社工在成年監護宣告訪視調查程序中之角色--以失智症者為例

民法自2008年修法，法院可命訪視調查單位提出調查報告及建議，供法院斟酌的情形已超過十年，但在社會工作領域的學術地圖中尚未有一席之地，因此研究者欲透過「成宣業務」之研究主題進行研究，又，因失智症會因病程與疾病退化的狀況使社工在進行訪視調查過程較具挑戰性，因此研究者選定以失智症者作為社工經驗的案例分享。本研究發展出三個研究目的：第一，探討社工對於自己角色定位與限制；探討社工的工作流程與評估向度；第三，探討社工對應受宣告人財產管理或照顧安排的特別考量。為了理解不同機構會如何影響社工的角色定位與限制，故訪談5名公部門社工與6名民間單位社工，並採用半結構式的深度訪談法。透過訪談及文獻的梳理共有三項研究發現：第一個研究發現，因成宣業務「錯置」於公部門的結果，造成使維持家庭功能運作為主要任務的社工，如一位英雄身負高強武藝，而未有施展之處；而早已熟悉訪視調查工作模式的私部門社工，在諜對諜的訪視過程、像問卷調查的訪視報告、教育訓練制度的既定框架中，看見角色限制。第二個研究發現，從成宣業務的工作流程來看，受訪社工並不熟悉此制度，且大多數受訪社工亦不了解法定上所稱之意思能力；而公私部門社工在評估向度中，針對不同的角色(失智症者、監護人/輔助人、會同人、關係人、第三人)會有不一樣的評估考量與原則。第三個研究發現為，在失智症者的照顧與財產議題中，社工於前者會尊重家屬對失智症者的照顧安排，後者則因自己僅能從有限的視角而有所作為，如建議法官核發暫時處分、選任程序監理人與透過共同監護的評估建議相互制衡。成宣業務於我國社會工作領域為新興之領域，有投注心力與資源發展之必要性，本文研究建議乃建構於研究的經驗上，提出三大面向，包含針對兩個機構的建議、實務工作建議以及法定成年監護制度的建議。

關鍵字

社工；成年監護宣告；意思能力；失智症

並列摘要

After the amendment of Taiwan’s Civil Code in 2008, the court has the right to ask competent authority or organization of social welfare to provide visiting reports and suggestions over ten years, but none of the preliminary research has discussed the role social workers play in assessing the wards and the assistances. Therefore, this thesis aims to investigate the process in Adult Guardianship visiting investigation. In addition, since dementia is progressive, getting worse over time, the researcher selected the social workers who interviewed dementia patients before as research subject. The purpose of the study is to：First, explore the interviewed social workers’ roles and their restrictions; Secondly, explore the interviewed social workers’ working procedure and the criteria；Thirdly, understand the special considerations the social workers have on the property management and medical care of the not-yet-to-be the wardsand the assistance. The research method is semistructured, in-depth interviews. In order to understand the influence of different institutions on social workers’ roles and their restrictions, this research selects five social workers from public sector and six social workers from private sector. In the next section, some of the findings of my empirical research would be present. The first finding shows that Adult Guardianship visiting investigation is inadequately placed on Social Welfare Center, making social workers of public sector feel like a fish in small pond; on the other hand, social workers of private sector have already been familiar with the way of visiting investigation, but this type of a framework itself became restrictions for social workers. For instance, social workers may meet defensive interviewees, be confined by the questionnaires given by the courts, and be trapped in the rigid training system.