well‐Being: Broadening Access to Community Services for Low‐Income Parents in the Court System. Family Court Review, 52(2), 282-297.
Parker, T., Rogers, K., Collins, M., & Edleson, J. L. (2008). Danger zone battered mothers and their families in supervised visitation. Violence against women, 14(11), 1313-1325.
Pulido, M. L., Forrester, S. P., & Lacina, J. M. (2011). Raising the bar: Why supervised visitation providers should be required to meet standards for service provision. Family Court Review, 49(2), 379-387.
Saini, M., & Birnbaum, R. (2015). The Supervised Visitation Checklist: Validation with Lawyers, Mental Health Professionals, and Judges. Family Law Quarterly, 49(3), 449-476.
Saini, M., Van Wert, M., & Gofman, J. (2012). Parent–child supervised visitation within child welfare and custody dispute contexts: An exploratory comparison of two distinct models of practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 163-168.
Sen, R., & Broadhurst, K. (2011). Contact between children in out‐of‐home placements and their family and friends networks: a research review. Child & Family Social Work, 16(3), 298-309.
Scott, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2000). Change among batterers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 827-842.
Stover, C. S., Easton, C. J., & McMahon, T. J. (2013). Parenting of men with co-occurring intimate partner violence and substance abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence, 28(11), 2290-2314.
Timko, C., Valenstein, H., Stuart, G. L., & Moos, R. H. (2015). Substance abuse and batterer programmes in California, USA: factors associated with treatment outcomes. Health & social care in the community, 23(6), 642-653.
Tutty, L., Barry, L., Barlow, R. A., & Roy, M. (2006). Supervised visitation and exchange centres for domestic violence: An environmental scan. Calgary,Alberta, Canada: Alberta Ministry of Children’s Services.
Walker, K., Bowen, E., Brown, S., & Sleath, E. (2014). Desistance From Intimate Partner Violence A Conceptual Model and Framework for Practitioners for Managing the Process of Change. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(15), 1-25.
Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social control theory and delinquency. American sociological review, 525-541.
二、中文部分
王美毅、林東龍、王增勇（2010）。「病人」、「犯人」或「個人」？男性家暴 「加害人」之再認識。社會政策與社會工作學刊，14(2)，147-193。
朱惠英、郭凡奇（譯）（2008）。如何與非自願個案工作（原作者：C. Trotter）。臺北市：張老師文化。（原作出版年：2006）。
李娟娟、張達人、謝宏林、王梅麗、張芳榮（2005）。婚姻暴力加害人認知教育與情緒支持性團體之療效探討。中華團體心理治療，11(3)，1-18。
李雪櫻（2014）。子女監督會面服務現況之探討－以北部某會面中心為例（未出版之碩士論文）。玄奘大學，新竹市。
李雅琪（2007）。家庭暴力加害人參與認知輔導團體後行為改變之探索性研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，3(1)，57-94。
宋麗玉（2013）。婚姻暴力受暴婦女之處遇模式與成效－華人文化與經驗。臺北市：洪葉。
伍瑋華（2014）。視訊會面交往－美國家事法探視權之借鏡。法令月刊，65(4)，61-96。
南玉芬、羅幼瓊（2016）。與家庭暴力相對人並肩前行－關係初期會談技巧分析。社會發展研究學刊，18，73-102。
高淑清（2001）。在美華人留學生太太的生活世界：詮釋與反思。本土心理學研究，16，225-285。
高淑清（2004）。父母親職經驗之現象詮釋：以家有青春期子女為例之初探。應用心理研究，24，117-145。
高淑清（2009）。質性研究的18堂課－揚帆再訪之旅。高雄市：麗文文化。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
陳伯偉、唐文慧與王宏仁（2014）。男性家暴者的諮商經驗：階級差異如何再製。臺灣社會學刊，55，227-273。
張可婷（譯）（2013）。質性研究分析方法（原作者：H. Boeije）。新北市：韋伯文化。（原作出版年：2010）。
張楓明（2006）。社會控制理論之「參與」因素對青少年偏差行為抑制性之實証研究。犯罪學期刊，9(2)，69-96。
常欣怡、宋麗玉（2007）。青少年復原力概念與相關研究之探究。東學社會工作學報，17，171-192。
徐儷瑜、許文耀（2008）。父母衝突下兒童情緒反應之探討：社會學習理論與情緒安全感假說之比較。中華心理衛生學刊，21(2)，111-138。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與研究。臺北市：心理。
蔡群瑞、蕭文（2004）。復原力對離婚後個人適應之影響研究。諮商輔導學報：高師輔導所刊，11，59-79。
謝惠菁（2007）受暴婦女聲請及使用（未成年子女會面交往服務）歷程經驗之探究（未出版之碩士論文）。暨南大學，南投縣。
簡春安、鄒平儀（2004）。社會工作研究法。臺北市：巨流。
譚子文（2009）。社會控制理論依附和參與要素之關聯性研究。犯罪與刑事司法研究，13，51-80。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
社會工作研究所
102264004 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1022640041 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [社會工作研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 004101.pdf | 12550Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 560 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
