身心障礙者監護及輔助制度之實務探析：以高雄市為例

我國受國際間重視身心障礙者人權法治化的潮流影響，於2014年通過國內的「身心障礙者權利公約施行法」。而民法原有的「禁治產制度」也進行修訂為「成人監護及輔助宣告制度」，並於2009年11月開始施行。本研究統計2017年臺灣高雄少年及家事法院709件監護及輔助宣告裁定書，分析並比較高雄市監護輔助宣告人口群的特性。同時藉由訪談三位實務工作者，整理出執行「成年身心障礙者監護服務」的角色任務。法院資料統計分析結果為(1)監護案數遠高於輔助案。(2)以單一人作為監護人或輔助人為主。(3)監護當事人年齡層以高齡為多數，65歲以上佔了56.15%，而輔助當事人相較為年輕。(4)監護當事人失能原因以各種失智症為主。而輔助宣告當事人則是以「精神障礙、智能障礙/唐氏症/自閉症、因意外腦部受傷」等原因為多。(5)以親屬為主要聲請人，由主管機關或社福團體提出聲請者皆為少數。(6)以親屬擔任監護/輔助人居多，由主管機關擔任監護人皆為少數。(7)居住型態-由主管機關擔任監護/輔助人的當事者，皆未與家屬同住。而透過實務工作者的經驗訪談，分析結果：(1)有家屬但由主管機關擔任監護人原因-家屬因年紀或健康因素不適任、家屬無意願或無能力、家屬可能會濫用或強奪當事人權益。(2)實務工作者自身的認知、縣市政府的委託執行內容、以及安置機構的期待，對於執行監護服務的社工，都有著替代家屬的角色期待。(3)「尋找經濟資源」、「尋找安置機構」、「支持照顧者、分擔照顧壓力」以及「監督及提升當事人的生活品質」是實務工作者最主要的任務。最後依據研究結果，並比對身心障礙者權益公約第12條的精神，提出相關建議。

關鍵字

成人監護；監護與輔助制度；身心障礙者

並列摘要

Our country is affected by the international trend of emphasizing the rule of law on the rights of persons with disabilities, and in 2014 passed the domestic "Implementation Law of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities". The original "Guardianship System" of the Civil Law was also revised to "Adult guardianship and assistance system ", which came into effect in November 2009. This study counts 709 guardianship and assistance cases from the Kaohsiung Juvenile and Family Court in Taiwan in 2017, and analyzes and compares the characteristics of the guardianship and the assistance declaration population in Kaohsiung City. At the same time, by interviewing three practical workers, sort out the roles and tasks of implementing the "Guardian Service for Adults with Disabilities". The statistical analysis results of court data are (1) The number of guardianship cases is much higher than that of assistant cases. (2) A single person is the main guardian or assistant. (3) The majority of guardianship parties are elderly, 56.15% of which are 65 years old and above, while assistant parties are relatively young. (4) The cause of the disability of the guardian is mainly various dementia. The assistant declaration of the parties is mostly based on "mental disorder, intellectual disability/Down's syndrome/autism, accidental brain injury" and other reasons. (5) Relatives are the main claimants, and only a few are filed by competent authorities or social welfare organizations. (6) Relatives are mostly guardians, while the competent authority is a minority. (7) Type of residence-the person who is the guardian/ assistant person of the competent authority does not live with their family . Through interviews with practitioners, the analysis results: (1) There are family members but the competent authority serves as guardian reasons-family members are not suitable due to age or health factors, family members are unwilling or incapable, family members may abuse or seize the rights of the parties. (2) Expect social workers who perform guardianship services to take the role of replacing family members.(3) "Finding economic resources", "finding placement agencies", "supporting caregivers, sharing caregiving pressure", and "supervising and improving the quality of life of the parties" are the main tasks of workers.