本研究緣起現代婦女基金會（以下簡稱「現代」）從事法院家暴事件服務處之工作經驗中，長年投入司法社會工作之努力，對因父母離異而受影響之未成年子女亦已累積豐富之服務經驗，於家事事件法公佈後，參酌國外程序監理人制度及經驗，展開「現代」程序監理人服務模式建立。研究目的：（1）透過行動研究，不斷就實務上困境，經由研究修正，再執行、再修正，以成熟「現代」程序監理人服務模式；（2）透過焦點座談與個別訪談，瞭解我國程序監理人制度之執行現況，並提出改善建議。本文採用行動研究研究方法，除檢閱國外程序監理人制度外，資料蒐集包括行動紀錄、3場專業人員焦點座談17人參與、3位法官之個別訪談及3場個案研討等，就「現代」程序監理人團隊建立、檢視、修正，不斷討論、再修正。研究結果：主要分為「現代」建構程序監理人運作模式修正結果及目前實務上程序監理人執行現況分析兩大部份，在「現代」建構程序監理人運作模式修正結果，透過行動研究之建構，「現代」已成熟其雙專業之團隊模式，從一開始參考美英德日規定，以律師接受訓練為擔任程序監理人必要條件，到目前建構由1名社工、1名律師組成雙專業團隊，另外，針對團隊模式成本困境也已有所因應，並發揮NPO在程序監理人制度推展之社會倡議角色功能；針對目前實務上程序監理人執行現況分析，發現社會大眾及網絡專業對程序監理人制度不瞭解，及程序監理人實務運作，缺乏專業培訓。故提出6點建議：（1）強制選任程序監理人是否具備必要性宜再探討；（2）擴大程序監理人適用之範圍；（3）改進酬金給付之相關規定；（4）司法院應建立程序監理人培訓與證照制度，並定期評估；（5）司法院應辦理程序監理人個案研討、在職訓練、及交流之會議；（6）推廣程序監理人團隊運作模式。

This present research originated from the work conducted by the Modern Women's Foundation (the 'MWF') at the courts' domestic violence service centers. The MWF has been devoted to the field of law and social work for many years and has built up substantial experience in serving children affected by their parents' divorce. Following the promulgation of the Law of Domestic Proceedings, the MWF set out to establish a service model after an examination of GAL services and experiences abroad. This current research has two goals: (1) to adjust, re-execute, re-adjust the MWF's service model through the action research in order to tackle practical issues and refine the MWF's GAL service model; (2) to comprehend and make suggestions on the implementation of GAL services, by means of focus group discussions and individual interviews. This article adopted an ‘action research' approach. As well as examining foreign GAL systems, our data collection contained records of three professional focus group discussions (with 17 participants), three individual interviews with judges and three case study seminars, all of which were conducted with a view to establishing, reviewing, adjusting, discussing and reviewing the MWF service model. The main aims of this research are two-fold: To structure and improve the GAL service model and to analyze current implementation of the GAL services. As for the first aim, the MWF model has evolved, from referencing models of the United States, England, Germany and Japan, into the present tandem model, which consists of one social worker and one lawyer. Furthermore, the cost-efficiency of this model has been considered by utilizing the NPO's role in advocating GAL services. As for the second aim, our research has found that the GAL services are not well understood by the general public and that professional training is inadequate. Therefore, we offer the following six suggestions: 1. to consider the issue as to whether mandatory appointment of GAL(s) is appropriate; 2. to extend the application of GAL services; 3. to improve laws and regulations on service fees; 4. that the Judicial Yuan should establish mechanisms to train and certify GALs and make periodic evaluations; 5. that the Judicial Yuan should conduct GAL case studies, on-the-job training and conferences to facilitate dialogue; and 6. to promote the 'team model' for GAL services.