:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:離婚後未成年子女最佳利益之研究:福利國家與家庭角色的再思考
作者:陳竹上 引用關係
作者(外文):Jwu-shang Chen
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:社會福利所
指導教授:鄭讚源
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2007
主題關鍵詞:監護歸屬裁判離婚子女利益家事法庭兩願離婚福利國家interest of childchild custodydivorce terminated by courtwelfare statedivorce from agreementfamily courtjudicidual statistics
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(5) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:148
在台灣,居高不下之離婚率似乎已經是難以逆轉之社會現象,而夫妻離婚時若已育有未成年子女,制度上及現實上即必需面臨子女監護歸屬之難題。民國85年起,就此等父母離婚後子女監護歸屬之決定方式,我國民法有劃時代之制度變革,同時朝兩性平等及維護子女利益之方向修正,並在司法審理之過程中,納入社會工作專業參與之機制。就此,本研究期能由社會政策及國家與家庭間之關係等角度,探討及評估此一子女監護制度之政策執行實況,特別是就監護制度運作之核心場域—家事法庭及其審理結果予以分析,並檢視此等政策執行實況是否合於維護子女利益之初衷,藉此以對政策規劃及制度設計有所回饋及建議。研究方法係以司法統計分析、個案及檔案分析及專家訪談為主,相較於其他既有之相關研究,本研究期能達到實證、評估及整合等研究價值(第一章、第二章)。
就我國監護制度之政策意涵及內涵而言(第三章),由兒童保護之結構性及公共性觀之,父母離婚後未成年子女監護問題之因應,已經是福利國家責無旁貸的義務。若由西方國家社會政策及家庭政策之角度及派別觀之,我國現有之子女監護政策係以尊重家庭自治為原則,立場上似乎傾向於主張維護社會自發性秩序(spontaneous order)之右派,亦即不論夫妻間係兩願離婚或裁判離婚,其子女監護問題均交由雙方協議解決,若無法協議時方向法院請求裁判,或於訴請離婚時附帶請求法院判決。至於就國家介入家庭事務之型態及政策內涵觀之,應可得知在捍衛傳統家庭價值及遷就社會結構變遷兩者間,我國監護政策一方面係傾向於與社會變遷下家庭機能衰退之窘境妥協,一方面則期望尚能守住保障兒童福利之底線。
就監護制度之政策執行及評估而言,於秉承社會福利理論及法律社會學等視野之下,本研究運用「總結性評估」(summative evaluation)及「形成性評估」(formative evaluation)這組概念,先就監護政策之執行結果予以總結分析後發現(第四章):以民國94年為例,夫妻離婚時育有之未成年子女總數為68941人,而其子女監護歸屬之決定有高達約63576人即92.22%均是由父母自行協議,國家毫無審核監督或輔助協力之機制,僅有約2651名子女(3.85%)其監護歸屬係於父母訴請離婚時由法院附帶裁判,約2714名子女(3.94%)則是於父母離婚後另向法院聲請依非訟事件程序裁定。由此觀之,父母離婚後子女監護之歸屬是否合乎子女利益此一問題,僅剩不及8%之個案曾受司法機關配合社工專業予以審酌判斷,其餘多是等到危害兒童事件發生時國家方著手介入。本研究因此認為,過於仰賴家庭自治及放任監護協議,是導致如民國94年邱小妹事件至今仍不斷發生的遠因。此外,就子女監護歸屬之情形而論,以民國94年為例,父母自行協議之結果子女歸父比率(51.58%)為歸母(37.45%)之1.38倍,相較於此,由法院於離婚訴訟時經社工訪視後判決子女歸母之比率(65.11%)反而是歸父(28.71%)之2.27倍,由此更可見受到夫妻間談判實力不對等之影響,私人協議與公部門依法定指標及程序所作之判斷已大相逕庭。
至於就監護政策執行過程之形成性評估而言(第五章),本研究則以民法第1055條之1,亦即子女最佳利益之認定指標為基礎,就其中與形成判斷有關之行動者(actors),逐一探討其情境脈絡及可能影響子女利益之因素。重要之研究結果如:在法官方面,誠如美國家庭法學者Robert Mnookin所述:「有關子女最佳利益之判斷,本質上正涉及一個人之生命目標與人生價值為何的決定」,故法官之生命情境及個別認知,均將影響其對子女利益內涵之認定,個案實例則主要表現在法官對於通姦之評價、對於是否應親自撫育子女之偏好,乃至於對勸合與勸離間之認知差異等。就此司法上應逐漸累積共識以降低裁判之不可預測性,使子女最佳利益之各項指標產生規範及導引親權正確行使之機能。此外,就目前平均每位法官每月須辦結322件民事事件而言(其中訴訟事件為51件,非訟事件為271件),此等負荷與子女利益之確保間亦有其無法相容之衝突。
在父母方面,本研究係將「法院裁判離婚之原因」視為判斷子女監護歸屬時最關鍵之脈絡因素,並就各離婚原因中「破壞婚姻之責任歸屬」及「子女監護判決結果」間進行分析。以民國94年為例,夫妻間因「難以維持婚姻之重大事由」而裁判離婚者已躍居各離婚原因之第一位,其次依序為「惡意遺棄」(夫訴請離婚獲准比例最高者)、「受不堪同居之虐待」(妻訴請離婚獲准比例最高者)、「受徒刑之宣告」等。以因「不堪同居之虐待」而離婚者為例,民國94年由夫訴請離婚判准者僅26對(3.74%),由妻訴請離婚判准者則高達662對(95.25%),另有7對為夫妻互告;至於此部分之子女監護歸屬情形,則695對離婚夫妻中法院附帶裁判監護歸屬之未成年子女數計446人,其中歸父者僅50人即11.21%,歸母者則為348人即78.03%,共同監護者45人即10.09%,其子女歸母比例之高為所有離婚原因之首,為歸父之7倍,相對於整體平均之2.3倍明顯較多,足見法官對於家庭暴力防治法第35條之重視。此外,就父母雙方之經濟能力而言,有鑑於我國女性因結婚及生育而離職之比率甚高,故法院於評估監護人之適任性時宜降低經濟能力之影響,並善用給付扶養費及剩餘財產分配等制度,以追求實質平等。
在子女方面,子女意願已經是決定其監護歸屬最具影響力之因素,然而法院於探詢子女意願之專業技巧上仍有改善之空間,並宜留意成人世界之影響及忠誠考驗之避免。此外,各年齡層之子女其人格發展需求及對於父母離婚之反應均有所不同,若以民國94年裁判離婚時夫妻已婚年數及主計處之相關統計推算,我國父母離婚時子女之主要年齡層應在8歲(第二胎)至10歲(第一胎)最多,亦即約國小二至四年級間,佔43%即1143人,次多之年齡層應為嬰兒階段,約占21%,即544人,此部分即應注意「襁褓原則」(幼年原則)之適用問題。
最後,就此等監護歸屬裁判之強制執行程序而言,為因應民國93年2月法院強制取交吳憶樺時所帶給社會之衝擊,司法院雖已就子女之強制執行制訂規範要點,但治本之道仍宜一方面體察分析何以義務人會形成抗拒司法裁判之心理,從而於監護事件審理過程中即強化當事人程序參與之空間,法院並應配合其他專業,以「治癒者」(healer)而非「審判者」(judge)之立場面對家庭紛爭及雙方情緒,法官並應說明法律規範及其心證以避免突襲裁判(surprising verdicts),以求降低敗訴一方因認知失調而陷入自我辯解漩渦之機率;另一方面,目前家事事件審判程序與執行程序截然二分之體制亦宜有所調整,使法官於審理程序中即逐步留意日後之執行問題,包括妥善運用美國家事法院所創設之「友善父母條款」(frieddly parent provision),以及在審判結果必須變動子女生活現狀時預作準備。就此,研議中之「家事事件法」亦有類似之規劃。
誠然,面對變遷迅速之社會結構及家庭型態,福利國家若欲稱職地扮演兒童之最終親權者此一角色,則對於兩願離婚及其他類似狀態下之子女監護問題,已經不宜再完全委由家庭自行協議,本研究之建議乃以兩願離婚必經之戶政登記為連結社會福利資源之樞紐,開始對未成年子女監護歸屬之協議及監護人之適任性進行輔助及審核,以一套制度性的預防及家庭重建措施,替代目前殘補、搶救式的兒童福利。至於就進入司法程序之監護事件而言,民國85年民法新制實施至今已屆十年,雖累積了不少經驗與共識,但子女監護之裁判畢竟是一項必須延續數年甚至十數年之決定,司法機關於面對家庭糾紛之審理及兒少福利之維護時,社會賦予之期待已經不僅止於合法結案,而是希望透過更多元之資源連結,促成司法與社會福利系統間更周延而密切之銜接,共同建構兒童及少年之保護網絡。
High and increasingly divorce rate has already been an unreservedly social phenomenon in Taiwan. More and more parents are forced to face custody problem as they have children less than 20 years while divorce. Since 1996, the part of civil law about child custody in Taiwan has an epoch-making transformation into the sex equality and child interest protection era. At the same time, the discipline of social work also has a chance to participate in judicial procedure. The plan of this study is to evaluate and probe into implementing commentary of the new child custody law mentioned above through the perspectives of social policy and the interaction between government and family. The key issue will be located within family courts and its judgments, which play a core role in the field of child custody, including how it operates and what the consequence shows. Then I’ll check if the policy implementing commentary fit for the ideal of best interest of child and make suggestions to policy design simultaneously. The method of this study is based on judicial statistics, case study, archival analysis and interview to experts. Comparing with other studies on this subject, I hope to reach the values of evidence-based, evaluating and integrated research(chapter one, chapter three).
Under the discussion on custody law contents and policy implication(chapter two),the welfare state has already had no choice to escape from response to custody problems under the natures of social structure and collectivism of child protection. In the view of the factions of social and family policy in western country, the custody law in Taiwan is established in the principle of family self-governance which inherits from the claim for society’s “spontaneous order” of the Right. Under this principle all the child custody problems are settled by parents themselves no matter what the divorce types are, the family court will deal with this problem only if the custody agreement can’t be reached by parents or announce the custody verdict in the divorce litigation supplementary. In the discussion about what welfare state should do for family, the major debate is from protecting traditional family values to accommodating to the social transition. The custody policy of Taiwan seems trying to compromise with the declining family function in one hand and struggle for the child welfare in another.
With the visions of social welfare theory and the sociology of law, I apply the couple concepts of “summative evaluation” and “formative evaluation” in order to analyze and evaluate custody policy implement systematically. The summative evaluation has been done firstly and the findings are as following(chapter four): Take the statistics of 2005 for example, there were 68941 children less than 20 years while parent’s divorce and about 63576(92.22%) children’s custody problems were settled by their parent’s self-negotiations without any supervision or direction from government. Only about 2651(3.85%) children’s belongings had been examined by family courts while announcing the custody verdicts in the divorce litigation supplementary, about another 2714(3.94%) children’s custody problems were been closed through “family non-contentious procedure”. Based on these figures, the conclusion is only less than 8% children’s custody had been supervised or directed under the principle of best interest of child which was operated by courts and social workers, the soundness of the rest children’s custody was ignored until tragedy happened. I believe “the little girl Cho event” happened in 2005 will happen again and again accordingly with the custody policy over-leaning on family self-governance in Taiwan. Furthermore, the comparison of the children custody belonging situation between parent’s negotiation and family court’s verdict tells another story: in 2005 the rate children custody belongs to father(51.58%) was 1.38 times mother’s(37.45%) under the negotiation of parents while the rate to mother(65.11%) was 2.27 times father’s(28.71%) under the verdict from family courts with social worker’s interview.
The formative evaluation was operated through finding the situation and context about the actors within the civil law 1055-1 one by one(chapter five). According to the analysis of these actors’ situation and context the formation process of child’s best interest may be understood more clearly. Some important findings are as following: In the dimension of judge, just as what the family law scholar Robert Mnookin said: ”The determination of the best interest of a child is also about what the aim of life is and what the value of human should be in essence.” The different life experience and cognition of judges is going to influence the decision of what child interest is. Main examples are the evaluation of adultery committing, the preference about fostering baby personally or not and the difference views from maintaining marriage to giving it up. The cognitive diversity between judges should be reduced by accumulate common consensus gradually in order to overcome the unpredictable rate of verdict and increase the function that jurisdiction regulates and guides the parent’s behavior. In another dimension of judge’s situation is about their loading in Taiwan. Statistic shows every judge has to deal and close 322 civil cases per month on average including 51 contentious cases and 271 non-contentious ones. Obviously the over-heavy burden of judge is always in conflict with the searching for the child’s best interest.
In the dimension of the parents, the key factor about custody-decision context should be the causes of divorce. The analysis here includes not only why parents divorced but also the relationship between who destroyed the marriage and the child custody which belong to whom. Take the statistics of 2005 for example, the most divorce cause is “other serious matter”, and the less is “desertion” (the most cause that husband was plaintiff and permitted),”ill treatment by the other party” (the most cause that wife was plaintiff and permitted),”sentenced to imprisonment” in order. Take the cause ”ill treatment by the other party” for example, only 26 cases(3.74%) were brought to court by husband and permitted, while 662 cases(95.25%) were brought by wife. Both the wife and husband were plaintiffs in the rest 7 cases. There were 446 children been judged custody supplementary in the 695 divorce cases caused form ill treatment, only 50 children(11.21%) belonged to father while 348 children belonged to mother(78.03%), 45 children(10.09%) belonged to joint custody. The percentage of belonging to mother is the highest among all the divorce cause,7 times the father part and a lot more than the 2.3 times on average. The conclusion can be made that judges pay much attention to the ”Family Violence Prevention and Cure Law 35”. Although economic ability is a factor about child custody-decision, family courts should lower its importance in consideration of women always quit their jobs from marriage or pregnancy. At the same time family courts should apply the rules of paying alimony and distributing rest property in order to look for real equality.
In the dimension of the children, their wishes have been the most important factor about custody-decision. But the specialized skill of the family courts still can be improved as trying to find out the children’s wishes. The unavoidable influence from parents and the embarrassing loyal test of children should be paid attention to simultaneously. Moreover, children have different need for moral integrity development and dissimilar response to parent’s divorce as they are in different stage. According to the calculation based on judicial statistic of “years of marriage among divorce” and other related statistics, most children’s age is about 8 to 10 years old(2-4 grade in elementary school namely,43%,1143 children). Second more age stage is located within infant phase (21%, 544 children), the argument about the application of “tender year doctrine” has been noticed here.
Finally, in the dimension of the child custody verdict compulsory execution procedure, Judicial Yuan have designed and announced new regulations of children compulsory execution procedure because of the compulsory execution impact from the custody case of Iruan Ergui Wu in February 2005. But we still have to examine the forming process of obligor’s psychology about resisting and fighting back to judicial verdict and open more participating chance for the persons involved in child custody case. The family court should play the role of “healer” instead of “judge” as deal with litigant’s disputes and emotion and operate the system with other professional in coordination. Judges have to explain what the law says for both parties and avoid “the surprising verdict”, which is the main cause of cognition disorder and self- rationalization of the one lost lawsuit. On the other hand, the system which cut the trial and compulsory execution procedure off has been adjusted or different judges in two divided organizations will not do something for the coordination of each other. Making use of the “friendly parent provision” and preparing in advance as the consequence of the verdict has to change children’s life also will be helpful for mitigating the compulsory execution problem. The designing “Family Cases Law” is toward the similar direction.
Admittedly, the welfare state will not competent for its “ultimate parents” job if the custody policy still leans to family self-governance. Due to one of the necessary step of divorce is the register in the “Household Registration Office”, designing the office to a connected center that links and conveys welfare resource about child custody is suggested. The overall examination and direction for the parent’s custody agreement is implemented through this point in order to setup an institutional type child-welfare system to replace the residual one. The new custody law in Taiwan since 1996 has brought into practice ten years, lots of experience and common consensus has been accumulated. After all the verdict about child custody will last years even more than ten years, under this situation the expectancy for judicial apartment and family court is not only closing the case legally and lawfully but connecting with diverse public or social resources for establishing a child welfare protection net collectively.
參考書目(中文)

Allan G. Johnson著,成令方、林鶴玲、吳嘉苓譯(2003),《見樹又見林:社會學作為一種生活、實踐與承諾》(二版),台北:學群出版社。

David Macarov著、官有垣譯(2000),《社會福利—結構與實施》(Social Welfare—Structure and Practice),台北:雙葉書廊。

Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert著,李茂興、余伯泉譯(2003),《社會心理學》,台北:揚智文化。

John Maynara Keynes、李蘭甫譯(1964),《就業、利息與貨幣的一般理論》,台北:台灣銀行經濟學名著翻譯叢書。

Konrad, L.(1994),楊玉齡譯,雁鵝與勞倫茲,臺北:天下文化出版。

Susan A. Basow著,劉秀娟,林明寬譯(1996),《兩性關係--性別刻板化與角色》,臺北:揚智文化。

Stuart Hall(1989),<馬克思的階段理論>,收錄於馬國明編《階級分析與香港》,香港:青文書屋。

丁雪茵、鄭伯燻、任金剛(1996),<質化研究中研究者的角色與主觀性>,《本土心理學研究》6,354-376。new window

丁蓓蓓(1988),《論民法上親權之行使》,台北:中興大學法律研究所碩士論文。

內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會(2005),佛羅里達州監督親子會面中心訓練手冊,台北:內政部。

王立達(2000),<法釋義學研究取向初探:一個方法論的反省>,《法令月刊》51:9,23-33。new window

王如玄(1988),《論離婚後子女監護之歸屬-從貫徹男女平等並保護子女利益之立場出發》,台北:輔仁大學法律研究所碩士論文。

王如玄(2000),<幼年原則在子女監護權人決定基準上之地位>,《律師雜誌》246,94-97。

王金永(2003),《社工員對離婚子女監護權訪視調查之研究》,台北:東吳大學社工研究所碩士論文。

王淑敏(1999),<職業性別與職業聲望研究>,《景文技術學院學報》9(2):57-73。new window

司法院(1999),<裁判書類通俗化研究座談紀錄>,《月旦法學》49,61-71。

司法院(2005),《司法統計年報》,台北:司法院統計處編印。

石元康(1999),<海耶克(Friedrich A. von Hayek)論自由與法治>,《二十一世紀》,56,76-89。new window

何春雷等(2001),《當代德國社會保障制度》,北京:法律出版社。

吳定(1985),《公共政策論叢》,台北:天一書局。

吳庚(2001),《行政法之理論與實用》,臺北:自版。new window

吳明儒(1996),<公共利益本質與社會福利議題--兼論社區問題與公共利益>,《社區發展季刊》,75,156-167。new window

李文福(2005),《論刑度與裁量》,嘉義:國立中正大學法律所碩士論文。

李仁淼(2000),<國際人權法體系中社會權保障之新進展--以社會權規約委員會之最近動向為檢討中心>,《思與言》,38:4,pp.41-66,2000。new window

李自強(2005),<社會工作在刑事司法體系內的角色與貢獻>,《警學叢刊》35(4):195-208。new window

李宏文(2004),《論子女最佳利益原則》,台北:台北大學法律研究所碩士論文。

李佳玟(2005),<女性犯罪責任的敘事建構--以鄧如雯殺夫案為例>,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》34:6,1-56。new window

李玲玲(1997),《離婚後未成年子女監護之研究》,台北:漢興出版社。

李淑容(1995),<國家和家庭的關係—兼論我國應有的家庭政策>,《社區發展季刊》,70,160-171。new window

李美玲(1994),<二十世紀以來台灣人口婚姻狀況的變遷>,《人口學刊》,16,1-15。new window

李美玲、陳俊全(1997),<婚姻狀況對平均餘命的影響>,《人口學刊》,18,19-38。new window

李釱任(2006),《我國民事保護令制度之研究─司法實務工作者之觀點》,台北:國立台北大學犯罪學研究所碩士論文。

李茂生(1992),《法律與生活》,臺北:正中出版社。

李茂生(2001),<我國少年事件處理法的檢討與展望--以刑事司法與福利行政兩系統的交錯為論點>,《月旦法學》,74:30-50。

李易駿(2006),<社會排除:流行或挑戰>,《社會政策與社會工作學刊》10(1):1-47。new window

李國增(1996),《無婚姻關係之父母對於其未成年子女親權行使之研究》,台中:東海大學法律研究所碩士論文。

李園會(2000),《兒童權利公約》,台北:內政部兒童局。

李鍾元(1993),《兒童福利—理論與方法》,台北:金鼎出版社。

李麗珠(2006),《離婚後未成年子女會面交往之研究》,嘉義:中正大學法律研究所碩士論文。

沈冠伶(2003),<未成年子女扶養請求事件之程序法上問題--基於未成年子女之最佳利益保護及統合解決紛爭之觀點>,《政大法學評論》73:297-347。new window

沈冠伶(2006),<家事非訟事件之程序保障--基於紛爭類型審理論及程序法理交錯適用論之觀點>,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》35(4):105-160。new window

法務部(1997),《民法親屬編及其施行法部分條文修正問答資料--親權及夫妻財產溯及效力》,台北:行政院法務部法律事務司編輯。

周文欽(2002),《研究方法:實徵性研究取向》,台北:心理出版社。

周金芳(2001),<論我國民法結婚形式要件與結婚登記之效力>,《致理學報》,14,181-191。

孟德斯鳩(Montesquieu)著,嚴復譯(1968),《孟德斯鳩法意》,臺北:臺灣商務。

林天祐(2005),<教育研究倫理準則>,《教育研究》132:70-86。new window

林文雄(1989),《法實證主義》,台北:台灣大學法律系。new window

林水波(1994),《強化政策執行能力之理論建構》,台北:行政院研考會出版。

林生傳(2003),《教育研究法:全方位的統整與分析》,台北:心理出版社。

林重新(2001),《教育研究法》,台北:揚智文化。

林家祺、劉俊麟(1995),《民事訴訟法》,台北:書泉出版社。

林素英(1997),《論離婚後親權之行使》,台北:中興大學法律研究所碩士論文。

林勤綱(1983),《民法上所謂離婚後子女監護制度之研究》,台北:台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。

林鐘沂(1990),《公共事務的設計與執行》,台北:幼獅文化。

邱稔壤(2001),<由伊利安事件論美古雙邊關係>,《問題與研究》40(3):23-47。new window

邱憶惠(1999),<個案研究法:質化取向>,《教育研究》7,113-126。

邱聰智(2005),《民法總則(上)》,台北:三民出版社。

長榮大學社會工學系(2006),《2006家事調解國際研討會會議手冊》,台南:長榮大學社會工學系。

洪堯讚(2005),《我國量刑協商制度之研究》,嘉義:國立中正大學法律所碩士論文。

姜世明(2000),<法律性突襲裁判之研究>,《萬國法律》111:12-39。

姜世明(2006),《民事訴訟法基礎論》,台北:元照出版社。

姜世明(2006),<律師之進修義務>,《全國律師》10(9):28-35。

施啟揚(1993),《民法總則》,台北:三民書局。

施慧玲(2001),<少年非行防制對策之新福利法制觀>,收錄於施慧玲著《家庭、法律、福利國家—現代親屬身分法論文集》,台北:元照出版社。new window

施慧玲(2003),<家庭法律社會學:第一講--引薦家庭法律社會學的知識殿堂>,《月旦法學教室》,7,139-145。new window

施慧玲(2003),<家庭法律社會學:第五講--子女本位之親子法>,《月旦法學教室》,16,105-113。new window

施慧玲(2004),《家庭法律社會學論文集》,台北:元照出版社。new window

施慧玲(2006),<超國界家庭法之本土研究及教學方法--一個知識傳播者的夢想與實現>,《臺灣本土法學雜誌》88:122-135。

柯三吉(1998),《公共政策:理論、方法與台灣經驗》,台北:時英出版社。

洪鎌德(2004),《法律與社會》,台北:揚智文化。

相部和男作,劉滌昭譯(1996),《有其父必有其子》,臺北:臺英雜誌出版社。

胡幼慧主編(1996),《質性研究 : 理論方法與本土女性研究實例》,台北:巨流出版社。

范光群等(2003),<程序利益保護原則--民訴法研究會第八十三次研討紀錄>,《法學叢刊》48(4):167-207。new window

孫守濂(2001),<監護權案中兒童最佳利益之評估指標與常見之評估困境─法律觀點>,收錄於高雄縣政府社會局主辦《台灣地區兒童監護權訪視案件實務研討會會議手冊》。

徐西森(2003),《兩性關係與教育》,台北:心理出版社。

徐國慶(2000),<珘虞F(Emile Durkheim)論職業團體與市民社會>,《教育社會學通訊》,24,11-24。

國立中正大學法律學系(2004),<第一屆家庭法律社會學研討會會議紀實>,內文紀錄載自國立中正大學法律學系主辦,《第一屆家庭法律社會學研討會:社會脈動下的家庭權》(5月29日),地點:嘉義國立中正大學。

張世雄(1995),<社會福利政策與現代政府>,《社區發展季刊》,70,172-189。new window

張世雄(2004),<社會福利多元的學術領域與學科的基本教育:用「社會福利概論」從事整合教育的初步構想>,《台灣社會福利學刊》,5,1-32。new window

張旭政(2002),《論國家介入親權行使之法理基礎與界線》,嘉義:中正大學法律研究所碩士論文。

張劭勳(2001),《研究方法》,台中:滄海出版社。

張春興(1991),《現代心理學--現代人研究自身問題的科學》:臺北:東華書局。new window

張清富(1998),《單親家庭經濟扶助之研究》,台北:內政部委託研究。

張登科(1999),《強制執行法》,台北:三民書局。

張維安(1993),《古典社會學思想》,台北:幼獅出版社。

唐文慧、王宏仁(1995),《社會福利理論—流派與爭議》,台北:巨流出版社。new window

頃y雄(2002),<現代人權體系中平等原則之研究(下)>,《國立中正大學法學集刊》7:3-88。

頃y雄(2002),<現代人權體系中平等原則之研究(上)>,《國立中正大學法學集刊》6:105-201。

郭淑美(2001),<監護權案中兒童最佳利益之評估指標與常見之評估困境>,收錄於高雄縣政府社會局主辦《台灣地區兒童監護權訪視案件實務研討會會議手冊》。

郭淑美(2005),《離婚婦女爭取子女監護權歷程探究》,高雄:高雄師範大學教育學研究所碩士論文。

陳弘毅等編著(1999),《香港法概論》,香港:三聯書店。

陳竹上(2000),《看不見的權利:從民族主義、族群文化與殖民歷史反思台灣原住民族財產權在國內法制中的發展》,花蓮:國立東華大學族群關係與文化研究所碩士論文。

陳竹上(2004),<論我國兒童監護政策之內涵及司法運作實況:以吳憶樺小朋友監護權爭奪事件為例>,《臺灣社會福利學刊》5:83-118。new window

陳竹上(2006),<從家庭到法庭:由遺棄罪之構成要件論長期照護責任之歸屬>,收錄於《社會不均與社會實踐》國際學術研討會論文集(上)》,台灣社會福利學主辦,2006年5月19-20日,嘉義中正大學。

陳孝平(1994),<「冷靜的頭」、「溫暖的心」與「脆弱的意志」--探所福利國的疆界>,中正大學社會福利研究所專題研討會論文。

陳孝平(2001),<從「資訊不對稱」看全民健保規範>,《國家政策論壇》1(10):178-179。

陳秉璋(1982),《實證社會學先鋒--珘虞F》,台北:允晨出版社。

陳皇如(2000),《離婚後夫妻之一方請求他方交還子女之研究》,台中:東海大學法律研究所碩士論文。

陳美燕(2002),《少年法院與社會資源之應用》,臺北:司法院。

陳素秋(2005),<一個實現公共性的社會機制:談Habermas公民社會理論(A Social Mechanism for Fulfilling the Publicness: On Habermas''s Civil Society)>,《公民訓育學報》,17,107-120。new window

陳鈺林(2005),《親子扶養問題之研究》,台北:司法院。

陳榮宗(2000),《強制執行法》,台北:三民書局。

陳慧女(2004),《法律社會工作》,臺北:心理出版社。new window

陳駿賦(2004),<吳憶樺案評述>,《萬國法律》135,124-135。

陳聰富(2000),<法院訴訟與社會發展>,《Proceedings of the National Science Council (Part C:Humanities and Social Sciences)》10(4),435-469。

陳麟祥(2004),《兒童及少年福利法與親屬法之交錯─兼論兒童及少年福利法相關規定之修訂》,台北:輔仁大學法律研究所碩士論文。

彭南元(2003a),<家事事件治療性審理方式初探--以離婚並涉及監護子女事件為例>,《律師雜誌》287:109-121。

彭南元(2003b),<讓當事人轉危為機--我國家事審判實務採用心理諮詢服務成果之初探>,《月旦法學》103:243-257。

彭南元(2004),<吳憶樺事件新解>,《全國律師》8:5,138-143。

彭錦鵬(2000),<英國政署之組織設計與運作成效>,《歐美研究》30(3),89-141。new window

曾建豪(1999),《子女交付請求之研究─以日本法為中心》,台北:政治大學法律研究所碩士論文。

曾華源、郭靜晃(2003),<對新版兒童及少年福利法的分析與批判:一部與少年現實需要有差距的法規>,《社區發展季刊》103,90-103。new window

游美貴(2004),《社會工作人員監護權訪視調查案件評估指標之研究》,內政部兒童局委託研究計畫。

馮燕(2005.01.14),<受虐兒,在政府眼中值多少錢?>,《聯合報》。

馮燕、郭靜晃(1992),《兒童福利法執行成效之評估》,臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會發行。

黃世鑫(2006),<社會保險「費」或「稅」?--由比較政治經濟制度觀點論之>,論文發表於台灣社會福利學會主辦,《社會不均與社會實踐—健康、教育、就業、所得研討會》,嘉義:中正大學。

黃立(2005),<契約自由的限制>,《月旦法學》125:5-22。
黃宗樂、陳祺炎、郭振恭(1993),《民法親屬新論》,台北:三民書局。

黃宗樂、陳祺炎、郭振恭(2002)《民法親屬新論》,台北:三民書局。

黃建輝(1988),《法律漏洞.類推適用》,台北:蔚理出版社。

黃奇瑟(2001),《亞當斯密政治經濟學的一個詮釋:從「一隻看不見的手」談起》,高雄:國立中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文。

黃茂榮(1987),《法律漏洞及其補充的方法》,台北:植根法學叢書編輯室。new window

黃源協、蕭文高(2006),《社會政策與社會立法》,台北:雙葉出版社。new window

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》,台北:東吳大學社工研究所碩士論文。

黃榮堅(1998),<論通姦罪的除罪化>,收錄於《刑罰的極限》,台北:月旦出版社。

黃應貴主編(1992),《見證與詮釋--當代人類學家》,臺北:正中書局出版。

楊建華(1989),《民事訴訟法》,台北:三民書局。

楊與齡(2001),<論法官之專業化>,《司法周刊》1060:第二版。

葉啟政(2004),《進出「結構–行動」的困境 : 與當代西方社會學理論論述對話》,臺北:三民。new window

葛義才(1993),《非訟事件法論》,自版。

董炯(2001),《國家.公民與行政法 : 一個國家-社會的角度》,北京:北京大學。

雷文玫(1999),<以「子女最佳利益」之名:離婚後父母對未成年子女權利義務行使與負擔之研究>,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》28(3):245-309 。new window

廖美芳(1993),《台灣地區勞資關係政策之執行研究—第三代政策執行理論觀點的分析》,台北:國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。

劉宏恩(1996),《心理學取向之法律研究:以住宅搜索、子女監護及婚姻暴力問題為例》,台北:台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。

劉俊麟(1995),《民事訴訟法》,台北:書泉出版社。

劉振鯤(2005),《法學概論》,台北:元照出版社。

蔡顯鑫(2003),《子女權利與親權制度》,台北:輔仁大學法律研究所碩士論文。new window

鄭昆山(2004),<通姦犯罪在法治國刑法的思辯--評釋字第五五四號解釋>,《月旦法學》105:213-227。

鄭清霞、洪惠芬(2005),<養育責任的集體分擔--公共財與外部性的分析>,《臺大社會工作學刊》,10,57-112。new window

鄭維瑄(2003),《「兒童最佳利益」概念與定義:社工員執行父母離婚後兒童監護權評估本土經驗整理》,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。

黎淑慧(2003),《法學緒論》,台北:新文京出版社。

賴月蜜(2005),<律師在家事替代性爭議處理上的重要角色>,《全國律師》9(8):24-36。

賴月蜜(1997),《兒童福利法中「親權」規範適用之探討》,台北:文化大學兒童福利學系碩士論文。

錢淑芬(1995),<馬克思(Karl Marx)、珘虞F(Emile Durkheim)和韋伯(Max Weber)對資本主義困境的探討>,《復興崗學報》55,25-34。

駱永家(1995),《民事舉證責任論》,台北:商務出版社。new window

戴正德(2005),<The Death of a Little Girl Exposes an Ethical Hole--邱小妹事件之省思>,《臺灣醫學人文學刊》1,1-2。

戴東雄(1999),<論民國八十七年民法親屬編有關禁止與相姦人結婚及女子待婚期間禁止再婚規定之刪除>,《法官協會雜誌》1(2):1-23。

戴炎輝、戴東雄(2001),《中國親屬法》,臺北市:臺大法學院。

謝哲勝(2005),<契約自治與管制>,《月旦法學》125:23-30。

謝宗林(1999),<經濟自由化與市場秩序>,《經濟前瞻》64:94-106。

謝靜慧(2006),<探詢家事調解新方向—以台灣士林地方法院家事法庭處理家事調解經驗出發>,收錄於《2006家事調解國際研討會會議手冊》,台南:長榮大學社會工學系。

鍾倫納(1993),《應用社會科學研究法》,台北:商務出版社。

瞿同祖(1982),《中國法律與中國社會》,台北:里仁出版社。new window

簡色嬌(2004),<司法裁判中之子女意願>,收錄於國立中正大學法律系主辦《第一屆家庭法律社會學研討會─社會脈動下的家庭權會議手冊》,地點:嘉義中正大學法學院。

簡麗珊(2002),《九二一震災失依兒童監護權與最佳利益之研究》,台中:靜宜大學青少年兒童福利研究所碩士論文。

顏厥安(1997),<法效力與法解釋--由Habermas及Kaufmann的法效理論檢討法學知識的性質>,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》27:1,1-23。new window

魏大喨(2003),<附帶請求給付扶養費性質與請求方式再探--以程序法理與實體法理之交錯為中心>,《月旦法學》101:83-98。

譚素琴(2001a),<監護權案中兒童最佳利益之評估指標與常見之評估困境─社工觀點>,收錄於高雄縣政府社會局主辦《台灣地區兒童監護權訪視案件實務研討會會議手冊》。

譚素琴(2001b),《司法社工之角色的困難及說明。司法社工專業訓練工作坊學員手冊》,台北:婦女救援社會福利事業基金會。

蘇妍如(2004),《社工員執行監護權訪視之現況與決策》,南投:暨南大學社會政策與社會工作研究所碩士論文。

參考書目(英文)

Akert,R.M.,Chen,J.,&Panter,A.T.(1991),Facial Prominence And Stereotypes:The Incidence And Meaning of Faceism in Print And Television Media,Unpublished manuscript,Wellesley College.

Alcock,P.(2003).Social Policy in Britain-Themes and Issues.London:Palgrave Macmillan.

Amato,P.R.&Keith,B.(1991),Parental divorce and the
well-being of children:A meta-analysis.Psychological
Bulletin,100:26-46.

American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.

Archer,D.,& McDaniel,P.(1995),Violence and gender:
Differences and similarities across societied.In R.B.Ruback &N.A.Weiner(Eds.),Interpersonal violent behaviors:social and culture aspects.New York:Springer Publishing Press.

Archer,D.,Iritani,B.,Kimes,D.D.,&Barrios,M.(1983),Faceism:
Five Studies of Sex Differences in Facial Prominence,Journal of Personality And Social Psychology,45,725-735.

Atkinson, J. (1984).Criteria for Deciding Child Custody in the Trail and Appellate Courts. Family Law Quarterly,18,1- 37.

Bandura,A.,Ross,D.,&Ross,S.(1961),Trabsmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,63,575-582.

Bandura,A.,Ross,D.,&Ross,S.(1963),Imitation of film-me-diated aggressive models,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,66,3-11.

Bane,Mary Joe & Jargowsky,Paul A.(1988),The links between government policy and family structure:what matters and what doesn’t,in Andrew J. Cherlin eds.,The Changing American family and public policy,Washington, D.C.:Urban Institute Press.

Babbie, E.(1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.

Boothroyd, L.G. & Perrett, D.I. (2006), Facial and bodily correlates of family background, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences(printed online).

Charles Zastrow(1996),Interduction to Social Work and Social Welfare,a division of international Thomson Publishing Inc. press.

Cathy, J.(1984)"Judicial Questioning of Children in Custody
and Visitation Proceedings",18 Fam. L.Q.43:58-68.

Chelimsky, Eleanor and William R. Shadish (eds.)(1997). Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks:SAGE Press.

Cherlin, Andrew(1983),Family policy:the conservative challenge and the progressive response,Journal of Family Issues,4,September,427-438.

Carmichael,L.(1927),A further study of the development of behavior in vertebrates experimentally removed from the influence of external stimulation,Psychologucal Review34:
34-47.

Cowan,G.,&Campbell,R.R.(1994),Racism And Sexism in Interracial Pornography,Psychology of Women Quarterly,18,323-338.

David Gonzalez and Lizette Alvarez(2000),Justices Allow Cuban Boy to Fly Home, New York Times, June 29,A1.

David,T.(Ed.)(1994).Working Together for Young Children—An Introduction,Prentice-Hall Inc. Press.

Donald Kennedy(1997).Academic Duty.Cambridge : Harvard University Press.

Deaux,K.,&LaFrance,M.(1998),Gender.In D.T.Gilbert,
S.T.Fiske&G.Lindzey(Eds.),The handbook of social psychology.New York:McGraw-Hill Press.

DePietro,J.A.,Larson,S.K.,&Proges,S.W.(1987),Behavioral and heart rate pattern difference between breast-fed and bottle-fed neonates,Development Psychology23:467-474.

Decasper,A.J.,&Fifer,W.P.(1980),Of human bonding:
Newborns prefer their mother’s voice,Science208:1174-1178.

Donald P. Green(1996).Pathologies of rational choice theory : a critique of applications in political science.New Haven : Yale University Press.

Douglass C. North(1990).Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Duguette, D.N. & Ramsey, S.H. (1987). Representation of child abuse and neglect cases: an empirical look at what constitutes effective representation. University of Michigan Journal of Law, 20, 353-361.

Eleanor E. Maccoby and Robert H. Mnookin(1992), Dividing the child :social and legal dilemmas of custody,Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

Erik H. Erikson(1993),Childhood and society,New York: Norton Press.

Eleanor Emmons Maccoby and Carol Nagy Jacklin(1974), The psychology of sex differences.Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press.

Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert(1997), Social Psychology(2nd ed), New York : Longman Press.

Einhorn(1986),Child Custody in Historical Perspective,
Behavioral Science and the Law, 4(119):129-130.

Friedman, L. M.(1977),Law and Society: a social-structural perspective.New York : Free Press.

Goldstein, Joseph et al.(1979), Beyond the best interests of the child, N. Y : Macmillan Publishing.

Hall, A. P. and Taylor, C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIFG) Discussion Paper.

Henrietta, L. G.(1956)Casework Service for Children:
Principle and Practice,Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co. Press.

Havighurst,R,J(1972),Developmental tasks and education,
New York:McKay Press.

J .C . Tu &M.L. Lee(1994),Changes in Marital Life Cycle in Taiwan : 1976 and 1989, Journal of Population Studies , No. 16 , 17-28.

James Cutt and Vic Murray(2000),Accountability and effectiveness evaluation in non-profit organizations, London:Routledge.

John F. Cuber,Martha Tyler John,and Kenrick S. Thompson(1975),Should Traditional Sex Modes and Values Be Changed?,in Raymond H. Muessig eds,Controverisal Issues in the Social Studies:A Contemporary Perspective(pp.87-121),Washington DC:National Council for the Social Studies Press.

Johnson, Allan G.(1997),The Forest And The Trees : Sociology As Life, Practice, And Promise,Philadelphia : Temple University Press.

Kamerman, Sheila B.(1994),Families:theoretical and policy issue,in Encyclopedia of Social Work,Washington D.C.:N.A.S.W.Press.

Keilin, W. G. & Bloom, L. J. (1986). Child custodt evaluation practice: A survey of experienced professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 338-346.

Keniston,Kenneth(1977),All Our Children:The American Family under Pressure,New York:Harcourt Brance Jovanovich Press.

Kirkland, K. & Kirkland, K. L. (2001). Frequency of child custody evaluation complaints and related disciplinary action: A survey of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(2), 171-174.

Kumar, Ranjit.(2005),Research Methodology : A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners(2nd ed.),London:Thousand Oaks Press.

Lester F. Ward(1883),Dynamic Sociology,New York:Johnson reprinted in 1968.

Lowery,C.R.,&Settle,S.A.(1985),Effects of divorce on children:Differential impact of custody and visitation patterns,Family Relations34:455-463.

Lowry,D.T.,Love,G.&Kirby,M.(1981),Sex on The Soap Operas:Patterns of Intimacy,Journal of Communication,31,90-96.

Mario Bunge(1996),Finding Philosophy in Social Science,Yale University Press。

Maxwell,M.S.&Robinson,S.&Oehem,K.(1999).Supervised Visitation:A Competency-Based Training Manual for Florida’s Supervised Visitation Centers. Florida State University.

Dietz,P.D.,&Evans,B.E.(1982),Pornographic Imagery And Prevalence of Paraphilia,American Journal of Psychiatry,139,1493-1495.

Peden , Joseph R. and Fred R. Glahe edited(1986), The American family and the state, San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy Press.

Powell, M. (Eds.). (2002). Evaluating New Labour’s welfare reforms. Bristol: The Policy Press.

R.H. Coase(1988).The firm, the market, and the law. Chicago :University of Chicago Press.

Robert Axelrod(1984).The evolution of cooperation. New York:Chathom Square Press.

Robert H. Mnookin(1985),In the interest of children :advocacy, law reform, and public policy,New York :W.H. Freeman.

Richard Neely(1983), Why courts don''t work, New York : McGraw-Hill Book Co.Press.

Sabatier,P.A.(1986),Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approached to Implementation Research:A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthsis.Journal of Public Policy,6(1),21-48.

Salamon,L.M.(1987),Parters in Public Service:The Scope and Theory of Government—Nonprofit Relations, in Powell,W.W.(ed.),The Nonprofit Sector:A Research Handbook,Newhaven & London:Yale University Press.

Shelpse, K. A. (1989),Studying Institutions: Some Lessons for the Rational Choice Approach, Theoretical Politics 1: 131-147.

Stinnet,N.&Walters,J.(1977),Relationships in Marriage and Family,New York:Macmillan Press.

Silver,L.B.,Dublin,C.C.,& Lourie,R.S.(1969), Dose violence breed violence? Contributions from a study of the child abuse syndrome,American Journal of Psychiatry,126,404-407.

Strauss,M.A.,&Gelles,R.J.(1980), Behind closed doors:Violence in the American family,New York:Anchor/Doubleday Press.

Stufflebeam, Daniel L.(2001).Evaluation Models. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Press.

Schulman J.,&Pitt V.(1982),Second Thoughts on Joint Child Custody:Analysis of Legislation and Its Implications for Women and Children,12Golden Gate U.L.Rev.539,542-543.

Theodore H. Poister(2003),Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations,San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal(1991), Free market environmentalism,San Francisco :Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy Press.

Thomas S. Kuhn(1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago:The University of Chicago press.

Tony Fitzpatrick(2001),Welfare Theory—An Introduction,1st edition,New York:Palgrave Press.

Wall,J.C., & 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.

Wallerstein,J.S.&Kelly,J.B.(1980).California’s Children of Divorce.Psychology Today,66-76.

Wallerstein,J.S.&Kelly,J.B.(1981).Saving the Breakup.New York:Basic Books.

White Willian Foote(1914),Learn from The Field—A Guide from Experience,SAGE Press。

William M. Evan edited(1980). The Sociology of law : a social-structural perspective.New York : Free Press.

Wimmer,Roger D. and Dominick,Joseph R.(2000).Mass Media Research : An Introduction(6th ed).CA : Wadsworth Pub. Press.

Wooddruff,D.S.(1977),Can You Live to Be 100?, New York:Basic Books Press.

美國最高法院判決:
Gonzalez v. Reno, 530 U.S. 1270, 120 S. Ct 2737.


網頁資料

線上大國民(2006),《邱小妹人球事件系列報導》,網址:
http://www.mightypeople.org/news/subject.php?id=2,本文最近瀏覽日為2006/10/16。

聯合報(2005.01.16),《邱小妹,走調的父母,不被祝福的婚姻》,網址:http://www.mightypeople.org/news/subject.php?id=2,本文最近瀏覽日為2006/10/16。

中央社(2007.01.15),《太平男童受虐死亡 台中縣社會局長自請處分》,網址(finial visited:2007/01/15):http://news.yam.com/cna/life/200701/20070115836913.html。

聯合晚報(2006),《台再傳虐童案三歲男童全身被刺青受虐腦死》,網址(Finial visited:2007/01/15):
http://news.sina.com/phoenixtv/101-102-101-103/2005-11-27/0040399702.html。

蘇明淵(2006),<阿嬷的眼瓷痋A《律師歌手的部落格》,網址:http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ninthchords,finial visited:2006/12/20。

TVBS新聞台(2004),《吳憶樺專題(一)--吳憶樺專題(七)》:http://www.tvbs.com.tw/news/news_list.asp?no=vestashi20040424103229,本文最近瀏覽日為2006/9/19。

內政部統計資訊服務網(2006),《內政統計通報》,網址:http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/,本文最近瀏覽日為2006/09/25。

「全國法規資訊網」,網址:
http://law.moj.gov.tw/(finial visited:2006/10/18)。

「內政部戶役政為民服務公用資料庫」,網址:
http://www.ris.gov.tw/(finial visited:2006/10/18)。

「認識兒童權利公約網站」,網址:
http://tymp.taiwanschoolnet.org/ijc/mc.htm
(finial visited:2006/10/18)。

「內政部兒童局網站」,網址:
http://www.cbi.gov.tw/welcome.jsp(finial visited:2006/10/18)。

「立法院法律系統」,網址:http://lis.ly.gov.tw/lgcgi/lglaw(finial visited:2006/10/15)

「司法院司法統計網頁」,網址:
http://www.judicial.gov.tw/juds/index1.htm,
finial visited:2007/01/15。

「法源法律網」之「法規查詢」,網址:
http://db.lawbank.com.tw,
finial visited:2006/12/15。
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE