以法院為基礎的社會工作家事調解歷程之初探

An Exploring Research on Court-based Social Work Family Conciliation Process

10.29814/TSW.200601.0003

陳伶珠；盧佳香

家事調解 ； 社會工作調解員 ； 家事調解歷程 ； family conciliation ； social work conciliator ； family conciliation process

臺灣社會工作學刊

5期（2006 / 01 / 01）

76 - 125

繁體中文

本文描述以法院為基礎的社會工作家事調解服務之案件概況，並就社工師團隊之實務調解經驗探討社會工作家事調解歷程。研究對象與方法：以社工師團隊在台中地方法院歷時一年的調解個案記錄進行描述分析，共二五三份，並對九名調解員進行深度訪談。研究結果：訴訟議題以離婚(71.4%)及未成年子女親權歸屬議題(41.7%)最多；82.2%原告／聲請人是女性；當事人年齡以36歲以上居多；87.4%的當事人是無婚姻關係或已分居；93.9%當事人有未成年子女，其年齡以7歲以上最多；66.8%被告／相對人被指稱／呈現有問題，其問題以施行婚姻暴力（肢體）最多(50.6%)。該團隊實際調解率52.9%。調解結果與當事人之「原告／聲請人性別」、「婚姻狀況」、「被告／相對人被指稱／呈現有問題」，以及調解員之「案件所屬年份」、「調解資歷」、「調解案量」變項有顯著關聯。研究者依據調解員深度訪談資料將其調解歷程分為三個調解階段、十個任務、以及達成各階段任務的調解技巧。研究結果顯示以法院為基礎的社會工作家事調解歷程是一個短期促使當事人理性合作，使其發展雙方合意方案以解決紛爭的過程。社會工作調解員致力於促使雙方當事人發展紛爭解決方案，使其方案能夠兼顧到未成年子女的基本需求與最佳利益，同時也重視當事人的家庭系統與資源的運用。

This paper drawn a picture of the cases in court-based family conciliation and a preliminary process of court-based social work family conciliation via the practical social work conciliation team discussed. Research participants and methods: descriptive analysis of 253 case records of Taichung District Court in a period of one year and in-depth interview of 9 conciliators. Result of research: Most of the litigate issues are divorce (71.4%) and guardianship (41.7%). Most of the petitioners/demandants are women (82.2%). The majority litigants are over 36 years old, 87.4% do not have marriage relation or live apart, 93.9% have children and the age of the children are mostly over 7. Many respondents/counterparts are accused/appeared problematically (66.8%), the majority are domestic violence (50.6%). The actual conciliation rate is 52.9% and which is associated with the litigants (sex of the petitioners/demandants, marital status of the litigants, the respondents/counterparts be accused/appeared problematically) and the conciliators' experience (year of the cases, seniority of the conciliators, quantity of caseload). The conciliation process includes three stages and ten tasks, the related skills are also addressed. The result of this research shows that the court-based family conciliation process is a short-term intervention of encouraging the litigants to reasonably cooperate with each other and enhancing an agreeable dispute resolution. Throughout the process, social work conciliators devote to assisting the litigants in negotiating an agreement which they accept and consistent with their children's needs and best interests. Family systems and resources are also emphasized.

1. (2005)。地方法院實施家事事件調解試行要點。
2. (2006)。家事專業調解成效受好評，將再擴大試行一年。司法周刊，1280，1。
3. Barsky, A. E.,J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. Milne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
4. Beck, C. A.,Saled, B. D.,Emery, R. E.,J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. Milne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
5. Brown, E. M.｜J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. Milne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
6. Cobb, S.(1997).The Domestication of Violence in Mediation.Law & Society Review,31(3),397-440.
7. Cohen, O.,Luxenburg, A.,Dattner, N.,Matz, D. E.(1999).Suitability of Divorcing Couples for Mediation: A Suggested Typology.American Journal of Family Therapy,27(4),329-344.
8. Cull, L.,Leslry-Anne Cull (Eds),Jeremy Roche (Eds)(2001).The Law and Social Work: Contemporary Issues for Practice.New York:Palgrave.
9. Flynn, D.(2005).The Social Worker as Family Mediator: Balancing Power in Cases Involving Family Violence.Australian Social Work,58(6),407-418.
10. Irving, H. H.(2002).Family Mediation: Theory and Practice with Chinese Families.Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press.
11. Irving, H. H.,Benjamin, M.(1995).Family Mediation: Contemporary Issues.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
12. Irving, H. H.,Benjamin, M.(2002).Therapeutic Family Mediation: Helping Families Resolve Conflict.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
13. Lang, M.,J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. Milne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
14. Mantle, G.(2001).Helping Parents in Dispute: Child-centred Mediation at County Court.Hampshire:Ashgate.
15. Miles, M. B.,Huberman, A. M.(1994).An Expanded Source Book: Qualitative Data Analysis.Thousand. Oaks, CA:SAGE.
16. Milne, A. L. (Eds),J. Folberg (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
17. Ogus, A.,Jones-Lee, M.,Cole, W.,McCarthy, P.(1990).Evaluating Alternative Dispute Resolution: Measuring the Impact of Family Conciliation on Costs.The Modern Law Review,53(1),57-74.
18. Parkinson, L.(1986).Conciliation in Separation and Divorce: Finding Common Ground.London:Croom Helm.
19. Pruett, M. K.,Johnson, J. R.,J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. Milne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
20. Raisner, J. K.,J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. ilne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
21. Ricci, I.,J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. Milne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
22. Simpson, B.(1991).The Children Act 1989 and the Voice of the Child in Family Conciliation.Family Court Review,29(4),385-397.
23. Simpson, B.,Corlyon, J.,McCarthy, P.,Walker, J.(1990).Client Responses to Family Conciliation: Achieving Clarity in the Midst of Confusion.British Journal of Social Work,20(6),557-574.
24. Weingarten, H. R.(1986).Strategic Planning for Divorce Mediation.Social Work,31(3),194-200.
25. Weiss, W. W.,Collada, H. B.(1977).Conciliation Counseling: The Court's Effective Mechanism for Resolving Visitation and Custody Disputes.Family Coordinator,6,444-446.
26. Welsh, N. A.,J. Folberg (Eds),A. L. Milne (Eds),P. Salem (Eds)(2004).Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications.New York:The Guilford Press.
27. Westcott, J. (ed.)(2004).Family Mediation: Past, Present and Future.Bristol:Jordan Publishing Limited.
28. 內政部網頁
29. 王唯馨(2004)。彰化，國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系。
30. 王智弘、唐訢雅、廖婉喻、蘇盈儀(2005)。家事商談的倫理議題。2005家事商談國際研討會會議手冊，台南:
31. 司法院網頁
32. 兒童福利聯盟(2005)。兒盟推動家事商談服務的經驗分享與成效初探。全國律師，9(8)，4-12。
33. 高金枝(2005)。協助離婚的夫妻成爲合作的父母－從參訪澳洲家事調解制度，談試行中之家事事件專業調解。全國律師，9(8)，4-12。
34. 涂秀玲(2006)。嘉義，國立中正大學法律研究所。
35. 陳玉完(2006)。家事調解之檢討與展望－司法行政推展家事調解新制週年經驗分享（上）。司法周刊，1298，2。
36. 彭南元(2002)。論家事案件採心理諮詢服務之可行性。司法周刊，1102，2。
37. 楊孝水榮、楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園編(1989)。社會及行爲科學研究法。台北:東華書局。
38. 楊熾光(2006)。台灣台中地方法院加強調解業務視察報告。
39. 賴月蜜(2005)。南投，國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系。
40. 賴芳玉(2005)。精緻的司法－從家事調解制度做起。全國律師，9(8)，2-3。
41. 謝靜慧(2005)。探尋家事調解新方向－以台北士林地方法院家事法庭處理家事調解經驗出發。全國律師，9(8)，13-23。

1. 蔡琳(2020)。家事調解制度中的心理諮商專業：以離婚家事調解為例。諮商與輔導，419，26-29。
2. 郭書琴(2009)。法律知識的初步考察—從一則「常民」打官司的故事談起。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，47(4)，191-235。
3. 潘淑滿、胡育瑄、李姿佳、宋名萍(2016)。家庭暴力家事調解服務之經驗與策略─以台北、士林地方法院為例。臺灣社會工作學刊，16，119-166。
4. 邱雅芳、李惠娟(2015)。「家事商談服務使用者的經驗探討」－以兒盟家事商談服務為例。臺灣社會工作學刊，15，81-110。
5. 翟宗悌、鄔佩麗、王佩辰(2017)。善了！心理諮詢師在離婚調解中的服務敘事。輔導與諮商學報，38(2)，1-24。
6. (2012)。重訪民事紛爭解決的法理與實踐─以家事事件看民事程序之訴訟觀的演進─民事訴訟法研究會第一百一十六次研討紀錄─。法學叢刊，57(4)，157-208。
7. (2017)。從法律人類學看民事紛爭解決之訴訟觀的演進— 以家事紛爭解決為例。中研院法學期刊，20，1-75。
8. (2018)。社會工作人員參與家事調解的常見議題與應用工具箱之探討。靜宜人文社會學報，12(1)，205-242。