婚暴併兒虐服務整合的挑戰與模式初探

The Challenges and Model of Integrating Marital Violence and Child Abuse Services

10.6785/SPSW.200806.0051

沈瓊桃(April Chiung-Tao Shen)

家庭暴力 ； 婚姻暴力 ； 兒童虐待 ； 服務整合 ； family violence ； marital violence ； child abuse ； integrated service

社會政策與社會工作學刊

12卷1期（2008 / 06 / 01）

51 - 90

繁體中文

雖然近年來國內外實證研究結果皆突顯出婚姻暴力與兒童虐待存在於同一家庭中的現象，但家暴防治與保護實務工作經常呈現各爲其主的不協調甚至於衝突的狀態，而無法將家中所有的受害成員整合於家暴服務的安全保護傘之下。因此，本研究旨在探索婚暴併兒虐服務整合的現況與挑戰，並探索服務整合的可能模式，以作爲服務輸送與國家政策制定之參考。本研究設計採量化與質化研究的整合模式，以全台各縣市的公私立家暴防治機構的資深實務工作者爲研究對象，收集相關資料。本研究首先以焦點團體方式收集質化資料，並依質化資料的分析結果設計成量化問卷，再寄送給全台各縣市家暴防治機構社工人員填寫以收集量化資料。本研究於台灣北、中、南三區共舉辦五場焦點團體，計有24位機構督導或主管出席；問卷的部份共有39位機構督導或主管填答，問卷回收率爲88.6%。研究結果顯示，台灣各縣市針對婚暴併兒虐案件的服務模式與分工制度有所不同，且缺乏一套標準化的工作流程。不論是依服務對象或是責任區域分工，都有其利弊得失。研究參與者認爲的理想整合模式應以家庭爲中心派案、有主貴社工、工作流程標準化、以及加強家暴加害人的處遇。在配套措施方面，則須舉辦定期訓練以提昇社工員之專業知能、發展婚暴併兒虐之篩選接案指標、合併案件由資深社工員處理、開發民間資源、以及將行政工作與直接服務分開。本研究最後建議完整的服務模式應該要包括受暴配偶、子女和相對人的個別服務以及整體的家庭處過，並建議相關主管單位儘速研擬婚暴併兒虐案件的處過原則或是標準化的工作流程、針對各個家暴防治網絡進行教育訓練、且積極爭取司法體系的合作以加強加害者的處遇計畫。

Both Western and domestic empirical studies provide overwhelming evidence that marital violence and child abuse often co-occur in the same families. Moreover, the experiences of dual-violence have negative and long-term impact on children. However, marital violence and child abuse were often intervened by separate systems and practitioners that might result in uncoordinated services, and therefore, was not able to protect all the victims of family violence. In order to prevent the fragment services, this study aims to examine the challenges and possible model of integrating marital violence and child abuse services. Examining the issue of integrated services can avoid the lack of coordination and conflict between the marital violence and child abuse service sectors, and help preventing family violence based on the consideration of enhancing the safety of all family members. This study used multiple data collection methods, including focus group and questionnaire. Five focus groups were held around the nation (including northern, central, and southern Taiwan) with the participation of 24 social work supervisors or directors. Quantitative data was collected from a sample of 39 social work practitioners in public or private agencies by using a questionnaire designed from the focus group qualitative data. The questionnaire completion rate is 88.6%. Research results show that there is no consistent model across the nation and there is a lack of standardized procedure for serving dual-violence families. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages. Research participants suggest that the ideal integrated model should assign cases by families, rather than individuals. Moreover, it is better for the dual-violence family to have a case manager or social worker with authorized official power to be in charge of coordinating services. Developing a standardized operation process or handbook, and enhancing the batterer's treatment programs are also suggested. Finally, it is suggested that a complete service package should include not only individual services for the husband, the wife, and their children, but also treatment for the whole family as well. The service goal is to increase the safety and well-being of the whole family.

1. 沈瓊桃(2006)。婚暴併兒虐發生率之初探－以南投縣爲例。中華心理衡生學刊，19(4)，331-363。
   連結：
2. 黄志中、陳三能、黄旼曦、张淳茜、鄧淑如、陕建州、黄瑛琪、张高賓(2004)。婚姻暴力受虐嫌女的身體症狀。台灣家醫誌，14(1)，25-34。
   連結：
3. Appel, A. E.,G. W. Holden(1998).The Co-occurrence of Spouse and Physical Child Abuse: A Review and Appraisal.Journal of Family Psychology,12(4),578-599.
4. Edleson, J. L.(1999).The Overlap between Child Maltreatment and Woman Battering.Violence Against Women,5(2),134-154.
5. Responding to the Co-occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Adult Domestic Violence in Hennepin County
6. Findlater, J. E.,S. Kelly(1999).Reframing Child Safely in Michigan: Building Collaboration among Domestic Violence, Family Preservation, and Child Protection services.Child Maltreatment,4(2),167-174.
7. Hangen, E.(1994).D. S. S. Interagency Domestic Violence Team Pilot Project: Program data evaluation.Boston:Massachusetts Department of Social Services.
8. Horwath, J.,T. Morrison(2007).Collaboration, Integration and Change in Children's Services: Critical Issues and Key Ingredients.Child Abuse and Neglect,31(1),55-69.
9. Lecklitner, G. L.,N. M. Malik,S. M. Aaron,C. S. Lederman(1999).Promoting Safety for Abused Children and Battered Mothers: Miami-Dade County's Model Dependency Court Intervention Program.Child Maltreat,nent,4(2),175-182.
10. Magen, R. H.,K. Conroy, P. C. Hess,A. Panciera,B. L. Simon(2001).Identifying Domestic Violence in Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,16(6),580-601.
11. Marsh, J. C.,J. P. Ryan,S. Choi,M. F. .Testa(2006).Integrated Services for Families with Multiple Problems: Obstacles to Family Reunification.children and Youth Services Review,28(9),1074-1087.
12. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges(1999).Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment: Guidelines for Policy and Practice.Reno, NV:Author.
13. O’Leary, K. D.,A. M. S. Slep,S. G. O’Leary(2000).Co-occurrence of Partner and Parent Aggression: Research and Treatment Implications.Behavior Therapy,31(4),631-648.
14. The Greenbook Demonstration Initiative: Interim Evaluation Report
15. U S. Department of.Justice(2000).Evaluation of A Multi-site Demonstration of collaborations to Address Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment. Washington.DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. Whitney, P.,L. Davis(1999).Child.Abuse and Domestic Violence in Massachusetts: Can Practice be Integrated in a Public Child Welfare Setting?.Child Maltreatment,4(2),158-166.
17. 丁雁琪(1999)。婚姻暴力合讲兑童虐待虚遇之困境。「婚姻暴力合讲兑童虐待庭遇」研討會，高雄市:
18. 沈瓊桃。兒童知覺的雙重家庭暴力經驗與其適應行爲之相關研究。中華心理衡生學刊，18(1)，25-64。
19. 林淑娥(2000)。团立台灣大學社會學研究所。
20. 焉宗潔(2002)。天這麽黑，風這麽大，爸爸你在哪裡？婦女保護工作和兒童青少年保護工作衡突舆整合研究之反思。「走出暴力創傷－兒童保護及家暴目睹兒童個案處遇」研討會，南投:
21. 焉宗潔、鍾宜利(2003)。家庭暴力防治工作的衡突：以婦女保護工作和兒童保護工作爲例。社會工作實践及評估學刊，2，30-49。
22. 鍾宜利(2000)。建構婚姻暴力合併兒少保護家庭處遇模式研討會方案孰行成果舆經驗整理。台北:台北市婦女救援基金會。
23. 法院家庭暴力事件服挤虚椽起舆筒介
24. 黄志中(1999)。以家庭爲導向的家庭暴力防治策略。婚姻暴力合併兒童虐待處遇研討會，高雄市:

1. 黃有志、陳竹上(2014)。壞先生是否也是壞爸爸？：家庭暴力防治法第四十三條之理論與實證分析。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，36，77-90。
2. 童伊迪,沈瓊桃(2018)。婚暴併兒虐家庭之多元模式與發生情境。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，14(2)，73-104。
3. 游以安,姜兆眉(2020)。探見「家庭暴力暨性侵害防治工作」社工專業間的合作經驗：諮商心理師觀點。臺灣社會工作學刊，23，109+111-159。
4. 張曉佩(2020)。探討多元專業工作者於兒少保護家庭暴力案件之合作共治模式。中華輔導與諮商學報，57，17-49。
5. (2009)。社工服務與法令交互作用之反思。社區發展季刊，128，181-189。
6. (2016)。臺灣社區工作觀點與保護性社會工作發展之初探。社區發展季刊，156，331-346。
7. (2020)。保護性工作以家庭為核心的協力服務之初探。社區發展季刊，172，75-86。