NGO 報告(第二次審查)
中華兒童暨家庭守護者協會 - 第二次審查 NGO 影子報告
來源 PDF: 34_20220406123251_332944.pdf
中華兒童暨家庭守護者協會
兒童權利公約執行之替代報告
2022年3月29日
提交報告（公開）
中華兒童暨家庭守護者協會(GNACF)
The Guardian - National Association for Children and Family
網址: https://www.gnacf.org.tw/
信箱: walker@gnacf.org.tw
聯絡人：
周明湧 Ming-yung Chou louis@gnacf.org.tw
鄭偉銘 Wei-Ming Cheng mark@gnacf.org.tw
參與成員
召集人 Convener
周明湧 Ming-Yung Chou
總編輯 Editor-in-chief
鄭偉銘 Wei-Ming Cheng
共同編輯 Associated Editor
周明湧 Ming-Yung Chou、陳靖德 Jing-De Chen
文本翻譯 Text Translator
李筱雯 Tricia Lee
翻譯校定 About this report and Footnotes translation proofreading
楊東蓉 Dong-Rong Yang
封面製作 Cover making
鄭偉銘 Wei-Ming Cheng
出版單位 Publishing Unit
中華兒童暨家庭守護者協會
The Guardian - National Association for Children and Family
目錄
目錄 1
關於這份報告 2
報告內文 3
國內法律及政策與公約之銜接落差 (§1) (CRC§4) 3
兒少表意權未落實 (§2) (CRC§12) 3
兒少平等受教權未受保障 (§3) (CRC§28, GACC§85) 3
監察與申訴機制的限制與困境 (§4-5) (GACC§99,128-130) 4
信仰自由中的不自由 (§6) (CRC§14, GACC§75, 88) 5
兒少免受一切形式暴力：社會安全網失靈 (§7-8) (CRC§19) 5
原生家庭的支持不足，安置兒童難以返家 (§9-10) (GACC§14, 44-45) 6
人力、資源不足造成的兒少權益侵害 (§11) (GACC§113-115) 7
自立少年的職業訓練限制 (§12) (GACC§135-136) 8
親屬安置與團體家庭的現況 (§13-14) (GACC§29) 9
無法確保照顧品質的兒少安置機構評鑑機制 (§15) (CRC§3, GACC§128) 9
被消失的機構自收兒童 (§16) (GACC§32-38) 10
安置兒童的轉換再轉換之路 (§17) (GACC§60) 10
結案追蹤輔導的現況與限制 (§18) (GACC§131-134) 11
原住民兒童安置：失竊的一代 (§19) (CRC§20) 11
1
關於這份報告
社團法人中華兒童暨家庭守護者協會（The Guardian - National Association
for Children and Family, GNACF）持續關心兒童權利公約在台灣的進程，2016年創
始成員參與第一次CRC國家報告會議，並撰寫有關替代性兒童照顧相關議題。對此，感
謝前次國際審查委員仔細閱讀國家報告與民間NGO報告，給予正確的指導方向，特別是
指定《替代性兒童照顧導則》（GACC, The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Car
e of Children）作為政策主要參考。
經由國際委員的建議，很高興看到台灣終於在2022年首次公布《替代性兒童照顧
政策》，但很遺憾的是，同時也察覺到政府並未決心要處理兒童與家庭的問題，而是
以現有服務進行包裝，或是減少問題的數據（如機構自收兒童）。
在一般性原則上，政策規劃並未建立在問題評估與需求的統計調查上，對於法規
僅採取消極性的檢視；在行政管理與監督上，沒有專屬兒童的主管機關，也缺乏人事
與財務獨立的兒童監察機關，現有機構評鑑無法維護照顧品質；在家庭支持上，缺乏
充分的家庭預防與支持性服務規劃與資源挹注，無法避免替代性照顧發生；在兒童權
利上，替代性照顧的兒童表意權、平等受教權也未受保障，信仰自由權利受到限制，
受照顧權也因人力與資源不足而受到侵害，只能不斷轉換安置；在文化上，原住民兒
童安置未考量到文化差異，造成文化斷裂問題。
政府提出的數據與政績，經常與實務現場觀察有明顯落差，兒童權益在體系中仍
持續受到侵害，意味著孩子仍持續受苦。特別是當撰寫本報告時，發現曾經照顧之機
構自收兒童，返家後因未受到良好的追蹤與支持，最終進入司法管束時，我們感到非
常的難過與憤怒。因此，更堅定我們想要撰寫獨立報告的決心，希望這樣的實務觀
察，可以協助審查委員們在第二次國家報告時，更能理解台灣的現況，並幫助這群孩
子們。
聯絡人：
周明湧 召集人 louis@gnacf.org.tw
鄭偉銘 總編輯 mark@gnacf.org.tw
2
報告內文
國內法律及政策與公約之銜接落差 (§1) (CRC§4)
1. 回應第5點，政府全面檢視法規與行政規範是否符合《CRC》，只做消極性檢視，
在字面上無主動侵害兒童權利的條文即可，但可能以忽略的方式侵害兒童權利。
如《公園管理條例》並無主動侵害兒童權利的條款，但也未規定公園應依社區兒
童／少年人口比例設置適齡休憩設施。公園設施以老人為最大宗，缺乏少年的休
憩設施。因此，建議政府應以《CRC》的原則主動積極性檢視法規與相關規範，才
能落實兒少人權。
兒少表意權未落實 (§2) (CRC§12)
2. 回應第10、73、74點，有關於兒少代表參與的實踐，以下為觀察與建議：
a. 缺乏代表性：官方的兒少代表均為好學校的學生，以中產階級以上之兒少為
主，弱勢兒少與安置體系兒少的代表，均缺乏資源可以參與1。
b. 參與結果未獲重視：政府僅提供參與各級政府的兒少人數，卻無會議的結果，
包含兒少發言次數，意見是否被採納等。實際上，有兒少代表參與議會報告的
經驗是：僅能列席、提案被排在臨時動議，兒少並未受到尊重與重視。
c. 建議：應改善代表性，保障弱勢及安置兒少代表名額；再者，應羅列各級政府
與學校兒少代表提案通過數與提案通過率，作為各級政府、學校校務執行兒少
表意、參與權的有效指標。
兒少平等受教權未受保障 (§3) (CRC§28, GACC§85)
3. 回應第243-248點，有關保障兒童平等的受教權，依照《替代性兒童照顧導則》第
15、85點，兒童應於當地社區獲得正式、非正式教育和職業教育，並且應消除歧
視。然而，臺灣特殊需求兒少2受教權常因其特殊性而未保障，如入學時遭遇地區
學校的阻礙或拒絕入學、被迫轉校，或滯留於安置機構內無法入學，或是只能跨
1
有關特殊處境的兒少代表，有原住民、新住民與身心障礙等，並無安置兒少與弱勢兒少參與，請見國
家報告附表3-12。
2
政府統計的特殊需求兒少應包括非肢體障礙的身心症類學童(例如自閉症、情緒障礙、過動症等等)、
第138點次少事法安置在機構的少年，以及社政安置的兒少。
3
學區就讀等。此類就學歧視議題曾兩度被監察院糾正3，但仍遭遇中央與地方教
育、社政主管機關推卸責任，甚至推諉是機構溝通不力，或是壓迫提出檢舉申訴
的機構4等，反而增長了教育歧視。建議政府應將特殊需求兒少於戶籍或機構地址
所屬學區就學比率，列為縣市政府社福與教育考核指標，如該項比例達80%以上為
達標，期待能積極性降低教育歧視，並促進兒少能在當地社區獲得正式教育機
會。
監察與申訴機制的限制與困境 (§4-5) (GACC§99,128-130)
4. 回應第26點，國內「兒童人權」並無獨立監察機制，現有兒少安置機構評鑑、財
務查核、縣市政府查核僅為「定期檢查」，目前僅由監察院國家人權委員會代為
行使兒童人權的監督職責。自2010-2021年間，監察院針對廣義兒童替代性照顧服
務共有45案調查，分別針對家庭支持、兒童保護、兒童權利與照顧、監督等進行
個別調查、追究相關單位責任，惟可惜在制度與執行尚有以下限制與困境：
a. 兒童人權委員會受限於無獨立預算與人員編制，且為監察委員兼任，尚未符合
《巴黎公約》與《替代性兒童照顧導則》的獨立監督機制；相關的調查案多為
針對個別案件與人員缺失，較少有針對整個體系的檢討，改善效果有限5。
b. 針對兒童相關服務，多為被動接受陳情後調查，少有來自兒童之陳情；沒有巡
迴拜訪機制，難以主動發現兒童在國家制度裡的困境。
c. 2021年的憲法修正提案－未來可能廢除監察院，將監察權納入立法院下，並未
考量到以第三方獨立行駛兒童人權監督，現有的監察權將喪失獨立性，建議聯
合國委員將此列入結論意見追蹤。
5. 回應第30點，現有兒少機構的申訴管道缺乏第三方獨立性，無法公正處理。特別
當兒少權益涉及地方政府時，兒少與安置機構都申訴無門（沒有有效的申訴管
道），如果機構堅持兒少權益申訴，就可能遭遇行政部門的壓迫，甚至只能選擇
歇業6。建議成立行政、預算與裁處均獨立的第三方單位處理申訴議題，避免申訴
3
有關監察院對於教育權的兩個調查案，包括2013年的安置機構院生受教權案；2020年的自閉症學童遭
公立學校拒絕入學案。
4
2019年，有兒少安置機構曾向雲林縣教育處申訴，有關就學中的亞斯伯格學生受到來自學校家長會的
霸凌，但未獲良好的處理。
5
如在歷年評鑑報告中，有關機構人力不足、照顧人力比等問題就曾多次被提及，但並未有良好的改善
計劃。
6
臺南市曾有安置機構向監察院提出申訴案，該機構歷年評鑑皆維持甲等，但於2020年歇業。
4
機制在行政權掌控下喪失機能；其次，應訂立吹哨者保護條款，避免地方政府或
機構清算吹哨者。
信仰自由中的不自由 (§6) (CRC§14, GACC§75, 88)
6. 回應第100點，有關兒童思想、信仰與宗教自由，政府表面上尊重宗教自由，但實
際上在校園禁絕宗教，不得談論，也不能提供相關資訊；至於安置機構多為宗教
團體創立，宗教文化亦受到嚴重限制，實與《替代性兒童照顧導則》第75點7尊重
照顧者的文化與宗教習俗相悖，政府對尊重兒童宗教自由有錯誤認知，如兒少安
置機構評鑑認定有宗教活動即為宗教不自由8。建議教育及社政機關應尊重校園與
機構實質的宗教自由，至於安置機構評鑑涉及宗教之項目，應由具備宗教學專業
之委員提出建議，避免侵害安置機構與兒少的實質宗教自由。
兒少免受一切形式暴力：社會安全網失靈 (§7-8) (CRC§19)
7. 回應第111點，2018年政府在跨系統、公私領域協力下的建立社會安全網體系，企
圖藉由一層層的網絡保護可能落入危險的兒童，但實際上卻一再地漏接。對此，
監察院於2021年公布兒童受虐的調查報告9如下：
a. 2014-2020年，兒虐致死案件數達144件，其中38件（26.49%）被通報1次，62
件（43.06%）被通報2次以上，合計接近7成有被通報／多次通報，但都未能有
效阻止憾事。
b. 如以南投出生的女童被虐死的案件為例，有三次被社安網漏接：包括出生後未
按時施打疫苗接種未通報、走失通報未開案、意外腦傷未開案等處理等，直到
4歲時因失蹤協尋，才發現早已被虐待多年且被注射毒品過量死亡。
c. 監察委員王美玉表示，此案涉及相關系統一連串的失靈，包括衛政系統的疫苗
催種、社政系統的家庭訪視、醫療系統的傷勢評估、警政系統的交通事故處理
7
「應尊重和促進提供替代性照料方面的文化和宗教習俗，包括與性別觀點有關的文化和宗教習
俗...」
8
針對宗教自由，有兒少安置機構積極為孩子提供三種不同宗教的機會，仍然在評鑑時遭批評不夠多
元被要求改進。 相反的，只要機構沒有辦理任何與宗教有關的活動，評鑑建議在宗教自由上就不會有
需要改善的要求，換句話說「無宗教才是自由」。
9
王美玉（2021）兒少受虐通報案。案號110社調0019，台北，監察院。網址：https://www.cy.gov.tw/
CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17712
5
和協尋，看出各系統網絡間的合作仍是斷裂與各自為政。
本報告建議：現有的制度體制、人力，無法避免兒童虐待致死的發生，特別
是系統間的合作斷裂，主因在於原有兒童主管機關－兒童局，於2013年政府組織
改造消失後，兒童與家庭工作開始分立，且缺乏協調，背離《替代性兒童照顧導
則》兒童與家庭的一體性。因此，建議重新恢復兒童主管機關的編制，讓兒童政
策能夠良好的執行與協調。
8. 回應152點，政府表示兒少保護的結構化決策工具（SDM）能有效降低不必要之家
外安置，但是否有效減少仍待觀察。如比較2016與2020年數據變化，評估不安全
需安置數減少80.68%10，看似有效減少不必要安置，但觀察同期受虐人數增長為13
3.28%（附件5-2）、緊急安置人數更大幅增長為206.51%（附件5-14），發現整體
兒童的原生家庭並未有變得更安全，減少的安置數也不意味避免了風險。
原生家庭的支持不足，安置兒童難以返家 (§9-10) (GACC§14, 44-45)
9. 回應第153、170點，國家報告提及針對安置兒少原生家庭的處遇（附表6-18），
與兒少機構工作者認識的實際家庭處遇成效有落差，包含安置多年親職未改善、
兒少與家庭關係疏離，並且難以返家，返家後再次遭虐待甚至死亡11，或再被通報
進案。可見現有在家庭重整服務的制度、資源、人力並不足夠進行有效的家庭重
建，無法達成《替代性兒童照顧導則》第14點「剝奪家庭應是臨時性的，持續時
間應盡可能短...」的目標：
a. 安置兒童多無法返家12：在2016-2020年間的安置結案中，其中寄養安置兒童
平均有42.77%可結案，其中48.9%可返回原生家庭；但機構安置兒童卻只有9.9
0%可結案，其中17.48%可以回家13，與寄養兒童相比，機構安置兒童更是沒有
辦法回家。
10
有關評估不安全需要安置數的數據增減，請見國家報告附件6-17。
11
2019年，臺中市曾發生寄養安置兒童返家後兩個月，表示想回寄養家庭而被虐致死。網址：https://
news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/3269590
12
在本文返回原生家庭的定義中，並不包括親屬或收養家庭。
13
有關於兒少結束安置返家數據，請參閱本次國家報告的附表6-27。
6
b. 安置期也越來越長：安置兩年以上的兒童從2017年的47.66%，持續成長到2020
年的51.73%14而隨著安置期的增長，兒童與原生家庭也更加的疏離，也更難以
返回原生家庭，形成一種惡性循環。
c. 結案後再被通報率高：2019年高風險家庭服務後結案共有4,892案15，再被通
報達1,046案，占21.4%16，這也意味著現有的家庭處遇能量，無法讓兒童穩定
在家裡成長。
d. 本點建議：在家庭處遇上提供充分的資源、人力與制度性支持，並持續進行服
務成效與、檢討整體規劃與統計評估等，讓家庭處遇能落實，也讓兒童能安心
地返家。
10. 回應第115點，社政將家庭成員拆分為不同服務族群，如老人、受暴者、兒童等，
導致家庭服務也被分解，無法提供案家有效整合與處遇。如兒少在學校的三級輔
導，僅針對人際關係、學習與情緒穩定進行評估，短期穩定後就結案，缺乏長期
輔導之規畫；至於家庭內的受暴者，經常擔任兒少的監護人，在面對暴力帶來的
身心壓力下，還要肩負經濟與照顧責任、處理兒少目睹暴力的心理創傷17。因此建
議以家庭為整體單元，處理成人受暴與兒少目睹的問題，同時輔以學校之三級輔
導，藉由主責社工擬定的長期處遇計劃，結合相關學校、家防中心資源，才能提
供案家適當的家庭支持與諮商資源，有效協助改善案家困境。
人力、資源不足造成的兒少權益侵害 (§11) (GACC§113-115)
11. 回應133、164點，有關人力、資源不足造成的兒少權益侵害，相關討論如下：
a. 實務上，安置機構工作者每年須完成符合政府指標的專業訓練18小時以上，有
的機構甚至達30小時的訓練，但每年仍發生平均6件的不當管教或虐待事件，
可見與訓練並非主因，而是人力不足影響較大。
14
雖然兒少總安置人數看似逐年減少，但減少的安置人數多集中在安置6-12個月、12-24個月的安置期
組別（或稱為2年內的安置），至於安置24個月（2年）以上人數比例反而增加，意味著兒童安置期的持
續延長，可參閱本次國家報告的附表6-23。
15
王美玉（2021）兒少受虐通報案。案號110社調0019，台北，監察院。網址：https://www.cy.gov.tw
/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17712。
16
有關在被通報案量的數據，如觀察台灣的六個直轄市，除新北市有極低的再被通報率外（3.4%），其
餘臺北市、桃園市、臺中市、臺南市與高雄市的再被通報率都高於平均值，分布在27.6%~38%。
17
在兒童目睹暴力的同時，兒童的照顧者也遭受家庭暴力的侵害，如果照顧者在身心及經濟狀態均未穩
定，其對於兒少造成之二次傷害將更甚以往。
7
b. 當照顧人力無法滿足實際需要，工作人員在兒少生活照顧上難以完成個性化、
差別化的目標，只能趨向集體化、軍事化的管理。
c. 如從結構層面分析討論安置成本，可估算衛福部下轄之兒少安置機構為每月新
台幣47,000-52,000元（每個孩子／每月，尚未包含人事成本），與政府委託
民間單位照顧，僅提供臺灣地區每人每月安置費23,000-29,000元尚有很大的
差距18。在政府禁止自收個案後，安置機構多以政府轉介的法定服務為主，且
政府無視於照顧實為勞務採購，經常性要求照顧水準的提升之餘，又以「補
助」規避應提供的專業服務費19，讓多數機構實在吃不消。雖然經過監察院糾
正20、立法院公聽會指出，卻仍未改正「補助」的觀念。
d. 政府不足額的安置補助費用，對機構與工作者直接造成低薪、流動率高與人力
不足現象。而人力不足產生的問題，不僅是容易有軍事化管教，甚至虐待，機
構內的性侵害、性騷擾、兒少鬥毆傷害等風險事件也容易發生，監視系統的預
防機制於此時也形同虛設。
e. 本報告建議政府應依據公立兒少安置機構三年決算，計算出每位兒少實際的安
置成本，作為法定服務委託安置費的基準，責成地方政府列入公務預算，並列
入社福考核成績，同步公告於網站。
自立少年的職業訓練限制 (§12) (GACC§135-136)
12. 回應第140點，有關安置結束後自立少年的就業，受限於學歷條件（如需國中或高
中畢業），經常無法獲得參與職業訓練的資格，無法增加就業能力，只能從事低
薪部分工時工作。建議勞動部盤點適合15-17歲弱勢兒少之職訓資源，提供免費職
業培訓並協助申請生活補助，並主動促進此類兒少的參與，作為保障兒少勞動權
益的積極性策略。
18
兒童每月安置費計算基準並非採用平均生活費，而是歧視性地採用最低生活費1.8倍計算，並未參考
實際支出進行協商與調整，亦未包含人力成本。
19
日本的兒少安置費用計算，每一位兒少均給付安置費與專業服務費。但是臺灣地方政府安置兒少時，
僅給付安置費，沒有專業服務費，是造成安置費用過低的主因。中央衛生福利部「補助」的專業服務費
僅針對機構人事費，其金額不足社工人員薪資45%、不足第一線照顧者薪資20%，且不補助實際輪班的工
作者。
20
高鳳仙（2018）兒少安置機構人力不足及評鑑退場制度案。案號107內調0001，台北，監察院。網
址：https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent2.aspx?n=718&s=5945
8
親屬安置與團體家庭的現況 (§13-14) (GACC§29)
13. 回應第159點，有關政府重視親屬安置與重要他人安置，實是有益於兒少權益的決
策且立意良好。惟可惜親屬安置自2006年高峰22.90%，大幅減少至2020年的5.54
%，雖然期間略有起伏，但整體而言，過去15年間下降幅度超過3/4（75.8%）。對
於親屬安置與重要他人安置，國家制度十分強調來自情感與血緣的責任，被認為
應該要協助照顧兒少，導致親屬安置費用長期低於寄養家庭，且定位不明，且親
屬經常在安置並獲得監護權後，被認定結案並停止給付相關費用，喪失情感外的
經濟誘因。故建議政府應正視親屬家庭的支持，並且將其視作正式的替代性兒童
照顧資源，建立完善的培育、輔導與支持機制，以確保兒少被照顧權益。
14. 回應162點，對於政府有提供「團體家庭」照顧特殊需求兒少，值得予以認同，惟
可惜目前的團體家庭實際為「小型住宿機構」，非家庭式安置，相關設置、人力
配置皆等同於機構，為法定非常設性安置21的的實驗方案（最多補助三年，後自負
盈虧），從2010年實施迄今，因人力、處所、兒童照顧困難等因素，參與該方案
之機構接續承接意願低，也不斷變化承接機構。實務上，被安置到團體家庭的兒
童，最多安置三年後因方案結束，需再次轉換新的安置處所，反而增添此類兒童
安置的不穩定性。
無法確保照顧品質的兒少安置機構評鑑機制 (§15) (CRC§3, GACC§128)
15. 回應第163點，國家確保兒少安置機構品質的評鑑機制，並無法有效鑑別與改善照
顧品質，對此有以下幾點討論：
a. 評鑑似有逆選擇效果，成績較佳者歇業比率高：2004-2021年間，共有34個私
立兒少安置機構歇業，至於歇業前成績獲優甲等有13家、乙等有9家，丙丁等
有8家，無等第有4家，合計歇業前成績乙等以上則佔64.7%，但丙丁等僅佔23.
5%，可知多數歇業者為評鑑成績較佳的機構。
21
衛生福利部社會家庭署（2021）兒少替代性照顧政策。閱覽時間：2022.3.7。網址：https://www.sf
aa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=268&pid=11213。
9
b. 評鑑並未對於針對照顧高難度兒童機構有所區別並予以支持，如2005年20家願
意照顧司法兒少的私立機構22，在2021年僅剩7家能夠持續服務，歇業率高達6
5%，多數願意照顧高難度司法兒少的機構難以持續下去。
c. 發生重大事件標準不一：評鑑未對於公私立機構維持同樣標準23，如觀察公開
的評鑑報告，2015年有2個私立機構因發生性騷擾、疑似性侵害事件而有評鑑
等第下降；但部分公立機構曾於2015年發生性侵、霸凌事件，而2018年有性騷
擾、暴力鬥毆等事件，卻並未有等第下降情事，且公立機構自2012年評鑑後恆
為優甲等以上。
被消失的機構自收兒童 (§16) (GACC§32-38)
16. 回應第152、165點，現行有關機構自收的兒童最佳利益，與上次《CRC國家報告結
論性意見書》「建議兒童安置均需經由家事法庭裁定」相悖，目前非由家庭法庭
裁定而是頒定作業流程主管機關裁量同意，名為減少不必要安置，實際導致2016-
24
2020年間機構自收兒童大幅減少81% ；觀察同期機構委託兒童反而增加6.92%、寄
養安置兒童增加0.85%，可見自收兒童結案的降低有其針對性與目的性（單純降低
自收兒童的數量），兒童最佳利益也堪慮。實務上，就有原機構自收的兒童被政
府評估可結案返家後，並未獲得良好照顧與家庭支持，且放任兒童遊蕩於社區並
觸法的結果，導致該兒童於2022年1月被裁定司法感化教育，讓人感到十分痛心。
安置兒童的轉換再轉換之路 (§17) (GACC§60)
17. 回應第167點，有關機構安置與寄養家庭安置結案，其實有高比例的結案原因非返
家，而是再次轉換安置。如觀察2020年的結案為轉換安置現象25，佔寄養家庭結案
的24.03%、機構結案的42.86%，都是轉換到其他安置處所；但如果觀察2021年的
監察院報告26，會發現更驚人的轉換樣貌：在2018-2020年間的轉換安置，佔寄養
22
楊孝濚（2005）少年事件處理法中轉介及安置輔導與民營化社會服務機構之承接。社區發展季刊，1
08期，109-119。
23
如在2019年的監察院報告（108司調0048: 21）中，主管機關曾表示「評鑑期間機構如發生事情，會
取消其甲等資格，機構所獲得的專業服務費會被扣等語」，意味著對主管機關對公私立機構發生重大事
件應採同樣標準處理，但事實並非如此。
24
有關機構自收個案人數減少的數據，請見國家報告附件6-25。
25
有關結案轉換安置數據，請見國家報告附表6-27。
26
王美玉（2021）兒少受虐通報案。案號110社調0019，台北，監察院。網址：https://www.cy.gov.tw
/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17712。
10
家庭結案的68.98%、機構安置結案的71.63%，與親屬安置結案的26.19%，如此高
比例的再次轉換安置，意味著臺灣替代性照顧體系，無法避免《替代性兒童照顧
導則》第60點「頻繁變換照顧環境對兒童的發展及情感培養能力是有害的」，且
無法提供長期且穩定的照顧，導致兒童頻繁轉換安置處所，難以建立穩定的依附
關係。
結案追蹤輔導的現況與限制 (§18) (GACC§131-134)
18. 回應第169點，有關結束安置後追蹤輔導一年期的服務，原為協助兒少返家、就
業、關係修復與家庭支持等，但受限於關係建立不易27、人力與資源不足28（經費
非常設預算）等因素，讓服務品質受到限制。當原生家庭失功能未有恢復，少年
只能在社區自立，有10%少年則為求生存再次觸法。因此建議政府應統合社政與司
法兒少之後續追蹤服務系統，以公務預算編列經費，方能改善兒少及其家庭的支
持資源。
原住民兒童安置：失竊的一代 (§19) (CRC§20)
19. 回應第278-287點，建議政府應針對原住民族的兒少安置模式提出構思與處遇可
能，在漢人主義的家外安置體系下，經常未考量原住民族群共養兒少的文化；在
安置體制中（包括寄養、團家、機構）均未考慮文化斷裂問題，造成臺灣式「失
竊的一代（Stolen Generations） 」，導致兒少離開機構後無法回歸原住民部
落，成為輾轉流落在都市的邊緣人。
27
現行結束安置後追的委託，限制在結案前三個月方能介入，追蹤輔導模式多為每月2次電話1次訪視，
讓工作人員不易建立關係，與兒少經常失聯。
28
政府並未重視追蹤輔導所需人力與資源。如2018-2020年間離開安置的15歲以上少年2,302人，僅有52
0人進入自立生活協助方案，佔22.59%。其經費僅以公益彩卷回饋金支應，每年補助只維持在1,200萬。
11
來源 PDF: 34_20220406123308_0299467.pdf
Taiwan Implementation of
the Convention on the Rights
of the Child
NGO Alternative Report
March 29, 2022
Prepared for the Second State Report Review
Submitted by
The Guardian - National Association for Children and Family (GNACF)
Web: https://www.gnacf.org.tw/
Mail: walker@gnacf.org.tw
Contact：
Ming-Yung Chou louis@gnacf.org.tw
Wei-Ming Cheng mark@gnacf.org.tw
Report Member
召集人 Convener
周明湧 Ming-Yung Chou
總編輯 Editor-in-chief
鄭偉銘 Wei-Ming Cheng
共同編輯 Associated Editor
周明湧 Ming-Yung Chou、陳靖德 Jing-De Chen
文本翻譯 Text Translator
李筱雯 Tricia Lee
翻譯校定 About this report and Footnotes translation proofreading
楊東蓉 Dong-Rong Yang
封面製作 Cover making
鄭偉銘 Wei-Ming Cheng
出版單位 Publishing Unit
中華兒童暨家庭守護者協會
The Guardian - National Association for Children and Family
Content
Content 1
About this report 2
Report body 4
The gap between domestic law and policies and the Convention (§1) (CRC§4) 4
Children representatives’ participation is not implemented (§2) (CRC§12) 4
Equal education rights of children are not protected (§3) (CRC§28, GACC§85) 5
Limitations and Dilemmas of Monitoring and Grievance Mechanisms (§4-5)
(GACC§99, 128-130) 6
Unfreedom in freedom of belief (§6) (CRC§14, GACC§75, 88) 7
Protecting children from all forms of violence: failure of social safety nets (§7-8)
(CRC§19) 8
Insufficient support to the family of origin makes it difficult for the child in care to
return home (§9-10) (GACC§14, 44-45) 9
Violation of children's rights caused by insufficient personnel and resources (§11)
(GACC§113-115) 11
Vocational Training Restrictions for Youths leaving placement and starting living
independently (§12) (GACC§135-136) 12
Current Situation Regarding Relative Placement and Group Home (§13-14)
(GACC§29) 13
Mechanisms of child placement organizations inspection fail to ensure the quality
of care (§15) (CRC§3, GACC§128) 14
Lost number of children in placement arranged by parents (§16) (GACC§32-38) 14
Transition-Retransformation of Placed Children (§17) (GACC§60) 15
Status and Limitations of Follow-up Counseling for Children who Return home
(§18) (GACC§131-134) 16
Indigenous Child in care: A Stolen Generation (§19) (CRC§20) 16
1
About this report
The Guardian - National Association for Children and Family (GNACF) has been paying
great attention to the progress of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Taiwan. The
founding members submitted the article addressing the issues of alternative child care to the
Taiwan CRC committee and then participated in the first CRC national report meeting in 2016.
In this regard, special appreciation would be given to the previous international review
committee for thoroughly reading the national report and the non-governmental report and
giving the adequate instructions and guidance, especially pointing out the part of the "GACC,
The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children" to become the main reference of
making policy.
With the suggestion of the international committee, we are glad to see that Taiwan
government in 2022 finally announced its "Alternative Child Care Policy". Unfortunately it is
also noticed that the government only renamed the title of services without changing the
contents of actual services or playing with the number of statistics (e.g., children in placement
arranged by parents). It showed that the government is not determined to deal with the core
issues of children and families.
In general, policy planning is not based on needs and problem assessment and accurate
statistics, and only takes a passive review of regulations; In terms of administrative
management and supervision, there is no competent authority dedicated to children, nor a
monitoring authority designated to children welfare with independent personnel and finance to
supervise and inspect the quality of care within the existing institutions. In relation to family
support, there is a lack of adequate family preventive and supportive service as well as
resources resulting from preventing alternative care taking place. In terms of children's rights,
the rights to express themselves of children in alternative care have not been protected and so
have their equal rights to receive education. Their rights to access religious beliefs freely has
been restricted. Furthermore, their rights to be cared for has also been violated due to
insufficient manpower as well as resources. As a result, these children in care can only move
from one placement to another constantly. Lastly, culturally, the rights of aboriginal children
in care have not been compromised due to not considering cultural differences resulting in
culture disruption.
The statistics and achievements presented by the government are often significantly
different from what is actually observed in the field. Children’s rights are still being violated
in the system, which means that children continue to suffer. Especially when writing this report,
2
it is sad and disturbing to see that children taken care by the writers have not been followed up
and supported well after returning home and finally entered judicial custody. We are very sad
and outraged to see this happening. Therefore, it strengthens our determination to write this
independent non-governmental report with the hope that the report can assist the international
review committees to better understand the current situation in Taiwan and to help these
children in the second national report and practical observations.
Contact：
The Guardian - National Association for Children and Family
Ming-yung Chou louis@gnacf.org.tw
Wei-Ming Cheng mark@gnacf.org.tw
3
Report body
The gap between domestic law and policies and the Convention (§1) (CRC§4)
1. Response to the Second Report (§5) - When the Government reviewed if laws and
administrative regulations are in compliance with the CRC, it only examined whether
wording in any provisions explicitly infringes on children's rights, but it did not examine
if any provisions infringe on children's rights by neglect. For example, the Park
Management Ordinance does not actively infringe on children's rights, but it does not
require parks to provide age-appropriate leisure facilities in proportion to the child/teen
population in the community, either. Park facilities are mostly for the elderly and there is
a lack of leisure facilities for teenagers. Therefore, it is recommended that the Government
should proactively review the laws and relevant regulations based on the principles of the
CRC in order to implement human rights for children.
Children representatives’ participation is not implemented (§2) (CRC§12)
2. Response to the Second Report (§§ 10, 73 and 74) - The following are observations and
recommendations regarding the practice of child and youth representatives’ participation.
a. Lack of representation: Officially designated child and youth representatives are all
students from well established schools, mainly children from the middle class and
above, and representatives of disadvantaged children and children in the placement
system lack resources to participate.1
b. Children’s participation is not taken seriously: The Government only provided
information on the number of children who participated at each level of the
Government, but not the results of the meetings, including the number of times the
children spoke and whether their opinions were accepted. In practice, the experience
of children representatives in government meetings is that they are only able to sit in,
their proposals are listed as extraordinary motions, and their participation is not
respected or valued.
c. Recommendation: Representation should be improved, and the number of
representatives from disadvantaged and placed children should be guaranteed;
1
Representatives of children and children in special situations include aboriginal, new residents, and persons
with disabilities, etc. No disadvantaged children and children in the placement system participated, for Second
Report Attachment 3-12.
4
furthermore, the number and ratio of proposals passed should show how many
proposals are from the Government and how many from children representatives. The
statistics can serve as an effective indicator of the implementation of children's right
to express and participate at all levels of government and schools.
Equal education rights of children are not protected (§3) (CRC§28, GACC§85)
3. Response to the Second Report (§§ 243-248) - Regarding the protection of equal access to
education, children should have access to formal, non-formal and vocational education in
the local community, in accordance with §§ 15 and 85 of the UN Guidelines for the
Alternative Care of Children, and discrimination should be eliminated. However, the right
to education for children with special needs2 in Taiwan is often not protected because of
their special circumstances, such as being discouraged from enrolling in local schools,
denied admission, forced to transfer to another school, stranded in a placement
organization and therefore unable to enroll in school, or having to travel across school
districts to attend school. Such discrimination in schooling has been corrected twice by the
Control Yuan,3 but the authorities in charge of education and welfare services, both central
and local, have shirked their responsibilities, even blaming on poor communication from
the organizations, or pressuring the organizations that filed complaints,4 thus increasing
discrimination in education. It is recommended that the Government should make the
percentage of children with special needs attending school in the school district where they
are registered or have an organizational address an assessment indicator for social welfare
and education provided by county and municipal governments, with a percentage of 80%
or higher being the target. This would effectively reduce discrimination in education and
promote formal education for children in their local communities.
2
Children who have special needs, including autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),
emotional disorder or other physical and mental disorders, and also include children in juvenile justice, and
children in placement.
3
There are two surveys by Control Yuan on the right to education, 2013 case of the right to education of
students in placement institutions; and the 2020 case of autistic students being denied admission to public
schools.
4
In 2019, a child care facility made a grievance to Department of Education in Yulin County regarding one
student diagnosed with Asperger spectrum disorder was bullied by parents association in school, but this
situation was not dealt with well.
5
Limitations and Dilemmas of Monitoring and Grievance Mechanisms (§4-5)
(GACC§99, 128-130)
4. Response to the Second Report (§26) - There is no independent supervisory mechanism
for "children's human rights" in Taiwan. The existing evaluation of child placement
organizations, financial auditing, and county and municipal governments review are only
"periodic inspections", and the National Human Rights Commission of the Control Yuan
is currently exercising the responsibility of supervising children's human rights as proxy.
From 2010 to 2021, the Control Yuan investigated 45 cases of alternative care services for
children in general, focusing on family support, child protection, children's rights and care,
and supervision, respectively, and held the relevant agencies accountable. Unfortunately,
the following limitations and difficulties remain in the system and implementation:
a. The Committee on the Rights of the Child in the Control Yuan faces limitations due
to the lack of an independent budget and staffing, and the members are Control Yuan
commissioners who serve both roles concurrently, which is not in compliance with
the Paris Convention and the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children; the
investigation focuses mostly on individual cases and human errors, and less on the
review of the whole system, which results in limited improvement.5
b. Investigations into services for children are mostly passive and conducted only after
complaints are filed, and few complaints come from children; without a touring visit
mechanism, it is difficult to identify the plight of children in the national system.
c. The proposed amendment to the Constitution in 2021 - which might abolish the
Control Yuan in the future and bring the supervisory power under the Legislative
Yuan - does not consider creating a third party institution to independently supervise
children's human rights, and the existing supervisory power would lose its
independence if the Control Yuan becomes done away with. It is recommended that
the UN commissioners include this in the Concluding Observations for follow-up.
5. Response to the Second Report (§30) - The existing grievance channels for children's
organizations lack the independent third-party which leads to the issues that the complaints
cannot be handled fairly. In particular, when children's rights are involved with local
governments' practice, neither the children nor the placement organizations have effective
ways of lodging complaints. If the organizations insist on filing a complaint for children's
rights, they may experience pressure exerted from executive departments, or even have to
5
For example, in the inspection reports over the years, the problems of insufficient manpower and the ratio of
care to manpower have been mentioned many times, but there is no effective and proper improvement plan.
6
close their operations. 6 It is recommended that a third-party agency with independent
executive, budgetary, and adjudicative powers be established to handle complaints, so that
the complaint mechanism will not lose its function under the control of the executive
authorities; secondly, a protection clause for whistle blowers should be formulated to
prevent local governments or organizations from punishing whistle blowers.
Unfreedom in freedom of belief (§6) (CRC§14, GACC§75, 88)
6. Response to the Second Report (§100) - Regarding children's freedom of thought, belief
and religion, the Government seems to respect the freedom of religion, but in reality,
religion is forbidden in schools and cannot be discussed, nor can relevant information be
provided. As for placement organizations, most of them are founded by religious groups,
but religious culture is strongly restricted, which is contrary to the Guidelines for the
Alternative Care of Children (§75),7 which respects the culture and religious customs of
caregivers. The Government has a misconception about respecting children's religious
freedom. For example, if a placement organization is found to conduct religious activities,
it is considered violating religious freedom.8 It is recommended that education and welfare
services should respect the substantive freedom of religion in schools and placement
organizations. As for the evaluation of placement organizations on religious matters,
evaluators with expertise in religious studies should be consulted to make
recommendations, so that the substantive freedom of religion in placement organizations
and of children will not be infringed.
6
In Tainan City, a children’s placement organization once filed a complaint with the Control Yuan due to the
harm of children’s rights. And assessment of the organization has been consistently ranked A over the years,
but it will be closed in 2020.
7
The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (§75) "Cultural and religious practices regarding the
provision of alternative care, including those related to gender perspectives…"
8
Regarding freedom of religion, some child placement organizations actively provide children with the
opportunities to get to know three different religions, but they are still criticized for being insufficiently diverse
in the evaluation and are required to improve. On the contrary, as long as placement organizations do not
handle any religious-related activities, the evaluation suggests that there will be no requirements for
improvement in religious freedom. In other words, "no religion is freedom."
7
Protecting children from all forms of violence: failure of social safety nets (§7-8)
(CRC§19)
7. Response to the Second Report (§111) - The Government built a social safety net system
in 2018, with cross-system and public-private collaboration, intending to protect children
at risk through multiple layers of the network but in fact repeatedly failing to do so. In this
regard, the Control Yuan published the following investigation report on child abuse in
2021:9
a. Between 2014-2020, the number of child abuse death cases reached 144, of which 38
(26.49%) were reported once and 62 (43.06%) were reported twice or more. A total
of nearly 70% of these cases had been reported once or multiple times, but none of
these reports were effective in preventing the regrettable incidents.
b. For example, in the case of a girl born in Nantou who was abused to death, the social
safety net missed the opportunity to help her for 3 times: (1) failure to report when
vaccinations were not administered on time after her birth; (2) failure to open a case
when she was reported missing; and (3) failure to open a case when she had an
accidental brain injury. It was only when she was 4 years old and reported missing
that she was found to have been abused for many years and died of drug overdose
through injection by others.
c. The case involved a series of failures in the systems, including vaccination reminders
in the health care system, home visits in the welfare system, injury assessment in the
medical system, and traffic accident handling and looking for missing person in the
police system. This shows that collaboration among systems is fractured and
fragmented, said Control Yuan Commissioner Wang, Mei-Yu.
Recommendation: The existing system and human resources are unable to prevent child
abuse deaths, especially because of the fractured collaboration among systems. The main
cause for this is that after the Children's Bureau, the original children's authority, was
dissolved in 2013 after government restructuring, the work with children and families has
been divided among various agencies and there is a lack of coordination, which deviates
from the child-as-part-of-the-family principle in the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of
Children. Therefore, it is recommended that an authority for children be reinstated so that
policies for children can be well implemented and coordinated.
9
Source: Mei-Yu Wang(2021) Abuse on children’s protection notified cases. Number: 110(she-tiao) 0019.
Control Yuan, Taipei. Url: https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17712.
8
8. Response to the Second Report (§152) - The Government indicates that the Structured
Decision Making (SDM) as a tool for child protection is effective in reducing unnecessary
out-of-home placements. However, whether it is effective remains to be seen. When
comparing the change in numbers between 2016 and 2020, cases evaluated to be unsafe
and requiring placement decreased by 80.68%,10 which appears to be an effective reduction
in unnecessary placements. Yet, the number of abused children increased by 133.28%
(Attachment 5-2) and that of emergency placements increased even more significantly by
206.51% (Attachment 5-14) during the same period. It was found that the family of
orientation did not become safer, and a reduction in placements did not mean a reduction
in risks.
Insufficient support to the family of origin makes it difficult for the child in care to return
home (§9-10) (GACC§14, 44-45)
9. Response to the Second Report (§153 and 170) - The State Report refers to the family
treatment programs for children in placement (Attachment Table 6-18). However, gaps
remain between the programs and the actual results as perceived by children's organization
workers, including the lack of improvement in parenting over the years of placement, the
children's alienation from their families, the difficulty in returning home, the re-occurrence
of abuse or even death upon return,11 and the re-reporting of cases. It is evident that the
existing system, resources, and manpower for family reunification services are not
sufficient for effective family reconstruction and cannot achieve the goal of §14 in the
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, "Removal of a child from the care of the
family...should, whenever possible, be temporary and for the shortest possible duration".
a. Most children in placement are unable to return home: 12 Among placement cases
closed in 2016-2020, an average of 42.77% of cases of children in foster care were
closed, of which 48.9% returned to their families of origin. However, only 9.90% of
cases of children in residential placement were closed, of which 17.48% returned
home.13 In short, it is particularly difficult for children in residential placement to
return home.
10
About the data of cases evaluated to be unsafe and requiring placement, for Second Report Attachment
6-17.
11
In 2019, in Taichung City, two months after a child was placed in foster care and resettled home, the child
expressed his desire to return to the foster home and was abused to death. Url:
https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/3269590.
12
In the definition of family of origin returned in this article, kinship or adoptive families are not included.
13
According to the data of children returning home after placement, for Second Report Attachment 6-27.
9
b. The duration of placement is also getting longer: the number of children placed for
more than two years continued to grow from 47.66% in 2017 to 51.73% in 2020.14 As
the duration expands, children become more alienated from their families of
orientation and have more difficulties returning home, creating a vicious cycle.
c. High rate of post-closure re-reporting: In 2019, there were 4,892 post-service closures
for high-risk families15, and as many as 1,046, or 21.4%, were re-reported.16 This
means that the existing capacity for family treatment programs does not allow children
to grow up in a stable home.
d. Recommendation: Provide adequate resources, manpower and systematic support for
family services, continuously review the effectiveness of services and overall
planning, and conduct statistical evaluation, so that family services can be truly
implemented and children can return home with peace of mind.
10. Response to the Second Report (§115) - The welfare services are divided into different
service groups, such as the elderly, victims of violence, children, and so forth, resulting in
the disintegration of family services and the inability to provide effective reunification of
and treatment for families. For example, the three-level counseling for children in school
only focuses on interpersonal relationships, learning and emotional stability. A case is
closed after short-term stabilization is reached, lacking planning for long-term counseling.
Victims of violence in the family often act as guardians for the children, and they have to
shoulder the financial and caregiving responsibilities and deal with the psychological
trauma of the children witnessing the violence while they themselves are under the
physical and mental stress of the violence. 17 Therefore, it is recommended to take the
family as a whole unit when dealing with the problem of adult victims of violence and
children who witness it. This is complemented by the three-level counseling in schools.
While the long-term treatment plan is prepared by the social worker in charge, schools and
14
It seems that the total number of children in placement seems to be decreasing year by year. The fact is
that the number of time frame within the placement period groups of 6-12 months and 12-24 months was
decreasing. On the other hand, the number of time frame over 2 years has increased, which means that the
placement period of children will continue to be extended. For Second Report Attachment 6-23.
15
Source: Mei-Yu Wang(2021) Abuse on children’s protection notified cases. Number: 110(she-tiao) 0019.
Control Yuan, Taipei. Url: https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17712.
16
The data on the rate of post-closure re-reporting, according to the statistics of 6 cities, New Taipei City has
the rate of post-closure re-reporting (3.4%) and the rest Taoyuan, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung cities are all
higher than the average, ranging from 27.6% to 38%.
17
While the child is witnessing the violence, the child's caregiver also suffers from domestic violence. If the
caregiver is not stable physically, mentally and financially, the secondary injury to the child will be more severe
than before.
10
domestic violence prevention centers should combine their resources to provide adequate
family support and counseling to effectively help improve the situation of the family.
Violation of children's rights caused by insufficient personnel and resources (§11)
(GACC§113-115)
11. Response to the Second Report (§§133 and 164) - Discussions about violation of children's
rights caused by insufficient personnel and resources are as follows:
a. In practice, workers in placement organizations are required to complete more than 18
hours of professional training each year to meet government targets, and some
organizations even arrange 30 hours of training. However, there are still an average of
6 incidents of inappropriate discipline or abuse each year, which shows that training
is not the main factor, but the lack of personnel is.
b. When caregiving personnel cannot meet the actual needs, it is difficult for them to
individualize and differentiate child care, so they resort to generalized and military-
like management.
c. If we analyze the placement cost from the structural perspective, it can be estimated
that the children and youth placement organizations directly managed by the Ministry
of Health and Welfare receive NT$47,000-52,000 per month per child (not including
some personnel cost), significantly higher than the placement fee of NT$23,000-
29,000 received by private organizations per month per child.18 After the Government
prohibited placement organizations from accepting placement arranged by parents on
their own, most organizations now mainly provide mandatory services for children
referred by the Government. In addition, the Government has ignored the fact that care
is a type of service procurement, and has routinely demanded that the standard of care
be raised, while paying under the name of "subsidy" to avoid paying for professional
services to private organizations,19 which makes operation very challenging for most
18
The monthly placement fee for children is not calculated based on the average living cost, but
discriminatively calculated by 1.8 times the minimum living cost. It is not negotiated and adjusted with
reference to the actual expenditure, nor does it include labor costs.
19
According to the calculation of the placement fee for children in Japan, each child is paid the placement fee
and professional service fee. However, the placement fee paid by Taiwanese local government does not
include professional service fee, which was the main reason that the placement costs is low in Taiwan. The
professional service fee "subsidized" by the Central Ministry of Health and Welfare is only for the personnel
expenses of the organization. The amount is less than 45% of the salary of social workers and less than 20% of
the salary of first-line caregivers, and does not subsidize the actual shift workers.
11
organizations. Although the Control Yuan has corrected the situation 20 and the
Legislative Yuan has pointed this out in the public hearing, the payment in the form
of "subsidy" has not yet been rectified.
d. The Government's inadequate placement funds are a direct cause of low wage, high
turnover and insufficient personnel, impacting both organizations and workers. The
shortage of personnel creates many problems, including military-like discipline and
even abuse, as well as the risk of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and children
fighting and injuring each other in organizations. The surveillance system is useless
in these situations.
e. This report recommends that the Government should calculate the actual cost of
placement for each child based on the three-year expenses of public child placement
organizations and use it as the benchmark for fees paid for mandatory placement
services. It should also require local governments to include such fees in the public
service budget, use it as part of welfare service assessment, and publish the
information on government website accordingly.
Vocational Training Restrictions for Youths leaving placement and starting living
independently (§12) (GACC§135-136)
12. Response to the Second Report (§140) - Youths leaving placement and starting living
independently are often not qualified for vocational training due to limited education (e.g.,
they need to graduate from junior high school or high school to receive training), and are
unable to enhance employability and can only work low-paying part-time jobs. It is
recommended that the Government take stock of vocational training resources suitable for
disadvantaged children aged 15-17, provide free training and assist them in applying for
living subsidies. The Government should also actively promote the participation of such
children in training as an affirmative strategy to protect their labor rights.
20
Source: Fong-Sian Gao(2018) Insufficient manpower in child placement agencies and evaluation and
Withdraw Mechanism .Number: 108(nei-diao)0001. Control Yuan, Taipei. Url:
https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent2.aspx?n=718&s=5945.
12
Current Situation Regarding Relative Placement and Group Home (§13-14)
(GACC§29)
13. Response to the Second Report (§159) - The Government has given importance to
placement with kin and significant others, which is a positive and well-intended policy for
children's rights. Unfortunately, kinship placement has declined significantly from a peak
of 22.90% in 2006 to 5.54% in 2020. Although there have been slight ups and downs
during this period, the overall decline has been more than 3/4 (75.8%) over the past 15
years. In the case of placement with kin and significant others, the national system places
great emphasis on emotional and biological responsibility, and assumes that kin should
help care for the children. As a result, kinship placement payments are lower than those
for foster families for long periods of time and it is not clearly positioned. Often, after the
kin are assigned as providers of placement and granted custody, the case is deemed closed
and payments are discontinued, eliminating the financial incentive beyond sentimental
considerations. Therefore, it is recommended that the Government should recognize
kinship families as formal alternative child care and establish a comprehensive mechanism
for nurturing, counseling and support to ensure the rights of children to be cared for.
14. Response to the Second Report (§162) - It is commendable for the Government to provide
"group homes" to take care of children with special needs. However, it is a pity that the
current group homes are actually "small residential institutions", not family-style
placement. The arrangement and personnel deployment are all very similar to those of an
institution, and it is an experimental program as statutory non-permanent placement 21
(subsidized for a maximum of 3 years and then shifts to self-financing). Since its
implementation in 2010, due to factors such as staffing, space, and child care difficulties,
organizations participating in the program have been less willing to continue, and
organizations that take on the program are constantly changing. In practice, children who
are placed in group homes are required to switch to a new placement after a maximum of
3 years due to the end of the program, adding to the instability of placement.
21
Ministry of Health and Welfare Social and Family Department (2022) Policy for the Alternative Care of
Children. Reading time: 2022.3.7. Url:
https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=268&pid=11213.
13
Mechanisms of child placement organizations inspection fail to ensure the quality of care
(§15) (CRC§3, GACC§128)
15. Response to the Second Report (§163) - The national mechanism for assessing the quality
of child placement organizations is not effective in determining and improving the quality
of care, and the following points need to be discussed:
a. The assessment seems to have an adverse selection effect, with a high rate of closures
among better performers. Between 2004 and 2021, 34 children and youth placement
organizations were closed. Prior to the closure, 13 of them were ranked with "A" or
“A+”, 9 with "B" , 8 with "C", and 4 with no ranking. In total, 64.7% of those
organizations with a ranking of "B" or higher decided to close, but only 23.5% with a
ranking of "C" or lower did so. This means that among all the placement organizations
which closed, most of them actually had better rankings.
b. The assessment does not differentiate and support organizations that care for children
with high levels of difficulty. For example, of the 20 private organizations willing to
care for children in juvenile justice in 2005,22 only 7 were able to sustain their services
in 2021, marking a 65% closure rate. Most of the organizations willing to care for
children with high levels of difficulty can hardly sustain.
c. Significant incidents were handled with varying standards: Assessments do not hold
public and private organizations to the same standard, 23 as observed in publicly
available assessment reports. In 2015, 2 private organizations received a lower ranking
due to incidents of sexual harassment and suspected sexual assault. However, some
public organizations had incidents of sexual assault and bullying in 2015 and incidents
of sexual harassment and violent fighting in 2018, but did not receive a lower ranking,
and the public organizations have been consistently ranked "A" or “A+” since 2012.
Lost number of children in placement arranged by parents (§16) (GACC§32-38)
16. Response to the Second Report (§152 and 165) - The current policy on the best interests
of children in placement arranged by parents is contrary to the Concluding Observations
on the Initial Report, which states that "all placements of children in alternative care are
22
Source: Shou-Jung Yang(2005) Intense Care Systems of Private Welfare Institutions toward Juvenile
Delinquency Cases. Community development journal quarterly, 108: 109-119.
23
For example, in the 2019 Control Yuan report (108 she-tiao 0048: 21), the competent authority stated that
"if something happens to the child placement organization during the evaluation period, its Class A
qualification will be cancelled, and the professional service fee obtained by the organization will be deducted,
etc. ”, which means that the same standard should be applied to the major incidents of public and private
organization by the competent authorities, but this is not the case.
14
based on a decision of the family court." In particular, the promulgation of a change in the
operational process to require discretionary consent of the competent authority, which is
said to reduce unnecessary placement, results in a significant decrease of children in
placement arranged by parents (without government involvement) by 81% between 2016
and 2020.24 While such placement decreased, the number of children in commissioned
placement and foster care increased by 6.92% and 0.85% respectively. This means that the
placement arranged by parents was reduced simply for the purpose of cutting the number,
and the best interests of children are not fully protected. In fact, there was a case in which
a child, who had been admitted to a placement organization without government
involvement, was not given good care and family support after being assessed by the
Government to be ready to return home. The child was left to wander in the community to
violate the law, and sent to reformatory education by a judicial ruling in January 2022,
which is a distressing result.
Transition-Retransformation of Placed Children (§17) (GACC§60)
17. Response to the Second Report (§167) - Among the residential placement and foster care
cases that were closed, a high percentage of them was not closed because children returned
home, but because children were referred to another placement. If we look at the cases
closed in 2020 where children were transferred to other placements,25 they accounted for
24.03% of cases closed in foster care and 42.86% of cases closed in residential placement.
In reality, the children were referred to other placements. However, if we look at the
Control Yuan report for 2021, 26 we find an even more alarming picture of transferred
placement: between 2018 and 2020, they accounted for 68.98% of cases closed in foster
care, 71.63% of cases closed in residential placement, and 26.19% of cases closed in
kinship placement. Such a high rate of placement transfer means that Taiwan's alternative
care system is unable to prevent what is stated in §60 of the Guidelines for the Alternative
Care of Children, "Frequent changes in care setting are detrimental to the child’s
development and ability to form attachments." It also fails to provide long-term and stable
care, making it difficult for children to establish stable attachments as they change
placement frequently.
24
Data on the decrease in the number of children in placement arranged by parents, for Second Report
Attachment 6-25.
25
Data on the cases closed where children were transferred to other placements, for Second Report
Attachment 6-27。
26
Source: Mei-Yu Wang(2021) Abuse on children’s protection notified cases. Number: 110(she-tiao) 0019.
Control Yuan, Taipei. Url: https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?n=133&s=17712.
15
Status and Limitations of Follow-up Counseling for Children who Return home (§18)
(GACC§131-134)
18. Response to the Second Report (§169) - The one-year follow-up counseling service after
placement was originally designed to assist children in returning home, finding
employment, restoring relationship, and supporting the family, but the quality of the
service is limited by the difficulty of building relationships with the children, 27 and the
lack of personnel and resources (funding is not regularly budgeted).28 When the function
of the family of orientation is not restored, the children are left to support themselves in
the community, and 10% of them break the law again in order to survive. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Government should integrate welfare and follow-up services for
children in the judicial system, and use public budget to improve the support for children
and their families.
Indigenous Child in care: A Stolen Generation (§19) (CRC§20)
19. Response to the Second Report (§§278-287) - It is recommended that the Government
should develop suitable principles and treatment programs for placing children of
indigenous peoples. Under the Han-people-oriented out-of-home placement, the culture of
shared responsibilities in raising children among indigenous communities is often
neglected. In the placement system (including foster care, group home, and residential
organization), cultural disconnection has not been addressed, resulting in "Stolen
Generations" in the Taiwanese context. Indigenous children become marginalized in cities
after leaving the organizations and are unable to return to indigenous communities.
27
The current entrusted service of follow-up counseling after placement is limited to three months before the
case is closed. The follow-up counseling mode is mostly two telephone calls and one visit per month, which
makes it difficult for staff to establish relationships and often lose contact with children.
28
The government has not paid much attention to the manpower and resources required for service of follow-
up counseling. For example, among the 2,302 teenagers over the age of 15 who left placement from 2018 to
2020, only 520 entered the self-supporting assistance program, accounting for 22.59%. Its funds are only
covered by the Feedback Fund of Public Welfare Lottery, and the annual subsidy is only maintained at 12
million.
16
資料來源:CRC 兒童權利公約資訊網 · 轉換工具:pdftotext -layout -enc UTF-8 · doc_id: 32A43D26-D6E4-435D-A813-ACC93E2E66C1