COMPLETE EDITION · 24 CASES · 2013–2026

Chapter 3: After the Visit Was Postponed

A complete, source-linked casebook on child-protection gaps in Taiwan, 2013–2026.

Reading boundary / 読み方

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Court finding on Chen Shang-jie

The Taipei District Court found Chen Shang-jie guilty of negligent homicide and sentenced her to two years. It found a case-specific guarantor duty, accumulated warning information, available verification and reporting measures, and legal causation between her omission and the child’s death. Institutional failures do not erase that individual finding.

According to the prosecution’s interpretation of the placement and contact restrictions then in operation, the maternal grandmother had difficulty freely visiting or personally verifying the child’s safety. This remains disputed by the defence and the institution, and the original agreement and contact records are not yet complete. Whatever the eventual finding, a relative must not be blamed merely for not maintaining visits; nor does the dispute lessen the assigned social worker’s duty to see the child independently, cross-check information, and escalate when warning signs accumulate.

Procedural boundary: the second-instance judgment has not been determined. The first-instance acquittal on document forgery must be stated separately.

Kaikai responsibility map / 剴剴事件の役割

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Roles must remain separate: direct caregiver, Chen Shang-jie as the assigned adoption-service social worker, visiting personnel, supervisor and NGO governance, and the competent public authority. / 直接養育者、陳尚潔(養子縁組支援の担当ソーシャルワーカー)、訪問担当者、監督者・民間団体、行政主管機関を区別する。

CASE 01

Kaikai case — a broken chain during pre-adoption care

Case summary

A toddler died while in pre-adoption care. The case tests whether visits, injury information, medical clues, supervision and escalation were connected in time.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A toddler died while in pre-adoption care. The case tests whether visits, injury information, medical clues, supervision and escalation were connected in time.

By the time the system assembled its records, this child could no longer tell us what had happened. May we remember not a case number, but a life that should have been held, heard and allowed to grow up safely.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

刑事程序: 臺北地院於2026年4月16日就陳姓社工作成一審判決;檢方於5月15日提起上訴,頁面維持「上訴中」。保母姊妹另案於2026年7月23日定讞。 行政監督: 監察院於2025年5月公布調查與糾正。不同被告、不同案件不得合併解讀。

Timeline
  1. 開始全日照顧
  2. 送醫後死亡
  3. 監察院公布調查
  4. 社工案一審
  5. 檢方上訴
  6. 保母姊妹案定讞
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="收出養/全日托育" data-verification="裁判及上訴程序持續更新"><span class="case-no">CASE 01</span><span class="case-status">一審判決後續程序應持續更新</span><span class="case-type">收出養/全日托育</span><h3>剴剴案|出養等待期中的責任斷裂</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>剴剴在出養程序尚未完成、由保母提供全日照顧期間死亡。監察院從中央、雙北市政府、媒合機構與訪視制度檢視權責;臺北地院則就個別被告的具體義務、已知警訊及可採作為作成一審評價。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>出養必要性與媒合服務、保母照顧、機構訪視、兒保通報及地方主管機關保護權限彼此交錯。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>三次訪視被當成完成程序,而非跨時點比較瘀傷、消瘦、精神狀態與牙科異常;出養、托育與兒保資訊沒有形成共同風險帳本。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>當民間機構掌握多項警訊但沒有公權力時,何時必須通報、由誰接手,以及督導如何覆核未升級決定?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要由不受照顧者安排控制的人親見、檢查傷勢並持續向原生親屬確認異常。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">親見兒少</span><span class="case-reform-tag">不預約訪視</span><span class="case-reform-tag">檢察早期介入</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>本案即為陳尚潔受審案件。責任焦點是一審認定其在已累積傷勢、外觀與照顧資訊後,是否完成親見、補查、整合、提報及通報檢視;仍須保留上訴審對義務範圍、因果關係與罪責的判斷。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>裁判及上訴程序持續更新</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1888-1528027-1ee8d-1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">臺北地院一審新聞稿</a></li><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?Create=1&amp;n=125&amp;s=34118" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院調查摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>刑事程序:</strong>臺北地院於2026年4月16日就陳姓社工作成一審判決;檢方於5月15日提起上訴,頁面維持「上訴中」。保母姊妹另案於2026年7月23日定讞。<strong>行政監督:</strong>監察院於2025年5月公布調查與糾正。不同被告、不同案件不得合併解讀。</p><a class="procedure-source" href="https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1888-1528027-1ee8d-1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">臺北地院一審新聞稿</a></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 01案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2023-09-01">2023.09.01</time><span>開始全日照顧</span></li><li><time datetime="2023-12-24">2023.12.24</time><span>送醫後死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-05-29">2025.05.29</time><span>監察院公布調查</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-04-16">2026.04.16</time><span>社工案一審</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-05-15">2026.05.15</time><span>檢方上訴</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-07-23">2026.07.23</time><span>保母姊妹案定讞</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?Create=1&amp;n=125&amp;s=34118" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院調查摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">本案刑事責任只依個別被告及審級證據判斷,不因「社工」職稱概括成立。</p></article>
CASE 02

Xuanxuan, age 2, Taichung — reported but still not found

Case summary

A passer-by called police about a child in danger, yet agencies failed to secure direct contact and the child later died.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A passer-by called police about a child in danger, yet agencies failed to secure direct contact and the child later died.

By the time the system assembled its records, this child could no longer tell us what had happened. May we remember not a case number, but a life that should have been held, heard and allowed to grow up safely.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

刑事程序: 檢方於2026年6月1日起訴同住男子涉成年人故意對兒童凌虐致死等罪,母親涉過失致死,案件交由臺中地院國民法官法庭審理。截至本頁更新日,未引用到可公開核對的判決結果。

Timeline
  1. 民眾報警、警方查找
  2. 再有外部警訊
  3. 女童死亡
  4. 檢方起訴
  5. 法院審理中,待官方更新
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="原生家庭/跨轄追查" data-verification="已起訴/法院審理中"><span class="case-no">CASE 02</span><span class="case-status">刑事起訴/審理資訊待官方持續更新</span><span class="case-type">原生家庭/跨轄追查</span><h3>台中2歲女童萱萱案|路人報警後仍找不到孩子</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>公開報導顯示,受虐期間曾有民眾發現女童傷勢並報警;警方曾聯繫照顧者、調閱軌跡及尋找現住地,但疑似施虐風險沒有及時轉化為讓兒保系統親見孩子的持續行動。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>民眾報警、警政查找、脆弱家庭或兒保資訊,以及跨縣市服務紀錄可能同時存在。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>沒有確切地址、照顧者以跌倒解釋傷勢、案件跨轄時,每一節點都可能只處理自己眼前的一小段。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>第一次尋查未果後,誰持有案件直到親見兒少?第二次警訊出現時,系統是否自動辨識前次紀錄並提高等級?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>第一次尋查未果後,仍需要一個持續持案、直到真正見到她的人。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">親見兒少</span><span class="case-reform-tag">跨轄責任不脫手</span><span class="case-reform-tag">三次通報強制複判</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是孩子失聯後是否持續追查、親見並啟動跨機關協尋;不可直接類推的是陳尚潔所屬出養服務的權限、她當時掌握的資料及個案因果關係。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>已起訴/法院審理中</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://udn.com/news/story/124907/9550240" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">警方處理時序之媒體報導</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>刑事程序:</strong>檢方於2026年6月1日起訴同住男子涉成年人故意對兒童凌虐致死等罪,母親涉過失致死,案件交由臺中地院國民法官法庭審理。截至本頁更新日,未引用到可公開核對的判決結果。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 02案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2025-12-06">2025.12.06</time><span>民眾報警、警方查找</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-12-09">2025.12.09</time><span>再有外部警訊</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-02-14">2026.02.14</time><span>女童死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-06-01">2026.06.01</time><span>檢方起訴</span></li><li><time>截至2026.09</time><span>法院審理中,待官方更新</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://udn.com/news/story/124907/9550240" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">警方處理時序之媒體報導</a><p class="case-boundary">「五次機會」屬媒體及社群常用整理方式;各節點的法定義務仍須以起訴書、警政與社政原始紀錄核對。</p></article>
CASE 03

Ten-year-old girl, Taipei — what arrangement was she refusing?

Case summary

A placement dispute shows why a child’s own account, safety needs and reasons for refusing an arrangement must be recorded separately.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A placement dispute shows why a child’s own account, safety needs and reasons for refusing an arrangement must be recorded separately.

Survival does not close the page on harm. Delayed protection can become a weight carried for life; the child is owed safety, recovery and lasting support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

司法與行政並行: 2025年12月29日通報後,案件同時涉及刑事偵查、兒保安全評估與安置決策。2026年8月公開報導時仍無可引用的法院實體判決;後續安置屬行政保護措施,不等於犯罪成立。

Timeline
  1. 案件通報
  2. 安全計畫與家庭支持
  3. 爭議公開、重新檢視
  4. 偵辦與行政處置並行
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="原生家庭/非死亡案" data-verification="偵辦與行政處置並行"><span class="case-no">CASE 03</span><span class="case-status">非死亡案/司法偵辦與行政處置並行</span><span class="case-type">原生家庭/非死亡案</span><h3>台北10歲女童安置爭議|孩子拒絕的是哪一種安排?</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>公開報導指出,案件通報後,社政初期認為未達強制安置條件,採安全計畫與家庭支持;爭議則集中於女童是否曾表達希望離家,以及「不願進入機構」是否被等同於「願意留在原照顧環境」。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>司法偵辦、兒保安全評估、兒少表意、家庭維繫與替代安置選項。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>把安置理解成只有原家與機構二選一,未充分呈現親屬安置、寄養或其他替代方案;兒少的求助內容也可能被機構偏好取代。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>尊重兒少表意後,如何仍由專業系統承擔安全責任?不安置的安全計畫由誰驗證、多久複核一次?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要把「不願進機構」和「希望離開原環境」分開理解,提供不只一種安全選項。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">兒少表意</span><span class="case-reform-tag">安置多元化</span><span class="case-reform-tag">安全計畫複核</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是訪視是否真正聽見孩子、形成安全計畫並記錄拒絕原因;不可把本案的安置爭議直接當成陳尚潔刑事責任的證明。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>偵辦與行政處置並行</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://news.pts.org.tw/article/824153" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">公視新聞整理</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>司法與行政並行:</strong>2025年12月29日通報後,案件同時涉及刑事偵查、兒保安全評估與安置決策。2026年8月公開報導時仍無可引用的法院實體判決;後續安置屬行政保護措施,不等於犯罪成立。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 03案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2025-12-29">2025.12.29</time><span>案件通報</span></li><li><time>2026年初</time><span>安全計畫與家庭支持</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-08-26">2026.08.26</time><span>爭議公開、重新檢視</span></li><li><time>截至2026.09</time><span>偵辦與行政處置並行</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://news.pts.org.tw/article/824153" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">公視新聞整理</a><p class="case-boundary">案件涉及性暴力指控及未成年人隱私,不轉載錄音、住址或可識別家庭資訊;是否犯罪由司法認定。</p></article>
CASE 04

One-year-old boy, Kaohsiung — two reports, two placement reviews

Case summary

Repeated reports and placement assessments did not trigger a sufficiently protective response before the child’s death.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Repeated reports and placement assessments did not trigger a sufficiently protective response before the child’s death.

By the time the system assembled its records, this child could no longer tell us what had happened. May we remember not a case number, but a life that should have been held, heard and allowed to grow up safely.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

行政監督: 監察院於2026年5月4日公布糾正高雄市政府。 刑事程序: 案發後檢警偵辦並有羈押程序;因目前頁面未取得足以逐審級核對的法院公開資料,不列未確認刑度。

Timeline
  1. 納入脆弱家庭服務
  2. 第一次疑似受虐通報
  3. 第二次通報
  4. 最後一次親見
  5. 送醫,後續死亡
  6. 監察院公布糾正
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="脆弱家庭/兒保通報" data-verification="監察院糾正/刑案待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 04</span><span class="case-status">監察院已糾正地方政府</span><span class="case-type">脆弱家庭/兒保通報</span><h3>高雄1歲男童案|兩度通報、兩次安置評估仍未接住</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>監察院指出,男童在接受脆弱家庭服務期間曾兩度因疑似受虐被通報,但過往施虐與失聯紀錄未被完整帶入安置會議;面對持續迴避家訪,死亡前近五個月未能親見男童。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>脆弱家庭服務、兒保通報、安置決策會議、困難訪視與警政協力。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>會議聚焦經濟及托育議題,未充分納入既往施虐史、照顧意願與訪視配合度;拒訪沒有觸發更高層級處置。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>低風險結論能否在新通報、失聯或無法親見時自動失效,強制要求重新評估?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要在第二次通報、拒訪或失聯時讓原先的低風險結論立即失效。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">三次通報強制複判</span><span class="case-reform-tag">警政協尋</span><span class="case-reform-tag">親見兒少</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是重複通報後是否升級查核、重新評估安置;兩案的通報內容、法定身分、決策權與死亡因果均須分別證明。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/刑案待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://news.pts.org.tw/article/723260" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">案發時序報導</a></li><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=794&amp;s=37247" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>行政監督:</strong>監察院於2026年5月4日公布糾正高雄市政府。<strong>刑事程序:</strong>案發後檢警偵辦並有羈押程序;因目前頁面未取得足以逐審級核對的法院公開資料,不列未確認刑度。</p><a class="procedure-source" href="https://news.pts.org.tw/article/723260" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">案發時序報導</a></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 04案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2023-08">2023.08</time><span>納入脆弱家庭服務</span></li><li><time datetime="2023-12">2023.12</time><span>第一次疑似受虐通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2024-03">2024.03</time><span>第二次通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2024-06-07">2024.06.07</time><span>最後一次親見</span></li><li><time datetime="2024-11-06">2024.11.06</time><span>送醫,後續死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-05-04">2026.05.04</time><span>監察院公布糾正</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=794&amp;s=37247" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">監察院的行政違失認定與刑事責任判斷不同,本節只用於分析制度流程。</p></article>
CASE 05

Three young siblings, Ji’an — family risk never became a warning

Case summary

Risks affecting several young children in one household were handled as fragments instead of one accumulating family-risk picture.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Risks affecting several young children in one household were handled as fragments instead of one accumulating family-risk picture.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

刑事程序: 花蓮地檢署就死亡案件偵辦,公開資料曾載聲請羈押獲准;本頁未引用未公開或尚未核實的終局判決。 行政監督: 監察院於2026年3月通過並公布糾正。

Timeline
  1. 家庭多次出現通報
  2. 三名幼兒中兩名死亡
  3. 地檢署偵辦、羈押程序
  4. 監察院委員會通過
  5. 公布調查與糾正
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="原生家庭/手足安全" data-verification="監察院糾正/刑案待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 05</span><span class="case-status">監察院已糾正地方政府</span><span class="case-type">原生家庭/手足安全</span><h3>花蓮吉安三名年幼子女案|同一家庭風險沒有形成預警</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>監察院調查指出,照顧者具有毒品列管背景與多次兒少通報紀錄,地方政府仍出現分流評估失準、派案空窗、社政與衛政資訊斷點及安全計畫流於形式,三名年幼子女中兩名死亡。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>藥癮列管、孕產與醫療資訊、脆弱家庭、兒保通報及手足安全評估。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>成人風險與兒少風險分開處理;一名孩子的警訊沒有立即轉化為同住手足的整體安全檢查。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>同一照顧環境出現重大警訊時,是否自動建立「全體兒少名冊」,逐一親見並確認安全?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要一次檢查所有同住手足,而不是等每個孩子分別出現傷勢。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">手足安全評估</span><span class="case-reform-tag">社衛資料整合</span><span class="case-reform-tag">安全計畫複核</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是同一家庭的多名兒少與跨期風險能否整合;不可推定陳尚潔必然掌握本案同等資訊或具有相同公權力。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/刑案待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=37039&amp;sms=8912" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>刑事程序:</strong>花蓮地檢署就死亡案件偵辦,公開資料曾載聲請羈押獲准;本頁未引用未公開或尚未核實的終局判決。<strong>行政監督:</strong>監察院於2026年3月通過並公布糾正。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 05案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2023-10">2023.10起</time><span>家庭多次出現通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2024">2024年間</time><span>三名幼兒中兩名死亡</span></li><li><time>案發後</time><span>地檢署偵辦、羈押程序</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-03-18">2026.03.18</time><span>監察院委員會通過</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-03-23">2026.03.23</time><span>公布調查與糾正</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=37039&amp;sms=8912" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">本節採匿名化制度分析,不延伸未經裁判確認的個人犯罪敘述。</p></article>
CASE 06

Three-year-old child, Hsinchu–Changhua — responsibility lost at a county line

Case summary

A move between jurisdictions exposed unclear transfer, acknowledgement and follow-up duties.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A move between jurisdictions exposed unclear transfer, acknowledgement and follow-up duties.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

行政調查: 監察院以兩縣市轉介、成人保護與兒保分流、未親見兒少等缺失進行調查,2024年7月通過糾正。該行政資料未詳載刑事被告的完整起訴與裁判結果,因此不以行政認定替代刑事判決。

Timeline
  1. 首次通報、開案
  2. 遷居彰化
  3. 新竹請求彰化評估
  4. 視訊見傷、再次通報
  5. 重傷送醫、昏迷
  6. 監察院通過糾正
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="跨縣市兒保/重傷案" data-verification="監察院糾正/非死亡案"><span class="case-no">CASE 06</span><span class="case-status">重傷致殘/監察院跨轄調查</span><span class="case-type">跨縣市兒保/重傷案</span><h3>新竹—彰化3歲A童案|移居後責任在縣市邊界掉落</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>A童原在新竹接受兒保服務,隨生母遷居彰化後,兩縣市間發生轉介與接案落差;生母反覆逃避聯繫、未提供正確地址,工作人員雖曾透過視訊見到異常,仍未及時完成警政尋查與親訪。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>原縣市兒保追蹤、成人保護案件、新居地接案、視訊接觸及警政協尋。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>函文已送出但接案責任未落地;成人保護與兒少保護分案,沒有人對「親見孩子」負最終責任。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>跨轄案件應由原轄、新轄或共同持有?在新轄確認接案、親見與安全評估前,原轄能否結束責任?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要原轄持續負責,直到新轄已接案、親見並完成安全評估。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">跨轄責任不脫手</span><span class="case-reform-tag">親見兒少</span><span class="case-reform-tag">警政協尋</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是跨縣市移居後是否有明確交接、回覆與追蹤責任;陳尚潔案則涉及民間出養服務,職權與政府兒保承辦不同。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/非死亡案</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=31435" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院調查摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>行政調查:</strong>監察院以兩縣市轉介、成人保護與兒保分流、未親見兒少等缺失進行調查,2024年7月通過糾正。該行政資料未詳載刑事被告的完整起訴與裁判結果,因此不以行政認定替代刑事判決。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 06案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2021-05-14">2021.05.14</time><span>首次通報、開案</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-10-01">2022.10.01</time><span>遷居彰化</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-11-03">2022.11.03</time><span>新竹請求彰化評估</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-11-16">2022.11.16</time><span>視訊見傷、再次通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-11-27">2022.11.27</time><span>重傷送醫、昏迷</span></li><li><time datetime="2024-07-17">2024.07.17</time><span>監察院通過糾正</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=31435" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院調查摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">視訊可以提供警訊,但不能在高風險且地址不明時一律替代實地親見與環境確認。</p></article>
CASE 07

Wu child, Nantou — child-protection alerts left in family services

Case summary

Signals warranting child-protection assessment remained in a lower-intensity high-risk-family service track.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Signals warranting child-protection assessment remained in a lower-intensity high-risk-family service track.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

行政監督: 監察院於2013年11月7日糾正南投縣政府與校方。公開行政資料著重通報、訪視與分流違失;本頁未取得可完整核對被告、罪名與審級的刑事判決,故不補寫刑度。

Timeline
  1. 主管機關曾接獲家庭通報
  2. 評估中度風險
  3. 訪視見罰跪與傷勢
  4. 上午獲知全身傷;傍晚送醫
  5. 女童受虐死亡
  6. 監察院通過糾正
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="高風險家庭/死亡案" data-verification="監察院糾正/刑案資料待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 07</span><span class="case-status">2013死亡案/監察院糾正</span><span class="case-type">高風險家庭/死亡案</span><h3>南投吳童案|把兒保警訊留在高風險家庭服務</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>監察院資料指出,工作人員已見兒童遭罰跪、哭泣及手部傷痕,卻未依兒保程序通報與調查,案件仍停留在高風險家庭服務,後續發生死亡結果。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>高風險家庭服務、現場傷勢辨識、第53條責任通報及兒保分流。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>支持性服務與保護性介入界線模糊;照顧者或旁人對傷勢的解釋壓過兒童當下狀態。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>當第一線已看到傷勢或不當對待,是否仍能只以家庭支持服務續處?誰必須覆核「不轉兒保」決定?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要第一線看見罰跪與傷勢後立即轉入兒保、檢視傷痕並啟動緊急保護,而不是繼續停留在支持性服務。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">責任通報</span><span class="case-reform-tag">兒保正確分流</span><span class="case-reform-tag">督導複核</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是兒保警訊是否被錯置於一般家庭服務、是否及時升級;本案行政缺失不能取代對陳尚潔具體作為義務與因果的刑事舉證。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/刑案資料待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=794&amp;s=6805" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正摘要</a></li><li><a href="https://cybsbox.cy.gov.tw/CYBSBoxSSL/edoc/download/45148" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院公布版調查資料</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>行政監督:</strong>監察院於2013年11月7日糾正南投縣政府與校方。公開行政資料著重通報、訪視與分流違失;本頁未取得可完整核對被告、罪名與審級的刑事判決,故不補寫刑度。</p><a class="procedure-source" href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=794&amp;s=6805" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正摘要</a></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 07案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2010">2010年</time><span>主管機關曾接獲家庭通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2012-10-19">2012.10.19</time><span>評估中度風險</span></li><li><time datetime="2012-11-12">2012.11.12</time><span>訪視見罰跪與傷勢</span></li><li><time datetime="2013-02-18">2013.02.18</time><span>上午獲知全身傷;傍晚送醫</span></li><li><time datetime="2013-02">2013.02</time><span>女童受虐死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2013-11-07">2013.11.07</time><span>監察院通過糾正</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://cybsbox.cy.gov.tw/CYBSBoxSSL/edoc/download/45148" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院公布版調查資料</a><p class="case-boundary">舊案適用規範與現行流程可能已有變動;本節只提取仍反覆出現的錯誤分流問題。</p></article>
CASE 08

Two-year-old boy, Tainan — death three months after returning home

Case summary

The child died shortly after reunification, raising questions about step-down plans, visit frequency and thresholds for renewed removal.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:The child died shortly after reunification, raising questions about step-down plans, visit frequency and thresholds for renewed removal.

By the time the system assembled its records, this child could no longer tell us what had happened. May we remember not a case number, but a life that should have been held, heard and allowed to grow up safely.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

刑事程序: 母親所涉案件判刑2年並已確定;同住男子經國民法官一審判刑18年,上訴後由高等法院臺南分院維持,最高法院於2025年12月駁回上訴而定讞。 行政監督: 監察院於2024年4月公布返家追蹤缺失。

Timeline
  1. 首次保護安置
  2. 結束安置、返家
  3. 送醫後死亡
  4. 監察院公布調查
  5. 最高法院駁回上訴、定讞
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="安置返家/死亡案" data-verification="刑事定讞/行政調查完成"><span class="case-no">CASE 08</span><span class="case-status">死亡案/監察院調查;刑案已有後續裁判</span><span class="case-type">安置返家/死亡案</span><h3>台南2歲男童案|安置返家三個月後死亡</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>男童曾接受一年多安置,返家後安排追蹤訪視;監察院調查顯示,面對照顧者拖延與迴避,實際接觸多在旅館大廳,未能充分進入居住環境確認安全,返家約三個月後死亡。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>保護安置、家庭重整、返家決策、至少一年追蹤及高頻率訪視。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>把訪視次數當成品質;沒有充分觀察生活環境與兒少和疑似施虐者的互動;新傷與迴避未觸發返家決策重開。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>返家條件是「完成服務」還是「風險已實質下降」?返家後哪些事件應立即重新召開安置評估?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要返家前的實質風險驗證,以及返家後能進入生活環境的不預約追蹤。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">返家門檻</span><span class="case-reform-tag">不預約訪視</span><span class="case-reform-tag">重新安置評估</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是返家後是否有加密訪視與退場條件;陳尚潔案處於出養等待及照顧安排脈絡,不能只以結果相似類推罪責。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>刑事定讞/行政調查完成</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202512090109.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">刑事裁判審級整理</a></li><li><a href="https://cybsbox.cy.gov.tw/CYBSBoxSSL/edoc/download/65970" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院公布版調查報告</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>刑事程序:</strong>母親所涉案件判刑2年並已確定;同住男子經國民法官一審判刑18年,上訴後由高等法院臺南分院維持,最高法院於2025年12月駁回上訴而定讞。<strong>行政監督:</strong>監察院於2024年4月公布返家追蹤缺失。</p><a class="procedure-source" href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202512090109.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">刑事裁判審級整理</a></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="歷史對照案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2022-04">2022.04</time><span>首次保護安置</span></li><li><time datetime="2023-07">2023.07</time><span>結束安置、返家</span></li><li><time datetime="2023-10-18">2023.10.18</time><span>送醫後死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2024-04-24">2024.04.24</time><span>監察院公布調查</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-12-04">2025.12.04</time><span>最高法院駁回上訴、定讞</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://cybsbox.cy.gov.tw/CYBSBoxSSL/edoc/download/65970" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院公布版調查報告</a><p class="case-boundary">返家本身不是錯誤;問題在於返家準備、風險驗證與後續安全監測是否足夠。</p></article>
CASE 09

Girl, Kaohsiung — abused again within a year of foster care

Case summary

Leaving foster care did not end the need for a monitored transition and a rapid route back to protection.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Leaving foster care did not end the need for a monitored transition and a rapid route back to protection.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

行政程序: 本案是返家機制的監察調查案例;監察院於2022年8月17日通過、翌日公布調查。現有官方摘要未提供可對應本案的完整刑事審判資料,因此時間軌聚焦安置、返家、再安置與行政檢討。

Timeline
  1. 進入寄養安置
  2. 結束寄養、返家
  3. 再受不當對待、重新安置
  4. 監察院通過調查
  5. 公布返家機制檢討
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="寄養返家/再安置" data-verification="行政調查/已重新安置"><span class="case-no">CASE 09</span><span class="case-status">返家後再受虐/監察院通案檢討</span><span class="case-type">寄養返家/再安置</span><h3>高雄女童案|離開寄養家庭後不到一年再度受虐</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>女童出生不久後由政府協助安置於寄養家庭,2歲返家,不到一年再度遭父母不當對待而重新安置。監察院據此檢視返家準備、追蹤輔導與原生家庭支持不足。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>寄養安置、家庭重整、返家評估、家庭維繫與再次安置。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>親職教育或形式性配合被當成家庭功能改善;對原生家庭支持與風險控制沒有轉成可觀察指標。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>返家決策應有哪些不得缺少的證據?照顧能力、支持網絡與兒少反應應由誰獨立確認?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要家庭團聚建立在照顧能力真的改善,而不是只完成課程或安置期滿。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">返家門檻</span><span class="case-reform-tag">家庭支持</span><span class="case-reform-tag">重新安置評估</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是離開安置後的追蹤、親見與安全緩衝;兩案照顧者、主管機關介入程度及可採措施不同。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>行政調查/已重新安置</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=24201" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院返家機制調查摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>行政程序:</strong>本案是返家機制的監察調查案例;監察院於2022年8月17日通過、翌日公布調查。現有官方摘要未提供可對應本案的完整刑事審判資料,因此時間軌聚焦安置、返家、再安置與行政檢討。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 09案件時間軌"><li><time>出生後不久</time><span>進入寄養安置</span></li><li><time>約2歲</time><span>結束寄養、返家</span></li><li><time>返家未滿1年</time><span>再受不當對待、重新安置</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-08-17">2022.08.17</time><span>監察院通過調查</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-08-18">2022.08.18</time><span>公布返家機制檢討</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=24201" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院返家機制調查摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">避免將「家庭團聚」與「立即返家」畫上等號;最佳利益要求安全且有支持的團聚。</p></article>
CASE 10

He child, Miaoli institution — death inside the last safety net

Case summary

A death inside residential care demonstrates that placement is not proof of safety and that independent inspection must continue.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A death inside residential care demonstrates that placement is not proof of safety and that independent inspection must continue.

By the time the system assembled its records, this child could no longer tell us what had happened. May we remember not a case number, but a life that should have been held, heard and allowed to grow up safely.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

刑事程序: 案發後涉案生活輔導員曾經檢方聲請羈押獲准;本頁未找到足以確認終局結果的法院公開判決,因此標示「刑案後續待核」。 行政程序: 地方政府裁罰與監察院糾正,和刑事有罪判決的目的、證明標準不同。

Timeline
  1. 院內先前出現不當管教警訊
  2. 何童受傷死亡
  3. 地方政府裁罰
  4. 監察院通過糾正
  5. 公布調查結果
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="機構安置/死亡案" data-verification="監察院糾正/刑案結果待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 10</span><span class="case-status">安置機構死亡案/監察院糾正</span><span class="case-type">機構安置/死亡案</span><h3>苗栗聖方濟育幼院何童案|最後一道防線內的死亡</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>受安置兒童在育幼院遭生活輔導人員不當管教,受傷後又未獲及時送醫而死亡。監察院指出,地方政府未落實機構查核,新竹縣亦未落實對安置兒童的個別輔導計畫。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>跨縣市委託安置、機構日常照顧、原主管機關個案訪視、所在地政府機構監督。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>委託安置後,送出縣市與機構所在地都以為對方會監督;先前不當管教警訊沒有轉成全面查核。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>誰應單獨會談院童、查閱申訴與傷勢紀錄?重大傷害的送醫與外部通報能否由機構自行判斷?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要能繞過機構、直接向外部求助的管道,以及受傷後不得延誤的送醫規則。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">機構獨立監督</span><span class="case-reform-tag">外部申訴</span><span class="case-reform-tag">強制送醫通報</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是安置機構內仍須獨立監督、異常即外部通報;陳尚潔並非機構內直接照顧者,注意義務及控制能力不可混同。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/刑案結果待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=796&amp;s=8154" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>刑事程序:</strong>案發後涉案生活輔導員曾經檢方聲請羈押獲准;本頁未找到足以確認終局結果的法院公開判決,因此標示「刑案後續待核」。<strong>行政程序:</strong>地方政府裁罰與監察院糾正,和刑事有罪判決的目的、證明標準不同。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 10案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2016-06-04">2016.06.04</time><span>院內先前出現不當管教警訊</span></li><li><time datetime="2016-10-09">2016.10.09</time><span>何童受傷死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2016-10-17">2016.10.17</time><span>地方政府裁罰</span></li><li><time datetime="2017-09-07">2017.09.07</time><span>監察院通過糾正</span></li><li><time datetime="2017-09-08">2017.09.08</time><span>公布調查結果</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=796&amp;s=8154" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">本案顯示「已安置」不能作為降低監督頻率或信任機構自我通報的理由。</p></article>
CASE 11

Judicial placement, Taitung — trust delayed reporting

Case summary

Reliance on a familiar institution reportedly delayed escalation, illustrating institutional betrayal and the need for external reporting routes.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Reliance on a familiar institution reportedly delayed escalation, illustrating institutional betrayal and the need for external reporting routes.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

刑事程序: 臺東地院以110年度侵訴字第5號判決機構主任合併執行4年;案件上訴後經最高法院發回。高等法院花蓮分院更審期間被告死亡,2025年4月1日作成不受理判決,並非實體無罪判決。 行政究責: 另有監察院追蹤及懲戒程序。

Timeline
  1. 性暴力行為期間
  2. 威脅、毆打與通報爭議
  3. 主管機關接獲正式通報
  4. 臺東地院一審判刑
  5. 最高法院發回更審
  6. 被告死亡,更審不受理
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="司法安置/性暴力" data-verification="刑事程序終結/行政追蹤"><span class="case-no">CASE 11</span><span class="case-status">司法安置機構性暴力/監察院持續追蹤</span><span class="case-type">司法安置/性暴力</span><h3>臺東司法安置機構案|信任關係延遲通報</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>監察院指出,受司法保護安置少年疑遭機構主任性侵害後,部分應負保護責任者因與機構主任的信賴關係而阻礙或延遲通報,形成「體制背叛」。地方政府後續對機構人員的調查與究責也被認為不足。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>法院司法安置、機構照顧、地方政府監督、兒保與性侵害通報。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>專業人員過度相信合作機構;兒少陳述被組織聲譽與既有關係壓低;申訴仍須經過可能涉案的體制。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>安置兒少能否不經機構直接向外部申訴?法院、送出縣市及所在地政府如何進行獨立訪視?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要法院、送出縣市與所在地政府都能進行不經機構安排的獨立訪視。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">機構獨立監督</span><span class="case-reform-tag">外部申訴</span><span class="case-reform-tag">司法安置追蹤</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是專業人員不能因信賴合作機構而降低查核;本案涉及司法安置與性暴力,不能直接類推陳尚潔案的犯罪構成。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>刑事程序終結/行政追蹤</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1888-732462-a1a78-1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">臺東地院一審說明</a></li><li><a href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202504010179.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">更審不受理報導</a></li><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=709&amp;s=25810" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院司法安置檢討</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>刑事程序:</strong>臺東地院以110年度侵訴字第5號判決機構主任合併執行4年;案件上訴後經最高法院發回。高等法院花蓮分院更審期間被告死亡,2025年4月1日作成不受理判決,並非實體無罪判決。<strong>行政究責:</strong>另有監察院追蹤及懲戒程序。</p><a class="procedure-source" href="https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1888-732462-a1a78-1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">臺東地院一審說明</a><a class="procedure-source" href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202504010179.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">更審不受理報導</a></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 11案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2020-04">2020.04–05</time><span>性暴力行為期間</span></li><li><time datetime="2020-08-24">2020.08.24</time><span>威脅、毆打與通報爭議</span></li><li><time datetime="2020-09-08">2020.09.08</time><span>主管機關接獲正式通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2022">2022年</time><span>臺東地院一審判刑</span></li><li><time>其後</time><span>最高法院發回更審</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-04-01">2025.04.01</time><span>被告死亡,更審不受理</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=709&amp;s=25810" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院司法安置檢討</a><p class="case-boundary">涉及性暴力的身分與細節均應最小化揭露;本節著重通報與監督制度。</p></article>
CASE 12

Foster home, Tainan — harmed by another placed child

Case summary

A child was harmed by another child in a foster home, exposing weaknesses in matching, supervision and post-incident protection for both children.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A child was harmed by another child in a foster home, exposing weaknesses in matching, supervision and post-incident protection for both children.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

少年事件程序: 寄養家庭中行為兒少由臺南地院作成訓誡保護處分;這是少年保護事件,不應表述為成人刑事定罪。 行政監督: 監察院於2019年12月17日糾正安置評估、通報與處遇缺失。

Timeline
  1. 原家庭已有保護令
  2. 受虐後緊急安置
  3. 進入寄養家庭
  4. 發現性侵害並通報
  5. 法院作成訓誡保護處分
  6. 監察院通過糾正
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="寄養安置/性侵害" data-verification="監察院糾正/刑事結果待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 12</span><span class="case-status">寄養安置內性侵害/監察院糾正</span><span class="case-type">寄養安置/性侵害</span><h3>台南寄養家庭案|被安置後又遭另一名兒少傷害</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>監察院調查一名緊急安置兒童在寄養家庭遭另一名寄養兒童性侵害案件,指出安置評估、事後通報、處置與後續對兩名兒少的保護均有缺失。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>緊急安置、寄養家庭兒少組合評估、照顧監督、性侵害通報與雙方兒少處遇。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>只評估「有沒有床位」,沒有充分評估同住兒少需求、年齡與風險;事件發生後又可能為維護安置關係而延遲外部處理。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>安置配對是否有動態風險評估?被害兒少與行為兒少是否都能立即獲得安全、治療及獨立權益代表?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要在安置配對前評估同住兒少風險,事件後也要同時保護被害與行為兒少。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">安置配對</span><span class="case-reform-tag">雙方兒少處遇</span><span class="case-reform-tag">獨立權益代表</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是安置配對與事件後通報必須獨立檢驗;陳尚潔案並非寄養家庭內兒少間事件,風險來源與可預見性不同。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/刑事結果待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=640&amp;s=15017" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p><strong>少年事件程序:</strong>寄養家庭中行為兒少由臺南地院作成訓誡保護處分;這是少年保護事件,不應表述為成人刑事定罪。<strong>行政監督:</strong>監察院於2019年12月17日糾正安置評估、通報與處遇缺失。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 12案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2017-11-17">2017.11.17前</time><span>原家庭已有保護令</span></li><li><time datetime="2018-03-11">2018.03.11</time><span>受虐後緊急安置</span></li><li><time datetime="2018-03-13">2018.03.13</time><span>進入寄養家庭</span></li><li><time datetime="2018-04-08">2018.04.08</time><span>發現性侵害並通報</span></li><li><time>其後</time><span>法院作成訓誡保護處分</span></li><li><time datetime="2019-12-17">2019.12.17</time><span>監察院通過糾正</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份、約齡或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=640&amp;s=15017" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院糾正案摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">兒少間性行為問題須依年齡、發展與具體情境專業評估,不應以成人犯罪標籤概括行為兒少。</p></article>
CASE 13

Tongtong, Nantou — health and network alerts did not find the child

Case summary

Health, vaccination, residence and welfare signals failed to create an effective search for a child who had disappeared from view.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Health, vaccination, residence and welfare signals failed to create an effective search for a child who had disappeared from view.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

刑案歷經一、二審及多次發回;最高法院於2024年11月維持更三審結果,同居人依傷害兒童致死等罪判刑17年10月定讞。行政面則由監察院納入社安網通案調查。

Timeline
  1. 公開裁判認定的施暴期間開始
  2. 女童死亡,後遭掩埋
  3. 監察院通過社安網調查
  4. 最高法院駁回上訴、定讞
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="原生家庭/失聯死亡" data-verification="刑事定讞/行政調查"><span class="case-no">CASE 13</span><span class="case-status">2020死亡案/刑事判決已定讞</span><span class="case-type">原生家庭/失聯死亡</span><h3>南投彤彤案|疫苗、通報與跨網絡預警都沒有找到孩子</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>4歲女童彤彤(化名)遭母親同居人長期施暴、餵食毒品後死亡並遭掩埋。監察院將案件列為社安網第一期仍反覆漏接的代表案例。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>六歲以下弱勢兒童主動關懷、預防接種追蹤、兒保通報、警政尋查、醫療整合與檢察早期介入。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>疫苗逾期與兒少行蹤不明未形成積極查訪;社政、衛政、警政各自持有部分風險,卻沒有共同確認孩子是否安全。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>當幼兒長期未接種、未就醫、未就學又無法親見時,是否應直接升級為跨機關尋查,而非分別結案?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要有人把疫苗逾期、未就醫、未就學與失聯合併成一個必須親見的警報。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">六歲主動關懷</span><span class="case-reform-tag">資料整合</span><span class="case-reform-tag">檢察早期介入</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是疫苗、戶籍、醫療及通報資料能否跨網絡找回失聯兒童;仍須另證陳尚潔是否能取得這些資料及依法負有何種追查權限。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>刑事定讞/行政調查</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=21978" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院社安網調查</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>刑案歷經一、二審及多次發回;最高法院於2024年11月維持更三審結果,同居人依傷害兒童致死等罪判刑17年10月定讞。行政面則由監察院納入社安網通案調查。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 13案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2020-02-14">2020.02.14起</time><span>公開裁判認定的施暴期間開始</span></li><li><time datetime="2020-06-07">2020.06.07</time><span>女童死亡,後遭掩埋</span></li><li><time datetime="2021-11-17">2021.11.17</time><span>監察院通過社安網調查</span></li><li><time datetime="2024-11-04">2024.11.04</time><span>最高法院駁回上訴、定讞</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=21978" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院社安網調查</a><p class="case-boundary">刑事定讞確認的是個別行為人責任;監察院調查用於檢視預警與跨網絡制度,不互相替代。</p></article>
CASE 14

Taichung child death — four reports without opening a case

Case summary

Four child-protection reports were assessed without opening a protective case, showing the danger of evaluating each report in isolation.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Four child-protection reports were assessed without opening a protective case, showing the danger of evaluating each report in isolation.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

監察院調查屬行政監督,指出臺中市政府兒保評估、SDM安全計畫、督導與社衛整合缺失。官方摘要未將本案表述為已完成刑事定罪的虐童案。

Timeline
  1. 龍鳳胎早產出生
  2. 醫務及脆家社工數度通報
  3. 女嬰死亡
  4. 監察院通過調查
  5. 公布調查結果
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="脆弱家庭/嬰兒死亡" data-verification="監察院糾正/非刑事定罪結論"><span class="case-no">CASE 14</span><span class="case-status">2021死亡案/監察院已糾正</span><span class="case-type">脆弱家庭/嬰兒死亡</span><h3>台中李婦女兒猝死案|四次兒保通報仍未開案</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>居無定所的母親生下早產龍鳳胎,家庭同時有家暴、精神健康、醫療照顧與失聯風險。女嬰在脆弱家庭服務及多次兒保通報期間死亡。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>遊民服務、成人保護、脆弱家庭、兒童保護、醫務社工、精神衛生與高風險孕產婦追蹤。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>兒保調查只看單次通報,沒有整合歷年處遇;風險評為高度卻未提出安全計畫,也未啟動三次以上通報的專家決策會議。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>一年內反覆通報三次以上時,重大案件會議與督導複核能否由系統自動觸發,避免單一承辦人承擔全部升級判斷?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要四次通報後不再重複低估,而是立即召開重大案件決策與提出安全計畫。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">三次通報強制複判</span><span class="case-reform-tag">SDM安全計畫</span><span class="case-reform-tag">督導複核</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是多次通報不應被逐件切割,應做跨期累積評估;不能用本案未開案的行政判斷取代陳尚潔案的個別刑事證據。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/非刑事定罪結論</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=24209" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院調查摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>監察院調查屬行政監督,指出臺中市政府兒保評估、SDM安全計畫、督導與社衛整合缺失。官方摘要未將本案表述為已完成刑事定罪的虐童案。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 14案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2020-10">2020.10</time><span>龍鳳胎早產出生</span></li><li><time>其後</time><span>醫務及脆家社工數度通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2021-01-21">2021.01.21</time><span>女嬰死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-08-17">2022.08.17</time><span>監察院通過調查</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-08-18">2022.08.18</time><span>公布調查結果</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=24209" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院調查摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">「猝死」不等於已證明有人施虐;本案重點是多次通報、高度風險及安全計畫未落實。</p></article>
CASE 15

Out-of-school girl, Taoyuan — delayed tracing revealed a death

Case summary

Delayed school-enrolment tracing revealed a child death and gaps between education, household registration, police and welfare systems.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Delayed school-enrolment tracing revealed a child death and gaps between education, household registration, police and welfare systems.

By the time the system assembled its records, this child could no longer tell us what had happened. May we remember not a case number, but a life that should have been held, heard and allowed to grow up safely.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

監察院於2023年9月通過調查並糾正衛福部社家署及桃園市政府相關單位。父母所涉刑事責任應依個別偵審資料認定,行政調查不替代法院判決。

Timeline
  1. 女童戶籍逕遷
  2. 脆家平台送警政協尋
  3. 社工提醒學校家庭失蹤
  4. 學校申請警政協尋
  5. 追查揭露幼兒死亡與棄屍
  6. 監察院通過調查
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="未入學/家庭失聯" data-verification="監察院糾正/刑事結果待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 15</span><span class="case-status">2021曝光/監察院已糾正</span><span class="case-type">未入學/家庭失聯</span><h3>桃園未入學女童家庭案|協尋延宕才揭開幼兒死亡</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>一名已屆學齡女童遲未註冊入學,警政追查後才發現父母涉嫌殺害家中排行第三的幼子、埋屍並續領育兒津貼。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>六歲以下主動關懷、逕遷戶籍資料、脆弱家庭服務、強迫入學通報、警政協尋及育兒津貼查核。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>逕遷戶籍名單未匯入平台;學校已知女童應入學未入學與家庭失蹤,仍延後通報及協尋,跨系統資料沒有及時形成共同警報。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>未入學、戶籍逕遷、逾期接種與社政失聯同時出現時,能否立即由單一窗口持有案件直到親見所有手足?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要未入學、戶籍逕遷與社政失聯在同一天被看成同一個兒少安全事件。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">六歲主動關懷</span><span class="case-reform-tag">警政協尋</span><span class="case-reform-tag">跨系統資料整合</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是未入學、協尋與戶政警訊是否形成閉環;陳尚潔案的服務階段、已知資訊與可採措施並不相同。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/刑事結果待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=795&amp;s=27057" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院兩案調查與糾正摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>監察院於2023年9月通過調查並糾正衛福部社家署及桃園市政府相關單位。父母所涉刑事責任應依個別偵審資料認定,行政調查不替代法院判決。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 15案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2017-03-15">2017.03.15</time><span>女童戶籍逕遷</span></li><li><time datetime="2021-05-04">2021.05.04</time><span>脆家平台送警政協尋</span></li><li><time datetime="2021-08-24">2021.08.24</time><span>社工提醒學校家庭失蹤</span></li><li><time datetime="2021-11-02">2021.11.02</time><span>學校申請警政協尋</span></li><li><time datetime="2021-11">2021.11</time><span>追查揭露幼兒死亡與棄屍</span></li><li><time datetime="2023-09-19">2023.09.19</time><span>監察院通過調查</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=795&amp;s=27057" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院兩案調查與糾正摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">本案以監察院確認的通報、派案與協尋缺口為主;未公開的幼兒身分及施虐細節不予擴散。</p></article>
CASE 16

Three-month-old infant, Taoyuan — other children not confirmed

Case summary

Family contact did not include direct confirmation of every child living in the household.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Family contact did not include direct confirmation of every child living in the household.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

監察院於2023年9月將本案與另一桃園案件一併調查、糾正相關機關。刑事案件的被告、罪名與裁判結果仍須另依法院資料核對。

Timeline
  1. 男嬰死亡
  2. 社工因另一名兒少安置四度接觸案父
  3. 同住女童出生
  4. 女童受虐報警,追查揭露男嬰死亡
  5. 監察院通過調查
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="手足查核/嬰兒死亡" data-verification="監察院糾正/刑事結果待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 16</span><span class="case-status">2022曝光/監察院已糾正</span><span class="case-type">手足查核/嬰兒死亡</span><h3>桃園3月大男嬰案|社工接觸父親四次仍未確認其他孩子</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>警方因同住女童遭不當對待而追查,發現一名3月大男嬰早於2020年死亡並遭棄屍,家長其後仍續領育兒津貼。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>委託安置文件、脆弱家庭、精神照護列管、疫苗催注、跨縣市社政聯繫、警政追查及津貼死亡比對。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>社工為另一名孩子的委託安置四度接觸父親,卻未實地查明戶內其他兒少;家長簽署拒絕接種後,公衛與社政也未持續親見。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>處理同一照顧者任何一名兒少的安置、受虐或失聯時,是否必須建立完整手足名冊並逐一確認生存與安全?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要每次處理同一照顧者的案件時,都確認戶內每一名兒少仍然存在且安全。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">手足安全評估</span><span class="case-reform-tag">親見兒少</span><span class="case-reform-tag">跨縣市查核</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是接觸家庭時必須確認所有同住兒少並親見;兩案承辦角色、委託範圍及對家庭的法定權限需分開判斷。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>監察院糾正/刑事結果待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=795&amp;s=27057" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院兩案調查與糾正摘要</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>監察院於2023年9月將本案與另一桃園案件一併調查、糾正相關機關。刑事案件的被告、罪名與裁判結果仍須另依法院資料核對。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 16案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2020-07-15">2020.07.15</time><span>男嬰死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2020-11-20">2020.11.20後</time><span>社工因另一名兒少安置四度接觸案父</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-03-21">2022.03.21</time><span>同住女童出生</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-11">2022.11</time><span>女童受虐報警,追查揭露男嬰死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2023-09-19">2023.09.19</time><span>監察院通過調查</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=795&amp;s=27057" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院兩案調查與糾正摘要</a><p class="case-boundary">本案與CASE 15是不同家庭、不同刑事案件;只有監察院的行政調查合併檢視共同制度缺口。</p></article>
CASE 17

Fang child, Taoyuan disability institution — abnormality seen, rescue delayed

Case summary

Staff observed abnormal conditions inside an institution, but outside medical help and reporting were not activated quickly enough.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Staff observed abnormal conditions inside an institution, but outside medical help and reporting were not activated quickly enough.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

桃園市政府曾進行行政調查及裁罰;監察委員於2022年10月申請自動調查。本頁未取得足以逐審級核對的公開終局刑事判決,故不補列刑度。

Timeline
  1. 機構陸續出現不當對待指控
  2. 方童出現異常、送醫
  3. 男童死亡
  4. 家屬與民代公開說明
  5. 監委申請自動調查
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="身障機構/死亡案" data-verification="行政調查/刑案結果待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 17</span><span class="case-status">2022身障機構死亡案/程序資料待續核</span><span class="case-type">身障機構/死亡案</span><h3>桃園身障機構方童案|看見異常卻延誤外部救援</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>公開資料指出,服務0至6歲身心障礙兒童的機構發生多名兒童疑遭不當對待,其中5歲自閉症男童送醫後死亡。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>身障福利機構日間照顧、教保監督、緊急送醫、機構內不當對待通報與地方政府查核。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>兒童難以清楚表達、機構掌握第一手紀錄,若家屬與外部監督者無法即時取得影像及傷勢資訊,風險可能被封閉在機構內。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>身障幼兒出現意識或肢體異常時,能否建立不得由機構自行延後的送醫與外部通報門檻?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要機構外的人能即時看見異常、取得紀錄並直接決定送醫與通報。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">機構獨立監督</span><span class="case-reform-tag">強制送醫通報</span><span class="case-reform-tag">身障兒少支持</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是機構內看見異常後是否立即送醫、通報及保存紀錄;陳尚潔不是直接照顧或醫療決策者,控制能力不同。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>行政調查/刑案結果待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=25473" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院自動調查說明</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>桃園市政府曾進行行政調查及裁罰;監察委員於2022年10月申請自動調查。本頁未取得足以逐審級核對的公開終局刑事判決,故不補列刑度。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 17案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2021">2021年起</time><span>機構陸續出現不當對待指控</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-01-26">2022.01.26</time><span>方童出現異常、送醫</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-01-27">2022.01.27</time><span>男童死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-10-05">2022.10.05</time><span>家屬與民代公開說明</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-10-11">2022.10.11</time><span>監委申請自動調查</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=125&amp;s=25473" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">監察院自動調查說明</a><p class="case-boundary">監察院申請調查與地方裁罰不等於刑事有罪;個別人員責任仍應依偵審資料判斷。</p></article>
CASE 18

Foster child death, New Taipei — placement still needs independent oversight

Case summary

A foster placement still requires independent visits, injury checks and a complaint route outside the caregiver’s control.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A foster placement still requires independent visits, injury checks and a complaint route outside the caregiver’s control.

Survival does not close the page on harm. Delayed protection can become a weight carried for life; the child is owed safety, recovery and lasting support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

士林地檢署依成年人故意對兒童傷害致死、凌虐致死等罪起訴;案件進入士林地院國民法官程序。本頁截至更新日未引用到終局判決。

Timeline
  1. 女童進入寄養家庭
  2. 失去意識、送醫後死亡
  3. 檢方偵辦並起訴
  4. 法院處理國民法官程序爭議
  5. 審理結果待法院公開資料
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="寄養家庭/死亡案" data-verification="已起訴/法院審理中"><span class="case-no">CASE 18</span><span class="case-status">2022寄養死亡案/國民法官程序</span><span class="case-type">寄養家庭/死亡案</span><h3>新北寄養女童死亡案|進入寄養家庭後仍需獨立監督</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>未滿2歲女童由社會局轉介寄養後,在寄養家庭中被發現多處傷勢,2022年5月失去意識送醫後死亡;寄養照顧者遭檢方起訴。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>地方政府轉介、寄養家庭配對與訪視、受傷辨識、送醫、外部通報及刑事偵查。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>寄養家庭同時照顧姊妹,日常狀態主要由照顧者掌握;若訪視沒有單獨觀察孩子身體與互動,安置本身可能形成新的封閉風險。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>寄養兒少的傷勢、發燒與行為改變,應由哪個獨立節點定期交叉確認?手足是否應分別完成安全評估?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要獨立訪視者分別觀察姊妹、傷勢與互動,不能只接受寄養照顧者的說明。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">寄養獨立監督</span><span class="case-reform-tag">手足安全評估</span><span class="case-reform-tag">傷勢跨時點比對</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是寄養安置不能取代外部訪視與傷勢查核;陳尚潔案的準收養照顧安排、契約及主管機關角色須依證據另判。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>已起訴/法院審理中</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://news.ttv.com.tw/news/11403130033300L" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">國民法官程序報導</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>士林地檢署依成年人故意對兒童傷害致死、凌虐致死等罪起訴;案件進入士林地院國民法官程序。本頁截至更新日未引用到終局判決。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 18案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2022-04">2022.04起</time><span>女童進入寄養家庭</span></li><li><time datetime="2022-05-24">2022.05.24</time><span>失去意識、送醫後死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2023">2023年</time><span>檢方偵辦並起訴</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-03-13">2025.03.13</time><span>法院處理國民法官程序爭議</span></li><li><time>截至2026.09</time><span>審理結果待法院公開資料</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://news.ttv.com.tw/news/11403130033300L" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">國民法官程序報導</a><p class="case-boundary">被告否認犯行,案件未有可引用的終局判決前,應使用「遭起訴」「法院審理中」,不得表述為已定罪。</p></article>
CASE 19

Five-year-old foster child, Hsinchu — delayed care is a placement issue

Case summary

Delayed medical treatment in foster care is also a placement-quality and oversight failure, not only an individual caregiving issue.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Delayed medical treatment in foster care is also a placement-quality and oversight failure, not only an individual caregiving issue.

Survival does not close the page on harm. Delayed protection can become a weight carried for life; the child is owed safety, recovery and lasting support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

新竹地院依成年人故意對兒童犯傷害罪判寄養父有期徒刑1年。公開報導未完整呈現後續上訴結果,故標示為一審。

Timeline
  1. 兒童由家扶轉介寄養
  2. 頭部重傷、延遲至晚間送醫
  3. 公開一審判決結果
  4. 上訴狀態待核
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="寄養家庭/重傷案" data-verification="一審判決/上訴狀態待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 19</span><span class="case-status">2023寄養重傷案/一審判決</span><span class="case-type">寄養家庭/重傷案</span><h3>新竹5歲寄養童案|延誤送醫也是安置品質問題</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>寄養父被法院認定在照顧期間造成孩子多處傷害,並在兒童頭部受創、意識不清後延遲送醫,留下嚴重後遺症。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>寄養家庭審查、家扶轉介、個案訪視、傷勢與延誤送醫辨識、地方政府及法院監督。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>寄養資格審查著重進入門檻,但孩子入住後的壓力、管教方式與就醫決策若缺乏獨立監督,風險仍可能累積。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>寄養兒少重大傷勢除刑事通報外,是否應立即啟動其他同住兒少安全檢查與寄養資格暫停?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要重大傷勢後立即送醫,並同步檢查同住兒少與暫停寄養資格。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">寄養獨立監督</span><span class="case-reform-tag">強制送醫通報</span><span class="case-reform-tag">資格即時停權</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是延誤送醫、機構說法與客觀傷勢需要交叉查證;不可把直接照顧者的即時救助義務等同社工的專業查核義務。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>一審判決/上訴狀態待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://udn.com/news/story/7321/9177516" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">新竹地院判決報導</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>新竹地院依成年人故意對兒童犯傷害罪判寄養父有期徒刑1年。公開報導未完整呈現後續上訴結果,故標示為一審。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 19案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2022-05">2022.05</time><span>兒童由家扶轉介寄養</span></li><li><time datetime="2023-02-01">2023.02.01</time><span>頭部重傷、延遲至晚間送醫</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-12-02">2025.12.02</time><span>公開一審判決結果</span></li><li><time>其後</time><span>上訴狀態待核</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://udn.com/news/story/7321/9177516" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">新竹地院判決報導</a><p class="case-boundary">一審判決仍可能上訴;本卡只陳述法院已公開認定的部分,不延伸推論未被判決確認的長期施虐細節。</p></article>
CASE 20

Two-year-old foster child, Kaohsiung — preschool became the outside alert

Case summary

A preschool’s observation became the outside detection point, showing why education and welfare alerts must be joined.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:A preschool’s observation became the outside detection point, showing why education and welfare alerts must be joined.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

高雄地院依成年人故意對兒童犯傷害罪判處5月徒刑;報導明載全案可上訴。行政上的寄養資格與機構責任須另依主管機關資料判斷。

Timeline
  1. 開始提供幼童寄養服務
  2. 幼童出現多處傷勢
  3. 幼兒園發現、送醫並通報
  4. 高雄地院一審判刑5月
  5. 可上訴
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="寄養家庭/傷害案" data-verification="一審判決/可上訴"><span class="case-no">CASE 20</span><span class="case-status">2022寄養傷害案/一審可上訴</span><span class="case-type">寄養家庭/傷害案</span><h3>高雄2歲寄養童受傷案|幼兒園成為外部發現節點</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>2歲多幼童在寄養家庭生活期間出現額頭、頸部與手臂傷勢,幼兒園老師發現後送醫並通報,法院就部分傷勢區分意外與故意傷害。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>寄養家庭服務、幼兒園觀察、醫療鑑定、責任通報、行政查核與刑事審判。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>若沒有幼兒園這個外部節點,幼童傷勢可能只剩寄養照顧者的單一解釋;替代照顧仍需要跨場域交叉驗證。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>寄養兒少未就學、請假或長期離開外部視線時,主管機關應如何補上獨立觀察?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要幼兒園、醫療與寄養訪視共同保留傷勢紀錄,形成第二條外部保護線。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">寄養獨立監督</span><span class="case-reform-tag">跨場域通報</span><span class="case-reform-tag">傷勢紀錄</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是幼兒園等外部節點提供的新警訊是否被整合與回應;陳尚潔案須另查她實際收到何種訊息及何時收到。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>一審判決/可上訴</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202512050114.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">中央社法院判決報導</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>高雄地院依成年人故意對兒童犯傷害罪判處5月徒刑;報導明載全案可上訴。行政上的寄養資格與機構責任須另依主管機關資料判斷。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 20案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2022">2022年</time><span>開始提供幼童寄養服務</span></li><li><time>照顧期間</time><span>幼童出現多處傷勢</span></li><li><time>其後</time><span>幼兒園發現、送醫並通報</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-12-05">2025.12.05</time><span>高雄地院一審判刑5月</span></li><li><time>其後</time><span>可上訴</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202512050114.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">中央社法院判決報導</a><p class="case-boundary">法院對不同傷勢分別認定意外與故意,不能把全部傷勢概括為施虐;一審判決仍可上訴。</p></article>
CASE 21

Six-month-old infant, Longtan — a licence is not a substitute for oversight

Case summary

Formal childcare credentials did not remove the need for continuing, risk-based supervision.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Formal childcare credentials did not remove the need for continuing, risk-based supervision.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

桃園地院一審合併應執行8年6月;臺灣高等法院於2026年8月駁回上訴、維持原刑。公開資料尚未確認是否已因未上訴而定讞。

Timeline
  1. 開始受託照顧
  2. 第一次經判決認定的傷勢
  3. 頭部重傷、送醫
  4. 治療後死亡
  5. 二審維持8年6月
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="居家托育/死亡案" data-verification="二審判決/定讞狀態待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 21</span><span class="case-status">2019保母托育死亡案/二審判決</span><span class="case-type">居家托育/死亡案</span><h3>桃園龍潭6月大男嬰案|有證照不等於風險不需監督</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>領有證照的居家保母自2019年6月照顧男嬰,照顧期間出現多次傷勢;男嬰10月頭部重傷,治療近一個月後死亡。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>居家托育登記、托育訪視、家長交接觀察、傷勢與延誤送醫、刑事偵查及審判。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>先前臉部瘀傷未形成跨時點傷勢紀錄;最後一次重傷後仍由家長接送就醫,顯示托育場所緊急處置也需檢視。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>居托訪視是否能取得孩子傷勢、就醫及家長反映的共同紀錄,並對反覆傷勢啟動不預約訪視?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要家長反映與反覆瘀傷進入共同風險紀錄,並觸發不預約訪視。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">居托監督</span><span class="case-reform-tag">不預約訪視</span><span class="case-reform-tag">緊急送醫</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是證照或媒合資格不能取代持續監督與親見;兩案托育、出養與兒保法制以及監督主體均不同。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>二審判決/定讞狀態待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%A1%83%E5%9C%92%E6%83%A1%E4%BF%9D%E6%AF%8D%E8%99%90%E6%89%936%E6%9C%88%E5%AC%B0%E8%87%B4%E6%AD%BB-%E4%BA%8C%E5%AF%A9%E4%BB%8D%E5%88%A48%E5%B9%B4%E5%8D%8A-064900267.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">二審判決報導</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>桃園地院一審合併應執行8年6月;臺灣高等法院於2026年8月駁回上訴、維持原刑。公開資料尚未確認是否已因未上訴而定讞。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 21案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2019-06-03">2019.06.03</time><span>開始受託照顧</span></li><li><time datetime="2019-08-14">2019.08.14</time><span>第一次經判決認定的傷勢</span></li><li><time datetime="2019-10-08">2019.10.08</time><span>頭部重傷、送醫</span></li><li><time datetime="2019-11-06">2019.11.06</time><span>治療後死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-08-24">2026.08.24</time><span>二審維持8年6月</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%A1%83%E5%9C%92%E6%83%A1%E4%BF%9D%E6%AF%8D%E8%99%90%E6%89%936%E6%9C%88%E5%AC%B0%E8%87%B4%E6%AD%BB-%E4%BA%8C%E5%AF%A9%E4%BB%8D%E5%88%A48%E5%B9%B4%E5%8D%8A-064900267.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">二審判決報導</a><p class="case-boundary">本案二審判決與剴剴案的事實、照顧安排及責任主體均不同,只能用於比較居托監督節點。</p></article>
CASE 22

Two-year-old boy, Tucheng — no safety buffer after return

Case summary

After the child returned to parental care, the protection system lacked a sufficient transition buffer and intensified follow-up.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:After the child returned to parental care, the protection system lacked a sufficient transition buffer and intensified follow-up.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

新北地檢署於2025年6月起訴;新北地院國民法官法庭於2026年3月6日判同住男子無期徒刑、生母19年。案件已進入二審程序。

Timeline
  1. 男童由母親接回同住
  2. 嚴重暴力事件
  3. 住院後死亡
  4. 檢方起訴
  5. 國民法官一審判決
  6. 二審開庭
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="親屬照顧轉換/死亡案" data-verification="一審判決/二審上訴中"><span class="case-no">CASE 22</span><span class="case-status">2025死亡案/二審上訴中</span><span class="case-type">親屬照顧轉換/死亡案</span><h3>新北土城2歲男童案|孩子回到母親身邊後沒有安全緩衝</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>男童原與外祖父母同住,2025年初由母親接回與同住男子生活,短期內遭受嚴重暴力並延誤救醫,住院後死亡。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>親屬照顧轉換、家庭暴力風險、醫療辨識、警政偵查、國民法官審判與被害家屬支持。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>照顧場所與主要照顧者快速改變時,若沒有正式轉銜與安全追蹤,孩子可能在親屬照顧與原生家庭間失去外部視線。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>兒童從穩定親屬照顧轉回高風險家庭時,哪些情況應啟動過渡訪視與支持,而不是等到新通報?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要從親屬照顧轉回原家庭時有安全緩衝,而不是直到新的傷害發生才介入。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">照顧轉銜</span><span class="case-reform-tag">家庭暴力篩檢</span><span class="case-reform-tag">親屬照顧支持</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是返家或交還照顧後應有安全緩衝、追蹤與再評估;陳尚潔案並非同一返家決策鏈,不能以此推定因果。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>一審判決/二審上訴中</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202603060308.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">中央社一審判決報導</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>新北地檢署於2025年6月起訴;新北地院國民法官法庭於2026年3月6日判同住男子無期徒刑、生母19年。案件已進入二審程序。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 22案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2025-02">2025.02</time><span>男童由母親接回同住</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-02-17">2025.02.17</time><span>嚴重暴力事件</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-03-24">2025.03.24</time><span>住院後死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2025-06">2025.06</time><span>檢方起訴</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-03-06">2026.03.06</time><span>國民法官一審判決</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-06-25">2026.06.25</time><span>二審開庭</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202603060308.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">中央社一審判決報導</a><p class="case-boundary">一審判決不是確定判決;二審程序進行中時,仍應分別標示被告、罪名與上訴狀態。</p></article>
CASE 23

Five-year-old girl, Taoyuan — no prior report does not mean no risk

Case summary

The absence of earlier reports obscured chronic warning signs in growth, nutrition, health care and visibility to public systems.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:The absence of earlier reports obscured chronic warning signs in growth, nutrition, health care and visibility to public systems.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

父親經一審判刑9年10月;臺灣高等法院於2019年3月仍依傷害致死罪維持9年10月。母親及其他程序結果須以完整裁判核對,本頁不自行補述。

Timeline
  1. 女童送醫後死亡
  2. 父親聲押、母親交保
  3. 父親判刑9年10月
  4. 二審維持9年10月
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="原生家庭/長期隔離" data-verification="二審判決/終局狀態待核"><span class="case-no">CASE 23</span><span class="case-status">2017死亡案/二審判決</span><span class="case-type">原生家庭/長期隔離</span><h3>桃園5歲9公斤女童案|沒有通報史,不代表沒有長期風險</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>5歲女童死亡時體重僅9公斤且有多處新舊傷。社會局當時表示家庭沒有家暴通報紀錄、未列高風險家庭,案件直到送醫才進入保護與刑事系統。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>社區與醫療早期辨識、兒童發展與營養監測、責任通報、手足安全評估及刑事審判。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>沒有既有通報被誤解為沒有風險;極端低體重與長期傷勢可能未曾被醫療、教育或社區節點有效看見。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>未就學、少就醫或與外界隔離的學齡前兒童,應透過哪些資料交叉比對主動確認安全?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要未就學、少就醫與極端低體重被主動辨識,不能因沒有通報史而消失。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade b">B級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">六歲主動關懷</span><span class="case-reform-tag">醫療教育通報</span><span class="case-reform-tag">手足安全評估</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是沒有既往通報仍應回應成長、就醫與外觀異常;陳尚潔案是否已有足以升級的具體警訊,仍以卷證及審級認定為準。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>二審判決/終局狀態待核</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>B級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://tw.yahoo.com/movies/%E5%A5%B3%E7%AB%A5%E8%99%90%E6%AD%BB%E5%88%A4%E7%88%B69%E5%B9%B410%E6%9C%88-%E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%E5%BB%BA%E8%AD%B0%E6%B3%95%E5%8B%99%E9%83%A8%E9%80%9F%E4%BF%AE%E6%B3%95-053207095.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">二審結果</a></li><li><a href="https://news.pts.org.tw/article/380167" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">公視案發與偵查報導</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>父親經一審判刑9年10月;臺灣高等法院於2019年3月仍依傷害致死罪維持9年10月。母親及其他程序結果須以完整裁判核對,本頁不自行補述。</p><a class="procedure-source" href="https://tw.yahoo.com/movies/%E5%A5%B3%E7%AB%A5%E8%99%90%E6%AD%BB%E5%88%A4%E7%88%B69%E5%B9%B410%E6%9C%88-%E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%E5%BB%BA%E8%AD%B0%E6%B3%95%E5%8B%99%E9%83%A8%E9%80%9F%E4%BF%AE%E6%B3%95-053207095.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">二審結果</a></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 23案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2017-12-17">2017.12.17</time><span>女童送醫後死亡</span></li><li><time datetime="2017-12-19">2017.12.19</time><span>父親聲押、母親交保</span></li><li><time>一審</time><span>父親判刑9年10月</span></li><li><time datetime="2019-03-13">2019.03.13</time><span>二審維持9年10月</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://news.pts.org.tw/article/380167" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">公視案發與偵查報導</a><p class="case-boundary">媒體所稱「虐死」仍須回到法院判決罪名;本案二審依傷害致死判刑,並非所有公開指控均獲法院採認。</p></article>
CASE 24

Celebrity preschool, Keelung — how group mistreatment stayed hidden

Case summary

Alleged group mistreatment remained hidden, underscoring confidential complaints, child-sensitive interviewing and independent evidence preservation.

The child’s outcome — and what we must remember

Outcome recorded in public sources:Alleged group mistreatment remained hidden, underscoring confidential complaints, child-sensitive interviewing and independent evidence preservation.

A case need not end in death for the harm to be grave. Every expression of fear or plea for help is a life signal requiring an immediate response and sustained support.

This is a human reflection based on public information. Facts, responsibility and procedural status remain governed by the original records and judgments.
Judicial / administrative record

基隆市政府於2026年7月完成第二階段行政調查,廢止幼兒園設立許可並裁罰相關人員;基隆地檢署另進行搜索、約談與交保程序,刑案尚未判決。

Timeline
  1. 家長陸續揭露不當對待
  2. 檢警約談,部分人員交保
  3. 市府公布調查、廢止設立許可
  4. 58名幼兒依家長意願協助轉置
  5. 刑事偵查中
Comparison with Chen Shang-jie

The comparison tests direct contact, verification, record integration, supervision and escalation. It does not transfer guilt: authority, information, foreseeability, causation and the stage of proceedings must be proved in Chen’s own case.

Legal limit

Another case can reveal a system pattern; it cannot prove Chen Shang-jie’s criminal liability. The appellate court and the record control.

Sources and verification
Full original dossier (Traditional Chinese)
<article class="case-study" data-case-type="幼兒園/集體不當對待" data-verification="行政裁罰/刑事偵查中"><span class="case-no">CASE 24</span><span class="case-status">2026幼兒園案/刑事偵查中</span><span class="case-type">幼兒園/集體不當對待</span><h3>基隆名人幼兒園案|集體不當對待如何長期隱藏</h3><p><b class="case-label">案件簡述</b>2026年多名教保人員被指在幼兒園內不當對待幼童。市府第二階段調查認定違法情節重大,廢止設立許可並裁罰;檢警另案偵辦。</p><dl><dt>保護路徑</dt><dd>幼兒園內部管理、家長申訴、影像保全、教育行政調查、兒保通報、幼兒轉置與刑事偵查。</dd><dt>可能漏接</dt><dd>若負責人同時掌握管理與通報權,第一線人員、家長與幼兒可能缺少能繞過機構的外部申訴管道;群體事件也可能被拆成個別管教問題。</dd><dt>制度追問</dt><dd>多名幼兒或不同班級反映相似情況時,何時應從單一申訴升級為全園影像保全與系統性調查?</dd></dl><div class="child-need"><b>孩子當時需要的保護</b><p>需要可繞過園方的申訴管道;多人出現相似反映時,立即升級全園調查。</p></div><div class="case-meta-row"><span class="source-grade a">A級來源</span><span class="case-reform-tag">外部申訴</span><span class="case-reform-tag">全園影像保全</span><span class="case-reform-tag">幼兒轉置</span></div><div class="chen-comparison"><b>與陳尚潔案的責任對照</b><p>可比較的是集體環境中的兒少陳述、家長反映與影像證據如何進入外部申訴;幼兒園監管與出養社工職責不可相互替代。</p><small>比較用途:檢驗制度與專業義務;不得以他案結果推定本案有罪。</small></div><details class="case-source-audit"><summary>本案主要來源與查核狀態</summary><div><p><b>程序狀態:</b>行政裁罰/刑事偵查中</p><p><b>來源層級:</b>A級來源</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.klcg.gov.tw/tw/klcg1/3168-318874.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">基隆市政府行政調查結果</a></li></ul><small>最後查核:2026年9月11日。只表示本頁已核對到的公開程序,不替代裁判原本,也不表示未列程序不存在。</small></div></details><details class="case-dossier"><summary>展開年份、司法程序與時間軌</summary><div class="case-dossier-body"><div class="case-procedure"><b>司法/行政程序</b><p>基隆市政府於2026年7月完成第二階段行政調查,廢止幼兒園設立許可並裁罰相關人員;基隆地檢署另進行搜索、約談與交保程序,刑案尚未判決。</p></div><b class="timeline-title">案件時間軌</b><ol class="case-timebar" aria-label="CASE 24案件時間軌"><li><time datetime="2026">2026年</time><span>家長陸續揭露不當對待</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-07-07">2026.07.07</time><span>檢警約談,部分人員交保</span></li><li><time datetime="2026-07-08">2026.07.08</time><span>市府公布調查、廢止設立許可</span></li><li><time>其後</time><span>58名幼兒依家長意願協助轉置</span></li><li><time>截至2026.09</time><span>刑事偵查中</span></li></ol><p class="timeline-note">日期依公開資料整理;月份或「其後」代表原始來源未公開到日。程序狀態截至2026年9月9日。</p></div></details><a href="https://www.klcg.gov.tw/tw/klcg1/3168-318874.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">基隆市政府行政調查結果</a><p class="case-boundary">行政認定、裁罰與廢照不等於刑事有罪;刑事被告在法院判決確定前仍受無罪推定保障。</p></article>

International comparison and reform / 国際比較と制度改革

The full case dossiers above preserve the verified procedural record and source links. Comparative law is used to test statutory duty, foreseeability, causation and institutional accountability—not to import a foreign sentence mechanically.

Source policy

Every case keeps its direct source links and dated procedural timeline. News reports identify leads; judgments, court releases, Control Yuan findings and government records control where available. Unknown facts remain marked as unknown.