2006 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Legal Interventions in Child Abuse Cases
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
|Allocation Type||Single-year Grants |
|Research Institution||Sophia University |
IWASE Toru Sophia University, Sophia Law School, Professor, 法学研究科, 教授 (80384155)
MACHINO Saku Sophia University, Sophia Law School, Professor, 法学研究科, 教授 (60053691)
YAMAMOTO Teruyuki Nagoya University, Graduate School of Law, Professor, 大学院法学研究科, 教授 (00182634)
NAKATANI Yoji University of Tsukuba, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, Professor, 大学院人間総合科学研究科, 教授 (30164221)
KOJIMOTO Miwa Josai University, Favulty of Contemporary Policy Studies, Lecturer, 現代政策学部, 講師 (30365689)
HIGASHI Yukimi Seikei University, Faculty of Law, Associate Professor, 法学部, 助教授 (80366921)
|Project Period (FY)
2005 – 2006
|Keywords||Child Abuse / Criminal Jurisprudence / Social Welfare / Social Medical Science / Education|
1 Many tragic child abuse cases have been still happening even after "Child Abuse Prevention Act" was legislated and "Child Welfare Act" was revised in 2000. In 2002. these two Acts were revised. This law reform extended the scope of "child abuse" and the range of "duty to report" child abuse cases, and aimed to encourage early detection of child abuse cases. But people who were committed in the child abuse cases were quite uncertain whether child abuse cases could be well managed or not. We tried to make issues clear and to draft a picture of the functional system where an intervention in child abuse cases can take place timely, an abused child have proper protection, a parent have appropriate treatment, and a family re-unification is reached.
2 We invited the reporters from various related places to our study meeting; such as from Children' s Counseling Offices, juvenile welfare facilities, medical practitioners, lawyers, etc.
We visited some child welfare institutions in Hokkaido and Osaka to make field researches. We studied abroad, too. We visited San Francisco, Seoul and Paris. These were good experiences for us to have comparative view points.
3 The results are as follows:
(1)If medical practitioners have child abuse report obligation and always report a case, a parent who abuse a child would keep away from medical institutions. That would retard the protection of abused children. The duty to report on child abuse cases should not be forced by punishment.
(2)Family unification is important, but safety of children is, without doubt, more. Therefore, it is indispensable that "risk management" must be done when a child goes back to his home. This risk management requires capable staff.
(3)There will be cases that should not be criminally intervened for family reunification. But where family reunification is out of question, there are usually no obstacles to punish the persons who abused children.