第五章 研究結果與建議
第四節 研究建議
團體監督（Group supervision）意旨多個家庭一同進行會面。團體在相對人 處遇方案中本來就為常用之工作方式，藉由團體工作介入相對人，能讓相對人獲
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
質，多個案件同時參與會面增加了社工監督上的壓力（Tutty, Barry, Barlow, and Roy, 2006）。故運作團體會面，會面中心本身的案件即須有一定的數量，且在選 案上應以危機性較低、已適應會面的案家為主。或許在實際操作上，團體會面可 作為一對一會面不同的變化。透過活動或節日的方式，增加團體的安排。
參、 司法文件的保密
會面涉入司法訴訟似乎無法避免。監督會面服務進行的同時，可能親權訴訟 或保護令訴訟也在進行中。會面場所對法院系統來說，是一個能取得親子互動評 估的來源。如前研究結論所述，會面盡可能地不要涉入司法訴訟，對於親子互動 的品質及案家狀況的改善會有比較大的助益。但若司法系統有需要會面場所提出 評估或會面紀錄時，應遵守保密原則，或分成不同版本提供給訴訟當事人閱覽。
維持會面場所中立不評判的立場，除文件的保密除社工檢視外，司法系統的協助，
會讓整體服務更加完善。
‧
Amato, P. R., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children's relations with parents and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 222-235.
Areán, J. C., & Mederos, F. (2008). Fathering after violence: Working with abusive fathers in supervised visitation. Futures Without Violence.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385-405.
Bancroft, L., Silverman, J. G., & Ritchie, D. (2011). The batterer as parent:
Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. New York, NY : Sage publications.
Benoit, M. B. (1997). The role of psychological factors on teenagers who become parents out-of-wedlock. Children and Youth Services Review, 19(5/6), 401-413.
Boeije, H. (2009). Analysis in qualitative research. New York, NY : Sage publications.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. II. Some principles of psychotherapy. The fiftieth Maudsley Lecture. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 130(5), 421-431.
Birnbaum, R., & Alaggia, R. (2006). Supervised visitation: A call for a second generation of research. Family Court Review, 44(1), 119-134.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Catlett, B. S., Toews, M. L., & Walilko, V. (2010). Men’s gendered constructions of intimate partner violence as predictors of court-mandated batterer treatment drop out. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1-2), 107-123.
Crook, W. P., & Oehme, K. (2007). Characteristics of supervised visitation programs serving child maltreatment and other cases. Brief Treatment and Crisis
Intervention, 7(4), 291.
Cuevas, D. A., & Bui, N. H. (2016). Social factors affecting the completion of a batterer intervention program. Journal of family violence, 31(1), 95-107.
‧
Dunn, J. H., Flory, B. E., & Berg-Weger, M. (2004).An exploratory study of supervised access and custody exchange services: The children's
experience. Family Court Review, 42(1), 60-73.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Flory, B. E., Dunn, J., Berg-Weger, M., & Milstead, M. (2001). An exploratory study of supervised access and custody exchange services. Family Court Review, 39(4), 469-482.
Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and violent behavior, 9(6), 605-631.
Goodrum, S., Umberson, D., & Anderson, K. L. (2001). The batterer's view of the self and others in domestic violence. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 221-240.
McWey, L. M., & Mullis, A. K. (2004). Improving the lives of children in foster care:
The impact of supervised visitation. Family Relations, 53(3), 293-300.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Labarre, M., Bourassa, C., Holden, G. W., Turcotte, P., & Letourneau, N. (2016).
Intervening with fathers in the context of intimate partner violence: An analysis of ten programs and suggestions for a research agenda. Journal of child custody, 13(1), 1-29.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . New York, NY : Sage publications.
Oehme, K., & O'Rourke, K. (2011). Protecting Victims and Their Children Through Supervised Visitation: A Study of Domestic Violence Injunctions. Faulkner L.
Rev., 3, 261-276.
Oehme, K., & Stern, M. J. (2014). Supervised Visitation and Family Financial Well- Being: Broadening Access to Community Services for Low-Income Parents in the Court System. Family Court Review, 52(2), 282-297.
Parker, T., Rogers, K., Collins, M., & Edleson, J. L. (2008). Danger zone battered mothers and their families in supervised visitation. Violence against women, 14(11), 1313-1325.
‧
supervised visitation providers should be required to meet standards for service provision. Family Court Review, 49(2), 379-387.
Saini, M., & Birnbaum, R. (2015). The Supervised Visitation Checklist: Validation with Lawyers, Mental Health Professionals, and Judges. Family Law Quarterly, 49(3), 449-476.
Saini, M., Van Wert, M., & Gofman, J. (2012). Parent–child supervised visitation within child welfare and custody dispute contexts: An exploratory comparison of two distinct models of practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 163-168.
Sen, R., & Broadhurst, K. (2011). Contact between children in out-of-home placements and their family and friends networks: a research review. Child &
Family Social Work, 16(3), 298-309.
Scott, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2000). Change among batterers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 827-842.
Stover, C. S., Easton, C. J., & McMahon, T. J. (2013). Parenting of men with co-occurring intimate partner violence and substance abuse. Journal of
interpersonal violence, 28(11), 2290-2314.
Timko, C., Valenstein, H., Stuart, G. L., & Moos, R. H. (2015). Substance abuse and batterer programmes in California, USA: factors associated with treatment outcomes. Health & social care in the community, 23(6), 642-653.
Tutty, L., Barry, L., Barlow, R. A., & Roy, M. (2006). Supervised visitation and exchange centres for domestic violence: An environmental scan. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Alberta Ministry of Children’s Services.
Walker, K., Bowen, E., Brown, S., & Sleath, E. (2014). Desistance From Intimate Partner Violence A Conceptual Model and Framework for Practitioners for Managing the Process of Change. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(15), 1- 25.
Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social control theory and delinquency. American sociological review, 525-541.
‧
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
160
緒安全感假說之比較。中華心理衛生學刊，21(2)，111-138。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與研究。臺北市：心理。
蔡群瑞、蕭文（2004）。復原力對離婚後個人適應之影響研究。諮商輔導學報： 高師輔導所刊，11，59-79。
謝惠菁（2007）受暴婦女聲請及使用（未成年子女會面交往服務）歷程經驗之探 究（未出版之碩士論文）。暨南大學，南投縣。
簡春安、鄒平儀（2004）。社會工作研究法。臺北市：巨流。
譚子文（2009）。社會控制理論依附和參與要素之關聯性研究。犯罪與刑事司法 研究，13，51-80。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
附件一、訪談大綱
服務使用者 訪談大綱
一、 受訪者基本資料
1. 個人相關：性別、年齡、教育程度、就業狀況、居住區域。
二、 接受服務之經驗
1. 你怎麼看待監督會面服務？對你來說，監督會面代表了什麼？
2. 你對於接受監督會面服務有什麼樣的想法？
3. 你對於現在的你有什麼樣的感受與想法？（與子女的互動關係、情緒狀態、
問題因應方式等）
4. 你對於「家庭衝突」的想法與感受是什麼？
三、 改變的樣態及因素
1. 回想剛開始參加服務的時候，現在的你在哪些方面不一樣了？你第一次參加 會面時，跟近期相比，有什麼不同嗎？
2. 你覺得有哪些因素讓你改變？
3. 能否請你分享改變過程中的心路歷程？
4. 在改變的過程中你有遇到挫折或困難嗎？
5. 在改變的過程中，誰支持、幫助你最多？
6. 你覺得在未來，你的改變能持續嗎？
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
162
社工員訪談大綱
一、 基本運作狀況
1. 能否說明貴中心監督會面基本的運作方式？
2. 請簡單說明該案家的狀況？
二、 提供服務之經驗
1. 你怎麼看待監督會面服務？對你來說，監督會面代表了什麼？
2. 你對於提供監督會面服務有什麼樣的想法？
3. 提供服務的狀況如何？
三、 改變的樣態及因素
1. 自從提供監督會面服務後，你所服務的探視方有什麼樣的改變？
2. 自從提供監督會面服務後，你所服務的子女及同住方有什麼樣的改變？
3. 在與案家工作的過程中，你覺得有哪些因素促進他們改變？
4. 在與案家工作的過程中，你覺得有哪些因素阻礙他們改變？
5. 能否請你分享在服務過程中讓案家有效改變的技巧？
6. 在服務過程中，覺得困難的地方是什麼？
‧
聯絡電話：0975-281706 電子郵件：nyygogogo@gmail.com
‧
聯絡電話：0975-281706 電子郵件：nyygogogo@gmail.com