停止親權制度，旨在解決兒少經歷保護安置後，家庭功能難以提升之困境，惟實際上仍帶有對父母之懲罰性色彩。隨著《兒童權利公約》在臺灣的施行，兒少的生命、生存、發展與家庭成長權益已獲高度重視，然實務上以停止親權作為保護手段時，卻常面臨標準模糊與實踐恣意，反可能造成兒少失根性，或成「法定孤兒」，有可能對兒少造成長期、不可復原之逆境。故本文著重探討停止親權是否能有效維護兒童及少年之最佳利益？我國停止親權評估要件為何？及停止親權制度是否有朝向符合兒少最佳利益之改善可能？ 本文透過文本分析、法比較方法及質性研究方式，透過實務工作會談與美國法制度進行比較，檢驗自憲法層次對於兒少、父母親權之保障，分析在處理國家與家庭之間，因停止親權發生衝突情境之合憲性，與分析其對停止親權程序之主觀經驗、實務困境及對兒少正負向影響之實然面。透過研究發現指出：（一）停止親權制度在法理上固應受高度正當性審查，但實務執行仍高度依賴行政主管機關與一線社工主觀判斷，欠缺具體客觀標準；（二）社工的價值觀與地方行政資源差異，影響家庭重整成效與停親決策品質；（三）法院對行政機關之實質監督不足，使非訟事件程序難以落實保障雙方權益。據此本文建議應明確訂定停止親權之法律構成要件，強化司法與行政雙軌的正當程序機制，並發展及完善國家基礎社會福利與替代性照顧政策以補足家庭照顧功能缺口，以期真正達到保障兒少最佳利益及符合比例原則。 ;The termination of parental rights (TPR) system in Taiwan is intended to resolve difficulties in restoring family function following protective placement. However, this measure often carries a punitive connotation towards parents. Despite the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the practical application of TPR remains marked by vague standards and selective enforcement, possibly leading to legal orphanhood or long-term harm to children. This study examines whether TPR effectively safeguards the best interests of the child, the criteria used in assessing TPR decisions, and whether the system allows room for reform. Adopting a mixed-methods approach—combining textual analysis, comparative legal study, and qualitative interviews—the study analyzes constitutional protections and real-world practices in Taiwan, with reference to the U.S. model. Findings show that TPR lacks clear legal standards and relies heavily on administrative discretion and social worker judgment. Disparities in local resources and limited judicial oversight further weaken procedural safeguards. The study recommends enacting precise legal criteria, enhancing due process in both judicial and administrative settings, and strengthening welfare and alternative care systems to better support children′s rights and proportional family interventions.
