都是權控惹的禍？多元化親密伴侶暴力型態之服務挑戰－以大台北地區聲請保護令案件為例

It is all power and control's fault: The challenges for serving clients with diversified types of intimate partner violence-The example of protection order cases in Taipei and New Taipei cities

黃心怡(Huang Shin-Yi)；楊愉安(Yang Yu-An)；溫筱雯(Wen Hsiao-Wen)；林良穗(Lin Liangsui)；沈瓊桃(Shen April Chiung-Tao)

權控 ； 親密伴侶暴力 ； 保護令 ； Power and Control ； Intimate Partner Violence ； Protection Order

亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊

12卷2期（2016 / 12 / 01）

85 - 112

繁體中文

本研究旨在了解權控型態之外親密伴侶暴力的問題成因、服務挑戰，以及現行的防治策略與制度檢討。本研究分別以個別深度訪談及焦點團體的方式進行，探討大台北地區的法官及法院社工對研究問題的看法。研究結果發現，除了權控以外，會造成親密伴侶暴力發生的原因包括：夫妻或伴侶間相處互動的議題，個人特殊議題，以及出於自我防衛所引發的暴力衝突。研究結果亦發現，法院家暴服務處的社工實務面臨以下挑戰：社工伴侶協談能力不足、「暴力」與「互動」議題的討論難以權衡、社工角色被過度期待、「被害人權益保護者」的服務價值受到挑戰、機構觀點不一難以對話。最後，本研究建議發展多元處遇模式（例如伴侶協談）以因應不同類型的親密伴侶暴力。

This research aims to understand the causes of violence, challenge of services and the current preventive strategies for cases of intimate partner violence not resulting from power and control model. The research used in-depth interview and focus groups to comprehend opinions of judges and social workers in Taipei and Taipei Cities for research questions. The research results show that the causes for the occurrence of intimate partner violence in addition to power and control model include: interaction problems between couples or partners, personal problems, and violent conflict resulted from self-defense. Research results show that there are non-power-and-control types of intimate partner violence. Research results indicate the following challenges faced by social workers in dealing with non-power-and-control type of IPV: inadequate capability of interaction, communication and consultation for social workers; hard to balance the discussion of ＂violence＂ and ＂interaction＂; excessive expectation for social worker's role; service value of ＂victim's right protector＂ being challenged; and failure of dialogue with different point of views among institutions. Based on the research findings, we suggest that multiple treatment models should be developed, such as couple consultation, to deal with different types of IPV.

1. 衛福部 （ 2016 ） 。〈家庭暴力事件通報案件統計〉。取自http://www.mohw.gov.tw/cht/DOPS/DM1.aspx?f_list_no=806&fod_list_no=4620
2. Barnett, O.,Miller-Perrin, C. L.,Perrin, R. D.(2011).Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
3. Booth, A.(Ed.),Crouter, A. C.(Ed.),Clements, M.(Ed.)(2001).Couples in conflict.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Cunningham, A.,Jaffe, P. G.,Baker, L.,Dick, T.,Malla, S.,Mazaheri, N.,Poisson, S.(1998).Theory-derived explanations of male violence against female partners: Literature update and related implications for treatment and evaluation.London:London Family Court Clinic.
5. Dobash, R. E.,Dobash, R.(1979).Violence against wives: A case against patriarchy.New York:Free Press.
6. Johnson, M. P.(2011).Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review.Aggression and Violent Behavior,16(4),289-296.
7. Johnson, M. P.(1995).Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women.Journal of Marriage and the Family,57(2),283-294.
8. Johnson, M. P.(2006).Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence.Violence Against Women,12(11),1003-10108.
9. Johnson, M. P.,Leone, J. M.(2005).The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.Journal of Family Issues,26(3),322-349.
10. Kelly, K. B.,Johnson, M. P.(2008).Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions.Family Court Review,46(3),476-499.
11. Leone, J. M.,Johnson, M. P.,Cohan, C. L.(2007).Victim help seeking: Difference between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence.Family Relations,56(5),427-439.
12. Leone, J. M.,Johnson, M. P.,Cohan, C. L.,Lloyd, S. E.(2004).Consequences of male partner violence for low-income minority women.Journal of Marriage and Family,66,472-490.
13. Ohlin, L.(Ed.),Tonry, M.(Ed.)(1989).Family violence.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
14. Tiwari, A.,Chan, K. L.,Cheung, D. S. T.,Fong, D. Y. T.,Yan, E. C. W.,Tang, D. H. M.(2015).The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence on mental health outcomes among abused Chinese women: A mixed-method study.BMC Public Health,15(1),1-12.
15. 林慧芬(2002)。財團法人國家政策研究基金會國改研究報告財團法人國家政策研究基金會國改研究報告,財團法人國家政策研究基金會。
16. 柯麗評、王珮玲、張錦麗(2005)。家庭暴力─理論政策與實務。台北市:巨流圖書公司。
17. 現代婦女基金會(2011)。,未出版
18. 現代婦女基金會(2010)。,未出版
19. 許靜寧(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所。
20. 游美貴(2015)。家庭暴力防治─社工對被害人服務實務。台北市:洪業文化。
21. 黃心怡、楊愉安、溫筱雯、林良穗(2013)。非權控型親密伴侶暴力個案之服務挑戰─以聲請保護令案件為例。性別暴力被害人多元賦權的省思與實踐─現代婦女基金會一Ｏ二年度婦女人身安全實務研討會，台北市:
22. 劉秀娟譯(1996)。家庭暴力。台北市:揚智文化。

1. 陳亮晴,林根弘(2023)。淺談隱形於家中的病毒－家庭暴力。中華團體心理治療，29(2)，3-11。
2. 沈慶鴻(2019)。高危機、低意願：親密關係暴力高危機案主受助經驗之探索。社會政策與社會工作學刊，23(1)，1-44。