我國家庭暴力防治法第43條規定：「法院依法為未成年子女酌定或改定權利義務之行使或負擔之人時，對已發生家庭暴力者，推定由加害人行使或負擔權利義務不利於該子女。」本法條雖具有凸顯兒童及少年在家暴防治體系中之地位、提前管控兒童及少年受虐之危險因子、使受暴婦女不須因子女因素持續忍受家暴等正面效應，但若自施暴理論及子女利益等觀點檢視之，則未必能充分支持其假設，國內之本土實證調查亦呈現：在同一家庭中，婚姻暴力與兒童虐待之發生固然具有高度相關，但兒虐之來源亦可能為婚暴之受害者。另由司法統計足以推知法院將高比率之未成年子女監護權判歸家庭暴力之受害者，符合家庭暴力防治法第43條之規範，但於少數個案中仍將監護權判歸家庭暴力之加害者，其推翻上開法律推定之理由中，關於子女意願及受暴者經濟能力之考量，本文認為尚可斟酌。本文建議在家事事件法施行後，面對家庭暴力防治法第43條之推定之際，法院究竟應予以採納或推翻，宜更妥善運用調查證據之職權，充分掌握家庭暴力之脈絡及性質，期能使法院的裁判更能貼近子女之成長利益。

Article 43 in Domestic Violence Prevention Act in Taiwan says: ＂In the determination or change of any one to exercise or bear any right or duty for a minor as provided by law, the court may, based on the fact of domestic violence, construct that it is against the interest of the minor should the offender be appointed to exercise or bear any right or duty for the minor.＂ Although this article has several positive effects, its assumption may not be fully supported under the perspectives of violence theory and child interest. In this research, the local empirical investigation and judicial statistics are also discussed. After the implementation of the Family Affair Act, we suggest the court should make better use of evidence survey for more full understanding of the context and nature of domestic violence in every case so that the custody decesion will be closer to the interest of children.