- 學位論文
我國民事通常保護令之實證研究
An Empirical Study on Ordinary Protection Order in Taiwan
摘要
我國家庭暴力防治法於民國87年5月28日通過，民事保護令制度於隔年生效施行，至今已過二十多個年頭。民事保護令制度，因其非訟性質，法官裁量空間大，又涉及隱私而屬不公開裁判。正因為不公開的性質，讓保護令變得很神秘，許多研究也因此卻步，坊間也出現了許多謠言。本文係透過司法院少年及家事廳及法律扶助基金會，獲得了民國106年間終結之臺北地方法院、士林地方法院、新北地方法院、基隆地方法院共833件民事通常保護令裁定，故得以實證方法觀察影響法院裁定結果之因素與原因。 本研究發現，「被害人性別」、「聲請人有無律師」、「施暴嚴重程度」為影響通常保護令裁定結果（准駁）之因素，然最主要的關鍵係施暴嚴重程度，施暴嚴重程度愈高，法院愈有可能核發通常保護令。而「不同法院」、「未成年子女是否在場目睹家暴」為影響通常保護令核給保護期間長短之因素，亦即，不同法院間核發的時數普遍有所不同，尤其新北地院核給被害人的保護期間較長；相對人若於未成年子女面前施以家暴，法院通常核給被害人的保護期間較長。 此外，本文亦透過通常保護令審理流程，逐步探討通常保護令在實務上遇到的五大爭點，依序為（一）聲請形式上合法與否；（二）兩造間是否為家暴法上定義之「家庭成員」關係；（三）聲請人得否證明相對人有其主張之某行為，此攸關於通常保護令的舉證責任與法院採信的證據多半為何；（四）若能證明有此一行為存在，然該行為是否屬於「家庭暴力」，此涉及一般家庭紛爭與家暴行為的界線，得由施暴程度態樣觀察；（五）若為家暴行為，核發保護令是否具「必要性」，法院於審理核發必要性時參酌的因素為何。 最後針對我國實務運作情況提出個人建議，包括：對於舉證責任之歧異要求，宜訂定統一之標準；家庭暴力行為認定上，不應以「長期性、習慣性與連續性」為構成要件；明定「核發必要性」的審理參考要素；擴展處遇計畫令之核發數量與對象；加強家事法庭法官對於家庭暴力事件專業訓練，並推動家事法庭法官專業久任；刪除家暴事件不得調解、和解之規定；保護令之各款命令得分次發放；擴大社工人員、衛生醫療體系介入。
並列摘要
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act in Taiwan was passed on May 28, 1998, and the system of Civil Protection Order came into effect the next year. Due to non-contentious character of the Civil Protection Order, the judge has relatively wide discretionary power. Moreover, Civil Protection Orders are not open to the public on account of victims’ privacy so that large scale empirical studies have not yet existed in Taiwan. There have also been a lot of rumors and misunderstandings towards Civil Protection Orders. The Juvenile and Family Department of the Judicial Yuan and the Legal Aid Foundation provided a total of 833 Ordinary Protection Order cases after de-identification in 2017, which is ruled by the Taipei District Court, Shilin District Court, New Taipei District Court, and Keelung District Court. This thesis will analyze factors and reasons that might influence judges during consideration of approving or denying. This thesis pointed out that “gender of the victim”, "whether the petitioner has a lawyer", and "severity of violence" are factors that significantly relate to the result of the Ordinary Protection Order. Among them, the most important key is the severity of the violence. The higher the severity of the violence, the more likely the court is approval of Ordinary Protection Order. In addition, “different courts”, “children and juvenile witnessing domestic violence” are influencing factors that affect the period of protection granted by an Ordinary Protection Order. This indicates that the period of approval issued by different courts is generally different. Further, if children and juvenile witnessed domestic violence, the court usually grants victims a longer period of protection. On the other hand, this research also explores five major issues of the trial process of Ordinary Protection Order : (1) whether the claim conforms to foramlity, (2) whether both parties are “family members”, (3) how the petitioner prove the opposite party has committed a certain act, and what is the most common evidence accepted by the court, (4) whether the behavior belongs to “domestic violence”, which involves the boundary between general family disputes and domestic violence behavior and can be observed from the level of violence, (5) whether the Protection Order is “necessary”, what are the factors that the court will consider when examining the necessity of approving the Ordinary Protection Order. Finally, according to the above results of the research, the thesis proposes some suggestions as follows. (1) Regarding the differences in the burden of proof in each case, it is necessary to set uniform standards in statutes. (2) To determine domestic violence, we should not require the behavior is “in long-term, habitual and continuous”. (3) It would be clearer to enumerate a few standards of “necessity”. (4) Expanding the cases number and target of the domestic violence offender treatment program will be useful. (5) Family judges needs more training on handling domestic violence. At the same time, to encourage family judges to stay in family court is an important issue, too. (7) Domestic violence cases sould allow to compromise or conciliate. (8) Different type of order of the Ordinary Protection Order can be issued seperately. (9) It is expected to have more social workers and the health and medical professionals participate and cooperate in DV cases.