Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158758
|
| Title: | 毒保案：照顧者施用毒品於兒少保護體系的實務決策脈絡
Parental Substance Use in the Child Protection System: Decision-Making in Context |
| Authors: | 陳育瑄
Chen, Yu-Hsuan |
| Contributors: | 王明聖
Wang, Ming-Sheng
陳育瑄
Chen, Yu-Hsuan |
| Keywords: | 兒少保護
法定毒品施用
親職照顧
決策生態理論
兒少保護社工
Child Protective Services
Parental Substance Use
Parenting
The Decision-Making Ecology (DME)
CPS workers |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-08-04 15:36:32 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 照顧者施用毒品是一個高度敏感並帶有強烈道德評價色彩的社會議題，且介於法規對於親職照顧底線的模糊邊界。為了探討兒少保護體系之運作，本研究以照顧者施用法定毒品之兒少保護案件為範疇，以決策生態理論為框架，釐清兒少保護社工人員的風險判斷與介入決策脈絡。兒少保護社工人員作為國家權力的代理人，必須依憑法規詮釋、工具操作與組織標準，建構其專業行動的正當性，然而，面對法律授權不明與風險判準模糊的狀態，決策標準即由社工人員在現場透過經驗、專業評估與共識逐步形塑出風險認知與介入邏輯。本研究採取質性訪談方法，訪談來自北、中、南部地區之具經手毒保案經驗之兒少保護社工與督導共11位，透過第一線實務經驗分析，揭示兒少保護體系面對毒品案件的治理實況和行動。
研究發現：一、毒保案的專業實踐，實為風險治理邏輯、倫理論述與行政責任交織下的治理技術，映現國家透過法規、評估工具、專業共識三道基礎形成決策判準，透過專業實務的日常實作，建構對家庭風險的辨識與介入正當性，以回應社會對合格親職的想像。二、實務操作層面未形成單一且明確的決策劇本，決策判準根據個別社工人員的專業信念、組織文化與地方治理脈絡，由兒少保護社工人員進行意義轉譯與行動調整，發展出差異化的解釋與行動路徑，此為制度治理邏輯與專業裁量權間的互構關係。三、兒少保護體系被功能性地建構為「萬能機構」，承接網絡單位的介入期待，然保護系統以風險控管為導向，與照顧者復元歷程不相容，導致服務系統無力回應毒保家庭需求；於實務層次，兒少保護社工處於雙重角色的矛盾，既是支持者，也是監督者，此定位使社工難以兼顧專業關係與風險控管的任務。
本研究主張，毒保案的決策是社工人員在制度規範與倫理責任間斡旋的實務展演，是為社會工作專業本質的一環。制度設計應當給予專業裁量的空間，並在政策層面正視權責不對等與資源錯置的結構性困境，建立實質的協作架構，並發展結合家庭支持與戒癮處遇的復元家屋，作為兒少保護與家庭復元之間的中介實踐場域。唯有使制度支持具備行動力，才能使兒少保護回歸以兒少最佳利益為核心的專業實踐。
Parental substance use (PSU) is a contentious issue that lies at the ambiguous boundary of legally defined parental responsibilities.This study focuses on PSU cases within Taiwan's Child Protective Services (CPS) to examine how frontline social workers make decisions regarding risk assessment and intervention in a context marked by institutional ambiguity and legal vagueness. As agents of state authority, child protection social workers must justify their professional actions through law-based administration, structured tools, and professional consensus. However, under conditions of unclear legal authority and undefined thresholds, decision-making relies heavily on workers’ experiential knowledge and interpretive discretion. Using qualitative in-depth interviews with 11 CPS social workers and supervisors from different regions in Taiwan, this study explores the governance logic and frontline practices in handling PSU cases.
Findings show that CPS responses to PSU are shaped by three interwoven dynamics. First, PSU cases are regulated through a complex assemblage of legality, administrative accountability, and risk-based reasoning. The state sets thresholds through legislation, structured assessment tools and collectively negotiated standards that legitimize intervention. Second, decision-making practice is not uniform but negotiated in context; workers interpret and adapt these guidelines based on individual values, organizational culture, and local governance structures. This leads to divergent decision-making pathways and highlights the negotiated relationship between professional discretion and institutional frameworks. Third, CPS is increasingly constructed as an “all-purpose agency” expected to manage family adversity across disconnected systems. However, this control-oriented logic often conflicts with the recovery trajectories of families affected by substance dependence, leaving CPS workers caught between roles as both supporter and enforcer.
This study argues that intervention decisions in PSU cases are not merely technical acts, but reflective practices shaped by the tension between institutional mandates and ethical responsibilities. Decision variance should not be seen as inconsistency or failure, but as an integral part of social work professionalism. At the policy level, the findings call for greater alignment of authority and responsibility, improved interagency collaboration, and the development of recovery residences that can serve as community-based intermediaries between CPS and family rehabilitation efforts. Only by empowering institutional support with actional capacity can CPS interventions truly return to professional practice centered on the best interests of the child. |
| Reference: | 中文參考文獻
Schön, D. A.（2007）。反映的實踐者：專業工作者如何在行動中思考（夏林清譯）。遠流。（原著出版於1983年）。
佘耕任（2017）。管控誰的風險？臺灣兒少保護案件的實務成案標準（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學。
吳珍梅、程小蘋、鄭芳珠（2010）。攜子入監服刑的母職實踐與幼兒照顧經驗之探究。幼兒教育研究，2，27-50。
吳書昀、王翊涵（2016）。105年度委託科技研究計畫―兒少保護與兒少高風險家庭評估指 標整合研究（MOHW-105-PS-W-114-000-002）。衛生福利部委託研究計畫。
吳書昀、王翊涵（2019）。「強化社會安全網計畫」中「未滿18歲通報案件服務分流輔助指引」之發展。社區發展季刊，165，98-110。
李岳庭、陳怡君（2012）。戒癮男性更生人參與親子遊戲治療團體經驗值初探研究。台灣遊戲治療學報，2，1-23。
沈瓊桃、童伊迪（2018）。婚暴併兒虐家庭之多元模式與發生情境。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，14（2），73-104。
兒童及少年保護通報與分級分類處理及調查辦法（2024年7月31日）修正公布。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=D0050009。
兒童及少年福利與權益保障法（2021年1月20日）修正公布。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0050001。
兒童權利公約（2014年11月20日）生效。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=Y0000062
社政機關兒童及少年保護案件通報處理、調查及處遇服務作業程序（2022年9月2日）修正公布。https://www.rootlaw.com.tw/LawContent.aspx?LawID=A040170021027800-1110902。
社會中心（2012年6月27日）。拔指甲烙鐵毒虐2歲男童 劉金龍判死刑。ETtoday新聞雲。https://www.ettoday.net/news/20120627/66171.htm#ixzz8WE5ooBkg
胡幼慧（主編）（1996）。質性研究─理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流。
殷開薇（2018）。藥物濫用者子女的成長經驗之敘事研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立暨南國際大學。
財團法人台灣兒童暨家庭扶助基金會（2024）。兒童少年家庭寄養服務工作歷年成果報告書。https://tfcfrg.ccf.org.tw/?action=knowledge_bank_detail&did=4752&order_by=5&page=1&page_totle=10。
高淑清（2001）。在美華人留學生太太的生活世界：詮釋與反思。本土心理學研究，16，225-285。
張秀鴛、陳映竹、邱琇琳（2022）。強化社會安全網集中篩派案機制之現況與未來。社區發展季刊，177，69-81。
張嘉珊（2013）。物質濫用家庭青少年生活及可能自我之探究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東科技大學。
張嫚純、丁志音（2006）。成癮藥物使用依託脈絡與HIV癮感染關聯之初探。台灣公共衛生雜誌，25（6），462-473。
郭文正（2004）。藥物濫用者家屬衛生教育方案評估－以台北戒治所受戒治人家屬衛教座談為例。臺灣社會工作學刊，(2)，41-87。https://doi.org/10.29814/TSW.200407.0001
郭靜晃、吳幸玲（2001）。邁向二十一世界兒童福利的願景——以兒童為中心、家庭為本位，落實整體兒童照顧政策。華岡社科學報，15，1-13。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6363/HKJSS.200106.0001
陳玉珊（2021）。「强化社會安全網計畫」下公部門兒童及少年保護社會工作者服務經驗之探討（未出版之碩士論文）。高雄醫學大學。
陳玟如、鄭麗珍（2022）。打造用藥者之社區居住資源――以美國復元家屋為例。社區發展季刊，177，273-284。
陳映竹（2023）。兒少保護服務歷程決策「失誤」？─第一線社工人員實務觀點（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學。
彭淑華（2006）。兒童及少年保護個案：家庭處遇服務方案評估報告。內政部。
程玲玲（1997）。海洛因成癮者的家庭研究。中華心理衛生學刊，10（2），45-65。
童敏、史天琪（2019）。如何反思：社會工作反思實踐的路徑和框架。中國社會工作研究，17，61-73。
黃俊棠、鍾志宏、彭瑋寧（2021）。機構戒癮處遇的回顧與前瞻。矯政期刊，10（1），97-124。
楊佩榮（2016）。兒少保護實務研判的挑戰與因應。社區發展季刊，156，103-112。
鄒川雄（2003）。生活世界與默會知識：詮釋學觀點的質性研究。在齊力、林本炫（主編），質性研究方法與資料分析（頁19-52）。南華大學教社所。
監察院（2016）。監察院公告，5月16日105內調0061。
管貴貞、連秀鸞（2005）。詮釋學方法在質性研究中之探究。輔導季刊，41（3），1-10。
劉淑瓊（2021）。系統除錯？個人咎責？─台灣重大兒虐案件檢討機制之探究。臺大社會工作學刊，44，1-44。
劉筱雯（2008）。藥癮者子代主觀陳述之困境與其韌性特質探討（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理。
蔡佩真（2016）。藥癮與社工：社會工作者的職責、處遇與反思。東吳社會工作學報，30，1-29。
蔡佳螢（2017）。兒少保護社工與法定強制當事人專業關係取向之探討。當代社會工作學刊，9，1-20。
衛生福利部（2019）。強化社會安全網計畫核定本。https://topics.mohw.gov.tw/SS/cp-4515-49398-204.html
衛生福利部（2019）。藥癮者家庭支持服務方案操作手冊。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl- 53928-74f2bb0d-cbc0-4023-bfcb-51a11b7ac5b6.html
衛生福利部（2021）。強化社會安全網第二期計畫核定本。https://topics.mohw.gov.tw/SS/cp-4515-62472-204.html
衛生福利部（2023）。兒童少年保護-施虐者本身因素統計表。衛生福利部統計處。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOPS/lp-1303-105-xCat-cat04.html。
衛生福利部（2023）。物質濫用的多元介入。https://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-84204-16919496-114d-4388-a075-5b57498e9696.html
衛生福利部（2024）。重大兒童及少年虐待案件教材彙編。https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/dops/cp-1238-78193-105.html。
鄭于沛（2013）。藥癮暴露兒童親職歷程之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北護理健康大學。
鄭青玫（2018）。親代藥物成癮、兒童虐待對子代個體化的影響—以一位成年初期女性為例。輔導與諮商學報，40（2），25-56。
鄭翔仁（2006）。藥物濫用青少年的用藥行為及與藥物濫用行為有關之個人及家庭因素（未出版之碩士論文）。中國醫藥大學。
鄭麗珍（2015）。兒童少年保護社會工作實務手冊。巨流。
鄭寶玉（2010）。婦女藥物濫用者對家庭教養影響之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中正大學。
顏良恭、林俊宏（2011）。地方毒品危害防制中心的實際運作-政策網絡觀點的分析。東吳政治學報，29（2），111-182。
英文參考文獻
Ahlin, E. M., Hummer, D., & Honardoost, M. (2022). Parental sobriety and Parent-Child reunification in dependency court: Does the 15-month Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) rule support parent-child reunification? Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody and Child Development, 19(3-4), 340-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2021.1957060
Amaro, H., Sanchez, M., Bautista, T., & Cox, R. (2021). Social vulnerabilities for substance use: Stressors, socially toxic environments, and discrimination and racism. Neuropharmacology, 188, 108518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108518
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2005). Alternative Responses to Child Maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS.
Barnard, M. (2005). Drugs in the family: The impact on parents and siblings. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Baumann, D.J., Dalgleish, L., Fluke, J., Kern, H. K. (2011). The Decision Making Ecology. American Humane Association: Denver.
Benbenishty, R. & Fluke, J. D. (2020). Frameworks and models in decision-making and judgment in child welfare and protection. In J. D. Fluke, M. L. López, R. Benbenishty, E. J. Knorth, & D. J. Baumann (Eds.), Decision-making and judgment in child welfare and protection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3-26). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190059538.003.0001
Berger, L. M., Slack, K. S., Waldfogel, J., & Bruch, S. K. (2010). Caseworker-perceived caregiver substance abuse and child protective services outcomes. Child maltreatment, 15(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559510368305
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.
Brenda D. Smith(2003). How Parental Drug Use and Drug Treatment Compliance Relate to Family Reunification. Child Welfare, Vol. 82, No. 3 (May/June 2003), pp. 335-365.
Burry, C. L., & L. Wright (2006). Facilitating visitation for infants with prenatal substance exposure. Child Welfare, 85(6), 899-918.
Cash, S. (2001). Risk assessment in child welfare: The art and science. Child Welfare, 80, 811–827.
Catalano, R. F., Gainey, R. R., Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., & Johnson, N. O. (1999). An experimental intervention with families of substance abusers: one-year follow-up of the focus on families project. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 94(2), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.9422418.x
Chateauneuf, D., Poitras, K., Simard, M. C., & Buisson, C. (2022). Placement stability: What role do the different types of family foster care play?. Child abuse & neglect, 130(Pt 3), 105359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105359
Child Welfare League of America (2004). Children's legislative agenda: Substance abuse, families, and recovery.
Clark, D. B., Cornelius, J., Wood, D. S., & Vanyukov, M. (2004). Psychopathology risk transmission in children of parents with substance use disorders. The American journal of psychiatry, 161(4), 685–691. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.4.685
Dar T. (2013). Cognitive dissonance. In Pashler H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the mind (p. 153). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dawe, S., P. Harnett, & S. Frye (2008). Improving outcomes for children living in families with parental substance misuse: What do we know and what should we do. Australian Institute of Family Studies: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, 29, 1-16.
Dore, M. M., & Doris, J. M. (1998). Preventing child placement in substance-abusing families: research-informed practice. Child welfare, 77(4), 407–426.
Drabble L. (2007). Pathways to collaboration: exploring values and collaborative practice between child welfare and substance abuse treatment fields. Child maltreatment, 12(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559506296721
Elgán, T. H., & Leifman, H. (2011). Children of substance abusing parents: a national survey on policy and practice in Swedish schools. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 101(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.10.009
Fluke, J. D., Baumann, D. J., Dalgleish, L. I., & Kern, H. D. (2014). Decisions to Protect Children: A Decision Making Ecology. In J. E. Korbin & R. D. Krugman (Eds.), Handbook of Child Maltreatment (pp. 463–476). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7208-3_25
Fluke, J. D., López López, M., Benbenishty, R., Knorth, E. J., & Baumann, D. J. (2020). Advancing the field of decision-making and judgment in child welfare and protection: a look back and forward. In J. D. Fluke, M. López López, R. Benbenishty, E. J. Knorth, & D. J. Baumann (Eds.), Decision making and judgement in child welfare and protection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 301-317). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190059538.003.0014
Fong, K. (2020). Getting Eyes in the Home: Child Protective Services Investigations and State Surveillance of Family Life. American Sociological Review, 85(4), 610-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420938460
Font, S. A., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2015). Decision-making in child protective services: Influences at multiple levels of the social ecology. Child abuse & neglect, 47, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.005
Forrester, D., & Harwin, J. (2008). Parental Substance Misuse and Child Welfare: Outcomes for Children Two Years after Referral. The British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), 1518–1535. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23724026
Forrester, D., & Harwin, J. (2011). Parents who Misuse Drugs and Alcohol: Effective Interventions in Social Work and Child Protection. Wiley-Blackwell.
Fuller, T., Wells, S., & Cotton, E. (2001). Predictors of maltreatment recurrence at two milestones in life of a case. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 49–78.
Gambrill, E., & Shlonsky, A. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 813–837.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539
Goldberg, A. E., & Blaauw, E. (2019). Parental substance use disorder and child abuse: risk factors for child maltreatment?. Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(6), 959–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2019.1664277
Haggerty, K. P., M. Skinner, C. B. Fleming, R. R. Gainey, & R. F. Catalano (2008). Long-term effects of the Focus on Families project on substance use disorders among children of parents in methadone treatment. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 103(12), 2008-2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02360.x
Haney, M., & Hill, J. (2004). Relationships between Parent-Teaching Activities and Emergent Literacy in Preschool Children. Early Child Development and Care, 174, 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443032000153543
Harp, K. L. H., & Oser, C. B. (2018). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of child custody loss on drug use and crime among a sample of African American mothers. Child abuse & neglect, 77, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.12.017
Harris-McKoy, D., Meyer, A. S., McWey, L. M., & Henderson, T. L. (2014). Substance Use, Policy, and Foster Care. Journal of Family Issues, 35(10), 1298-1321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13481439
Harwin, J., & Barlow, C. (2022). The co-occurrence of substance misuse, domestic abuse, and child maltreatment: Can Family Drug and Alcohol Courts play a part?. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 989813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.989813
Henry, C., Liner-Jigamian, N., Carnochan, S., Taylor, S., & Austin, M. J. (2018). Parental substance use: How child welfare workers make the case for court intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.003
Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Moylan, C. A. (2008). Intersection of child abuse and children's exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, violence & abuse, 9(2), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838008314797
Holland, S., Forrester, D., Williams, A., & Copello, A. (2014). Parenting and substance misuse: Understanding accounts and realities in child protection contexts. British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1491–1507. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs197
Holly J. (2021). How social workers can work with domestic abuse, substance use mental ill health, Community Care Inform Children. https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/03/15/social-workers-can-work-domestic-abuse-substance-use-mental-ill-health/
Horgan, J. (2011). Parental Substance Misuse: Addressing its Impact on Children A Review of the Literature. Dublin: The Stationery Office/National Advisory Committee on Drugs.
Houston, S. (2001). Transcending the fissure in risk theory: Critical realism and child welfare. Child and Family Social Work, 6, 219–228.
Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Polo-Tomás, M., & Taylor, A. (2007). Individual, family, and neighborhood factors distinguish resilient from non-resilient maltreated children: a cumulative stressors model. Child abuse & neglect, 31(3), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.03.011
Keddell E (2014) Current debates on variability in child welfare decision-making: A selected literature review. Social Sciences 3(4): 916–940.
Keddell E, Stanley T (2019) Critical debates in child protection: The production of risk in changing times. In: Webb S (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Social Work. Milton Park: Routledge, pp.412–515.
Keddell, E. (2021). Towards a critical decision-making ecology approach for child protection research. Qualitative Social Work, 20(5), 1141-1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211039064
Kepple N. J. (2018). Does parental substance use always engender risk for children? Comparing incidence rate ratios of abusive and neglectful behaviors across substance use behavior patterns. Child abuse & neglect, 76, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.015
Kumpfer, K. L., & Fowler, M. A. (2007). Parenting skills and family support programs for drug-abusing mothers. Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine, 12(2), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2007.01.003
Lander, L., Howsare, J., & Byrne, M. (2013). The impact of substance use disorders on families and children: from theory to practice. Social work in public health, 28(3-4), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2013.759005
Lietz, C. A. (2009). Critical Theory as a Framework for Child Welfare Decision-Making: Some Possibilities. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3(2), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548730902855062
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lloyd, M. H., Akin, B. A., & Brook, J. (2017). Parental drug use and permanency for young children in foster care: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship, and adoption. Children and Youth Services Review, 77, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.04.016
Margolin, L. (1992). Deviance on Record: Techniques for Labeling Child Abusers in Official Documents. Social Problems, 39(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096913
Maynard-Moody, S., & M. Musheno. (2000). State Agent or Citizen Agent: Two Narratives of Discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329-358.
McBeath G, Webb SA (2002) Virtue ethics and social work: being lucky, realistic, and not doing one's duty. Br J Soc Work 32:1015–1036.
Mincin, J. (2018). Addiction and stigmas: Overcoming labels, empowering people. In T. MacMillan & A. Sisselman-Borgia (Eds.), New directions in treatment, education, and outreach for mental health and addiction (pp. 125–131). Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72778-3_9
Morrison, T. (1996). Partnership and collaboration: Rhetoric and reality. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 127–140.
Neale, J., Tompkins, C. N. E., Marshall, A. D., Treloar, C., & Strang, J. (2018). Do women with complex alcohol and other drug use histories want women-only residential treatment?. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 113(6), 989–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14131
Neger, E. N., & Prinz, R. J. (2015). Interventions to address parenting and parental substance abuse: conceptual and methodological considerations. Clinical psychology review, 39, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.04.004
Nissen, M. A., & Engen, M. (2021). Power and Care in Statutory Social Work with Vulnerable Families. Ethics and Social Welfare, 15(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2021.1924814
Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2022). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287
Osterling, K. L., & Austin, M. J. (2008). Substance abuse interventions for parents involved in the child welfare system: evidence and implications. Journal of evidence-based social work, 5(1-2), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1300/J394v05n01_07
Pennay, A. E., & Lee, N. K. (2009). Barriers to methamphetamine withdrawal treatment in Australia: findings from a survey of AOD service providers. Drug and alcohol review, 28(6), 636–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00074.x
Price Wolf, J., Kepple, N. J., & Freisthler, B. (2019). Understanding the Role of Parental Opiate or Marijuana Use in Child Welfare Substantiation Decisions. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 19(3), 238–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2019.1641675
Rhodes, T., Bernays, S., & Houmoller, K. (2010). Parents who use drugs: accounting for damage and its limitation. Social science & medicine (1982), 71(8), 1489–1497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.028
Richter, K. P., & Bammer, G. (2000). A hierarchy of strategies heroin-using mothers employ to reduce harm to their children. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 19(4), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0740-5472(00)00137-9
Rockhill, A., Green, B. L., & Newton-Curtis, L. (2008). Accessing substance abuse treatment: issues for parents involved with child welfare services. Child welfare, 87(3), 63–93.
Roettger, M. E., Swisher, R. R., Kuhl, D. C., & Chavez, J. (2011). Paternal incarceration and trajectories of marijuana and other illegal drug use from adolescence into young adulthood: evidence from longitudinal panels of males and females in the United States. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 106(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03110.x
Roy, J. (2021). Children living with parental substance misuse: A cross-sectional profile of children and families referred to children’s social care. Child and Family Social Work, 26(1), 122-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12795
Ruch, G. (2005). Relationship‐based practice and reflective practice: holistic approaches to contemporary child care social work. Child & Family Social Work, 10(2), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2005.00359.x
Ryan J. P., Marsh J. C., Testa M. F., Louderman R. (2006). Integrating substance abuse treatment and child welfare services: Findings from the Illinois alcohol and other drug abuse waiver demonstration. Social Work Research, 30(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/30.2.95
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science (New York, N.Y.), 311(5762), 854–856. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121066
Sandoz, V., Muhlstein-Barasche, J., Meury, M., & Hoegger, F. (2024). Enfant de parents avec une addiction : quelles conséquences et quel accompagnement ? [Children of parents with substance abuse: assessing impacts and available support]. Revue medicale suisse, 20(862), 405–408. https://doi.org/10.53738/REVMED.2024.20.862.405
Schuler, M. E., P. Nair, & L. Kettinger (2003). Drug-exposed infants and developmental outcome: effects of a home intervention and ongoing maternal drug use. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Behavioral Medicine, 157(2), 133-138. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.157.2.133
Semidei, J., Radel, L. F., & Nolan, C. (2001). Substance abuse and child welfare: clear linkages and promising responses. Child welfare, 80(2), 109–128.
Shulman, L. H., Shapira, S. R., & Hirshfield, S. (2000). Outreach developmental services to children of patients in treatment for substance abuse. American journal of public health, 90(12), 1930–1933. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.90.12.1930
Sinclair, I. (2005). Fostering now: Messages from research, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Solis, J. M., Shadur, J. M., Burns, A. R., & Hussong, A. M. (2012). Understanding the diverse needs of children whose parents abuse substances. Current drug abuse reviews, 5(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874473711205020135
Suchman, N. E., DeCoste, C., Leigh, D., & Borelli, J. (2010). Reflective functioning in mothers with drug use disorders: implications for dyadic interactions with infants and toddlers. Attachment & human development, 12(6), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2010.501988
Taylor, B. J. (2020). Teaching and learning decision-making in child welfare and protection social work. In J. D. Fluke, M. L. López, R. Benbenishty, E. J. Knorth, & D. J. Baumann (Eds.), Decision-making and judgment in child welfare and protection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 281-298). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190059538.003.0013
Tedgård, E., Råstam, M., & Wirtberg, I. (2019). An upbringing with substance-abusing parents: Experiences of parentification and dysfunctional communication. Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift: NAT, 36(3), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1455072518814308
Testa, M. F., & Smith, B. (2009). Prevention and drug treatment. The Future of children, 19(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0033
Thombs, D. L. (1994). Introduction to addictive behaviors. New York.
Velleman, R., & Templeton, L. (2007). Understanding and modifying the impact of parents’ substance misuse on children. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 13(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.106.002386
Velleman, R., & Templeton, L. J. (2016). Impact of parents’ substance misuse on children: an update. BJPsych Advances, 22(2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.114.014449.
Wells, S. J., Lyons, P., Doueck, H. J., Brown, C. H., & Thomas, J. (2004). Ecological factors and screening in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(10), 981–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.05.002
Wittenstrom, K., Baumann, D. J., Fluke, J., Graham, J. C., & James, J. (2015). The impact of drugs, infants, single mothers, and relatives on reunification: A Decision-Making Ecology approach. Child abuse & neglect, 49, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.06.010
Young N.K., Gardner S.L., Dennis K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) Press; Washington, DC. pp. 1–26. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
社會工作研究所
111264010 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111264010 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [社會工作研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 401001.pdf | | 2023Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
