Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37440
|
| Title: | 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
The Exploration of decisions on out-of-home placement in abused children and adolescents: A view from child and adolescent protection social workers |
| Authors: | 劉淑怡
Liu, Shu Ii |
| Contributors: | 謝美娥
Hsieh, Mei O
劉淑怡
Liu, Shu Ii |
| Keywords: | 家外安置
兒童及少年虐待
兒童少年保護社會工作者
out-of-home placement
child and adolescent abuse
child and adolescent protection social worker |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-19 13:50:12 (UTC+8) |
| 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。
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。
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：
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」。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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.
This 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.
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.
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”.
Second, 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.
Third, 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.
Forth, cities and counties are different in terms of placement types and usage of placement methods.
Fifth, 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
Sixth, 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.
Last, the research provides suggestions regarding social work practices, government policies, and further research for related institutions and workers’ reference. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
內政部兒童局（2005）。《兒童及少年保護工作指南》。台灣社會工作專業人員協會編撰。
內政部統計資訊服務網（2007）。《內政統計年報》。http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/index.asp
王行（2007）。《暴力與非自願性案主的輔導》。台北：松慧文化。
立法院公報（1993）。第82卷第4期院會記錄，頁119。
江玉龍（1998），〈家庭保存暨家庭支持法案探索〉，《美國兒童福利的借鏡》，二十一世紀基金會主編。台北：中華徵信所。
余瑞長（2003）。《育幼機構受虐兒童之社會適應研究－以內政部北區兒童之家為例》。國立中正大學社會福利系碩士論文。
余漢儀（1996）。《兒童虐待－現象檢視與問題反省》。台北：巨流。
余漢儀（1998）。〈兒保過程中之社工決策〉，《國立政治大學社會學報》，第28期，頁81-116。
余漢儀（2005）。〈親屬寄養之迷思：家族責任抑或國家分擔〉，《社會政策與社會工作學刊》，第9卷第2期，頁1-30。
吳芝儀、李奉儒譯，Patton, M. Q.原著（1995）。《質的評鑑與研究》。台北：桂冠。
吳芝儀、廖梅花譯，Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.原著（2001）。《紮根理論研究方法》。嘉義：濤石文化。
李宗派（2000）。〈系統理論在社會工作之應用〉，《社區發展季刊》，第89期，頁156-166。
李允傑、丘昌泰。（1999）。《政策執行與評估》。台北：國立空中大學。
兒少新聞妙補手網站（2007）。《例案分析》。http://www.newscatcher.org.tw。
林俐君（2000）。《育幼機構院童成長脈絡之探討－以受刑人子女為例》。台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。台灣大學社會學研究所。
林家興（1997）。《親職教育的原理與實務》。台北：心理。
林淑玲（2002）。〈家庭變遷與家庭成長學習〉，載於台南技術學院家政系主編，《健康家庭與成長學習研討會論文集》。台南：台南技術學院家政系。
林惠娟（2008）。〈兒童虐待與防治〉，載於彭淑華等著，《兒童福利－理論與實務》。台北：華都文化。
林萬億（2002）。《當代社會工作：理論與方法》。台北：五南。
林水波。（1999）。《強化政策執行能力之理論建構》。行政院研考會。
法新社網際網路中文版新聞（2007）。李怡倩，〈研究：寄養兒童人生較坎坷 犯罪機率高〉。http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/070704/19/gsxv.html
社會工作辭典（2000）。蔡漢賢編，台北：內政部社區發展雜誌社。
施教裕（2003）。〈系統理論觀點〉，載於宋麗玉、曾華源、施教裕、鄭麗珍著，《社會工作理論－處遇模式與案例分析》。台北：洪葉文化。
翁慧圓（1994）。〈兒童虐待個案的診斷、處置與評估〉，《社會福利》，第114期，頁37-40。
張宏哲、林哲立、邱曉君、顏菲麗譯，Jose B. Ashford, Craig W. LeCroy, and Kathy L. Lortie原著（2007）。《人類行為與社會環境》。台北：雙葉書廊。
張詩吟（2005）。《依附型態與邊緣型人格向度相關之研究：兼論依附與自信及信任之關係》。國立中正大學犯罪防治所碩士論文。
許如悅（2002）。《兒保社工員風險研判決策之初探性研究》。東吳大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
許如悅、鄭麗珍（2003）。〈兒保工作人員對兒虐案件之風險研判與處遇決策〉，《社會政策與社會工作學刊》，第7期第1卷，頁163-213。
許瑋倫（2007）。《不同安置型態下兒少安置環境觀感之探究》。台灣大學社會工作學研究所碩士論文。
許嘉倪（2001）。《兒保社工員與施虐父母工作困境及因應之初探－以台北市為例》。東吳大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
郭靜晃（2004）。《兒童少年福利與服務》。台北：揚智文化。
陳向明（2002）。《社會科學質的研究》。台北：五南。
彭淑華（2004）。〈弱勢兒童保護的最後一道防線—台灣地區育幼機構之發展與省思〉，《兒童福利》，第60期，頁48-59。
彭淑華（2007）。〈「寧缺毋濫」？「寧濫毋缺」？兒童少年保護工作人員機構安置決策困境之研究〉，《中華心理衛生學刊》，第20期第2卷，頁127-154。
彭淑華（2008）。〈兒童家外安置服務〉，載於彭淑華等著，《兒童福利－理論與實務》。台北：華都文化。
黃堅厚（1999）。《人格心理學》。台北：心理。
黃鈺倫（2001）。《什麼是兒童的最佳利益？－兒保社工員對受虐兒童安置返家之決策及影響因素》。東吳大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
黃錦敦（2005）。《受虐少年接受寄養安置之適應歷程研究》。國立高雄師範大學輔導與諮商研究所碩士論文。
廖秋芬（1997）。《社會工作員對兒童保護案件處遇計畫的價值抉擇之研究》。東海大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
劉玉儀（2004）。《實踐＂返家＂為重點的兒保工作之行動歷程研究》。東吳大學社會工作學系碩士論文。
劉有志（2004）。《我國兒童及少年保護安置制度之研究－以兒童及少年最佳利益原則為中心》。國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
劉美芝（2000）。《機構安置受虐兒童社會適應之研究》。中國文化大學兒童福利研究所碩士論文。
潘淑滿（2000）。《社會個案工作》。台北：心理。
蔡本源（2006）。《兒童少年保護服務社會工作者家外安置倫理決策取向之相關研究》。靜宜大學青少年兒童福利研究所碩士論文。
蔡柏英（2002）。《迢迢的回家路－高雄市受虐兒童安置於寄養家庭生活適應之探討》。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所碩士論文。
簡春安、鄒平儀（2004）。《社會工作研究法》。台北：巨流。
蘇建文等（1991）。《發展心理學》。台北：心理。
二、英文部份
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., and Wall, T.(1978). Patterns of attachment. NJ: Erlbaum.
Arad-Davidzon, B. and Benbenishty, R.(2008). ‘The role of workers` attitudes and parent and child wishes in child protection workers` assessments and recommendation regarding removal and reunification’, Children and Youth Services Review, 30 (1): 107-121.
Armsden, G. C., and Greenberg, M. T. (1987). ‘The inventory of parent and peer attachment individual differences and their relationship to psychology well-being in adolescence’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16 (5): 427-452.
Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., and Johnson, K. (1999) . ‘Risk assessment in child protective services: consensus and actuarial model reliability’, Child Welfare, 78 (6): 723-748.
Bath, H. I., Richey, C. A., and Haapala, D. A. (1992). ‘Child and age outcome correlates in intensive family preservation services’, Children and Youth Services Review, 14: 389-406.
Bilha Davidson-Arad, Dorit Englechin-Segal, Yochanan W. and Rosy G.(2003). ‘Why social workers do not implement decisions to remove children at risk from home’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 27 (6): 687-697.
Bowlby, J.(1958). ‘The nature of the child’s tie to his mother’, International Journal of Psychoanalysis’, 39: 350-373.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. NY: Basic Books.
Britner, P. A. and Mossler, D. G.(2002). ‘Professionals` decision-making about out-of-home placements following instances of child abuse’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 26 (4): 317-323
Crossen-Tower, C.(2007). ‘Family preservation or child placement? Serving the child’s best interests’ in Crossen-Tower, C.(eds.), Exploring child welfare: practice perspective (4th ed.), pp.228-250. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Costin, L.B., Bell, C. J., and Downs, S.W.(1991). Child welfare-politics and practice. New York: Longman.
Curtis, P. A.(1999). ‘Introduction: The Chronic Nature of the Foster Care Crisis’, in Curtis, P. A. Grady, D. J., and Joshua C. K.(eds.), The Foster Care Crisis: Translating Research into Policy and Practice, pp.1-14. Lincohn: University of Nebraska Press.
DePanfilis, D. and Scannapieco, M.(1994). ‘Assessing the Safety of Children at Risk of Maltreatment: Decision-Making Models’, Child Welfare, 73 (3): 229-245.
Duncan, L.(1991). ‘Factors affecting the foster care placement decision: an analysis of National Survey Data’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61 (2): 272-281.
Duncan,L. (1992). ‘Reliability of the foster care placement decision: A review’, Research on Social Work Practice, 2 (1): 65-80.
Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., and Bartholomew, K. (1994). ‘Intimacy-anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships’, Journal of Applied social Psychology, 24: 1367-1386.
Enola, K. P.(2002). ‘Decision making in social work practice’, Social Work Research. 26 (1): 3-6.
Feeney, J., and Noller, P. (1996). Adult Attachment. California: SAGE Publications.
Fernandez, E.(2007). ‘Supporting children and responding to their families: Capturing the evidence on family support’, Children and Youth Service Review, 29: 1368-1394.
Ferol E. M. and Maura O`Keefe(2005). ‘Informed decisions in child welfare: The use of attachment theory’, Children and Youth Services Review, 27 (6): 577-593.
Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., and Leitch, C. J. (1983). ‘The nature and importance of attachment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12 (5): 373-386.
Hunter W. M., Coulter M. L., Runyan D. K., and Everson M. D.(1990). ‘Determinants of placement for sexually abused children’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 14 (3): 407-417.
Jones, L.(2004). ‘The Prevalence and Characteristics of Substance Abusers in a Child Protective Service Sample’, Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 4(2): 33-50.
Janet C., Siyon R., and Dale W.(2006). ‘Characteristics of child abuse in immigrant Korean families and correlates of placement decisions’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 30 (8): 881-891.
Kirk, R., and Griffin, D.(2004). ‘Intensive family preservation services: Demonstrating placement prevention using event history analysis’, Social Work Research, 28: 5-12.
Kobak, R., and Sceery, A. (1988). ‘Attachment in late adolescence working models affect resulting and representation of self and others’, Child Development, 59: 135-146.
Lopez, F. G. (1995). ‘Contemporary attachment theory: an introduction with implications for counseling psychology’, The Counseling Psychologist, 23 (3): 395-415.
Lindsey, D.(1994). The welfare of children. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lyon,T.D.(1999). Are battered women bad mothers? Rethinking the termination of abused women’s parental rights for failure to protect. In Howard Dubowitz(Eds.), Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy. Sage Publications,Inc.
Maluccio, A.N., Fein, E., and David, I.P.(1994). ‘Family reunification: Research finding, issues, and directions’, Child Welfare, 73(5): 489-496.
Osborn, A. L., Delfabbro, P., and Barber, J. G.(2008). ‘The psychosocial functioning and family background of children experiencing significant placement instability in Australian out-of-home care’, Children & Youth Services Review, 30(8): 847-860.
Smith, B. D., and Donovan, S. E. F. (2003). ‘Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context’, Social Service Review, 77 (4): 541-563.
Van Bemmel, J. H., Musen, M. A., and Helder, J. C. (Eds).(1997). Handbook of medical informatics. Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
Vanderploeg, J.J., Connell, C. M., Caron, C., Saunders, L., Katz, K. H., and Tebes, J. K.(2007). ‘The Impact of Parental Alcohol or Drug Removals on Foster Care Placement Experiences: A Matched Comparison Group Study’, Child Maltreatment, 12(2): 125-136.
Wall, J.C., and Amadio, C. (1994). ‘An integrated approach to child custody evaluation: utilizing the “best interest” of the child and family systems frameworks’, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 21(3): 39-57.
Weiss, R. S. (1982). ‘Attachment in adult life’. In Parkes, C. M., and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior. New York: Basic Books. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
社會行政與社會工作研究所
95264010
97 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0952640101 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [社會工作研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
