以建制民族誌初探一線家暴防治後追社工服務有離婚議題受暴者之工作處境─以勵馨承辦新北市親密關係暴力保護服務方案為例

「一位已婚受暴者主動來電表明她決定不離婚了，她想再次為他們創造出來的家庭而努力。」我至今未能忘卻這個經驗帶給我的喜悅和驚嘆，從中，我感受到關係的存在或結束，是有深有淺的歷程，有起伏、也有輕重之分。在此之後，我回過頭檢視我是如何工作的，我在想「總是在說怎麼聲請保護令、怎麼離婚，就只能離與不離嗎？就這樣把離婚丟出來，不會太快嗎？」針對離婚程序和法律相關事項進行說明，就足夠了嗎？我短暫停駐思考後，有意識且小心翼翼地不讓那些策略「過於自動化地」出場，因為：「（暴力事件／關係）一定只有這種解決辦法（聲請保護令／離婚）嗎？但這似乎是我現有手頭上可以拿出來的。」這段擔任兼職家防後追社工時的經驗和自問自答，是這份論文的研究起點。我透過建制民族誌作為研究取徑和信念指引，以一線家防後追社工作為立足點，進到勵馨基金會承辦新北市親密關係暴力保護方案這個研究場域，探究這群工作者是如何且以什麼方式提供服務給有離婚議題的受暴個案，拆解他們如此服務的工作處境是如何被組織起來的，期待從中看見服務過程除了回應離婚程序之餘，關係的意義如何被看見，或如何被視而不見。我藉由參與觀察、深度訪談、文本分析等方式，於正式研究分別蒐集一線家防後追社工、社工督導、勵馨基金會主任、家事律師、有離婚議題之受暴個案五種類型（總研究參與者為16人）的資料，再綜合初訪一線家防後追社工（3人，共11次）和未進入家防體系之離婚者（4人，共8次）之受訪資料。在研究發現上，首先，家暴防治建制下的服務架構和工作規定皆為「安全」效力，緊湊的工作節奏，提供見好就收、點到為止的服務期程和服務內容成為實務現場的真實模樣；而中央政府設定的開案率標準使得提供服務的空間和時間遭受更加嚴峻地壓縮。然而，勵馨基金會透過組織力量反制開案率的不合理期待，它和新北家防中心為方案和實務現場撐出一些空間，用「多陪」的組織信念和特色滲透服務的本質和思考，希望服務最終能深入關係的層次。這一群家防後追社工在這兩股力量的作用下，發展出另一套非危機介入、問題解決的工作方法，且願意在其和受暴個案所建立的工作關係中等待和同在，並重視這個人身為個體的所思所想。最後，我也看見辨識關係的能力超越事件結束、專業人員離場，且各自回歸日常後，仍能繼續積累。

關鍵字

建制民族誌；離婚議題；關係；一線家防後追社工；勵馨基金會

並列摘要

“A married battered woman called to say she had made up her mind not to divorce her husband, but to strive again for the family they together created.” To date, I can still vividly recall the pleasure and astonishment brought about by this experience, which made me aware that the continued existence or end of a relationship is a process of rising and falling. From then on, I reflected on how I had worked with my clients, wondering about the rationale behind our protocols that kept us introducing how to apply for protection orders and how to get a divorce. “Are these all that we can provide? Would it not be too early to discuss divorce with clients? Is it really sufficient and helpful to just explain the process of divorce and relevant laws and regulations?” After this reflection, I managed to consciously and carefully avoid these instructed strategies from popping out too “automatically”, because I believed there must be something else besides protection order applications and divorce litigations, that I could do to help solve violent incidents/relationships. It was this self-reflection experience during my part-time job as an IPV social worker that initiated this research. Adopting institutional ethnography as my research method and philosophy, I entered the New Taipei City branch of the Garden of Hope Foundation, which run government sponsored IPV intervention programs and follow-up services, to explore in what ways social workers provide assistance to battered clients considering divorce. In addition, I sought to understand how their working situations and interactions with other people were institutionalized, and thereby to depict how the “discussions on relationships” were conducted, or neglected, in their working processes with clients considering divorce. By means of participant observation, in-depth interviews, and textual analysis, five types of materials were collected in this research. Participants included 7 IPV social workers, one social work supervisor, the director of the Garden of Hope Foundation, one family matters lawyer, and three battered clients who were considering divorce. In addition, pilot interviews with other IPV social workers and divorced women were also contained in the discussion. This research revealed that all the service structures and working regulations under IPV social work institutions concentrated on the “safety issue”. Brief and rapid services were hence mostly confined to clients’ “physical safety”.While, excluding discussion regarding “relational safety”; the time and space of service provision were also limited and suppressed because of the high intake rate regulated by the central government. However, the Garden of Hope Foundation has been trying to resist the unreasonable expectation by the authority (such as intake rate regulation). Together with Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Center of New Taipei City government, they have been striving for more probability and flexibility of IPV service provision by integrating the vision of the “Go The Second Mile” program, so as to deepen their service to the relationship level, in addition to the physical safety issue. Under the interactions of these two forces, new working methods, differing from traditional crisis intervention and problem-solving approaches, were developed by this group of interviewed social workers, who were more willing to truly be with clients, wait for clients to stay in their relationships or proceed to divorce, and highly respect clients’ subjectivity. Lastly, I also perceived that the ability to identify relationships goes beyond violent incidents; even when the working relationships between professionals and clients end, this ability can be continually cultivated and accumulated.