SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT ›› 2026, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (4): 12-22,84.

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Role Situationals, Role Dilemmas, and Relief Paths of Judicial Social Workers Participating in Family Investigations

MUREDILI Simayi1,2, FAN Maolin1, MA Tian3, LI Yukun4   

  1. 1. School of Law and Politics,Kashi University,Kashi,Xinjiang,844000,China;
    2. School of Government,East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai,201620,China;
    3. School of Politics and Public Administration,Xinjiang University,Urumqi,Xinjiang,830046,China;
    4. School of Marxism,Xinjiang University,Urumqi,Xinjiang,830046,China
  • Received:2025-03-21 Online:2026-07-15 Published:2026-07-15

Abstract: Family investigation acts as a pivotal mechanism bridging legal rationality and family ethics. However, judicial social workers engaged in this process are inextricably situated within the dual logic of judicial field regulations and professional social work ethics. Taking the “Xing fu you dao” Family Investigation Project conducted by Z Social Work Agency as a case study, this paper systematically analyzes the role positioning of judicial social workers in family investigation and examines the role expectations articulated by various stakeholders. It reveals that under the dual constraints of the judicial institutional framework and social work ethics, judicial social workers encounter the ethical dilemmas arising from role conflict, structural pressures of role overload, and legitimacy challenges of role interruption. To enhance the professional efficacy of judicial social work in family investigations, this paper proposes resolution strategies including the development of cross-professional practice ethics that prioritize judicial assistance, the advancement of the full-time professionalization within investigation teams, and the refinement of legal authorization and procedural standardization.

Key words: judicial social work, family investigation, role positioning, role expectation

CLC Number: 

  • C916
[1] 陈爱武. 家事诉讼立法的理论阐释与制度构建[J]. 中国政法大学学报, 2025(2): 108-120
[2] 刘敏. 论家事司法正义——以家事司法实体正义为视角[J]. 江苏社会科学, 2021(4): 139-147
[3] 李喜莲, 王晓桐. 我国家事调查员制度职能异化及其矫正[J]. 湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022(6): 79-83
[4] 最高人民法院. 关于开展家事审判方式和工作机制改革试点工作的意见[EB/OL]. [2025-04-23]. https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/37372.html.
[5] 陈爱武. 论家事审判机构之专门化——以家事法院(庭)为中心的比较分析[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2012(1): 148-157
[6] 胡夏冰. 台湾地区家事调解委员: 选任、职责与管理[N]. 人民法院报, 2017-12-15(008).
[7] 最高人民法院. 关于进一步深化家事审判方式和工作机制改革的意见(试行)[EB/OL]. [2025-07-18]. http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/bf4b36ae2dee44d9773636f4656593.html.
[8] 钱晓峰. 涉未成年人家事审判应建好社会服务支持体系[N]. 人民法院报, 2021-02-07(002).
[9] 付立华, 王文燕. 司法社会工作参与家事审判的路径和角色研究——以社工参与L法院家事少年审判服务项目为例[J]. 济南大学学报(社会科学版), 2022(3): 129-135
[10] 谈子敏, 曹泽源, 罗乐群. 我国儿童保护强制报告制度研究——基于中文文献的系统评价[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2025(3): 90-100
[11] 李广宇. 家事诉讼社会化背景下个案工作方法的嵌入式发展[J]. 江西社会科学, 2019(10): 178-185
[12] Ministry of Justice Department of Education, The Rt Hon Simon Huges. Children and family court advisory and support service (Cafcass) becomes part of the ministry of justice [EB/OL]. [2025-04-01]. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/children-and-family-advisory-and-support-service-cafcass-becomes-part-of-the-ministry-of-justice.
[13] NASW. Forensic social worker overview [EB/OL]. [2025-06-04] https://joblink.socialworkers.org/career/forensic-social-worker.
[14] Franzén A, Aronsson K. “Then she got a spanking”: social accountability and narrative versions in social workers’ courtroom testimonies[J]. Discourse studies, 2018, 20(5): 577-597
[15] Van Wormer, K. No wonder social workers feel uncomfortable in court[J]. Child adolescent social work, 1992, 9(2): 117-129
[16] Prescott D E. Social workers as “experts” in the family court system: is evidence-based practice a missing link or host-created knowledge?[J]. Journal of evidence-based social work, 2013, 10(5): 466-481
[17] Japanese Law Translation. 家事事件手続法[EB/OL]. [2025-05-25]. https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4258.
[18] ????????. ??????[EB/OL]. [2026-01-29]. https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsId=005694&ancYnChk=0#0000.
[19] 松本博之. 日本人事诉讼法[M]. 郭美松, 译. 厦门: 厦门大学出版社, 2012: 370.
[20] 珠海市斗门区人民法院. 珠海市斗门区人民法院家事调查员选聘公告[EB/OL]. [2025-04-15]. http://dmfy.zhdmcourt.gov.cn/article/detail/2022/04/id/6635376.shtml.
[21] 广东省妇女联合会.省妇联联合省高院建立家事调查员制度 首批46名省级家事调查员受聘上岗[EB/OL].[2025-11-08]. https://www.gdwomen.org.cn/yw/content/post_294928.html.
[22] 魏其濛. 上海社工助力化解难判的“家务事”—父母离婚大战, 随谁生活孩子有“发言权”[N]. 中国青年报, 2023-11-14(003).
[23] 苏州市吴江区人民法院. 吴江法院增聘五家社会组织参与少年家事审判工作[EB/OL]. [2025-09-26]. http://wjq.szwjfy.gov.cn/article/detail/2025/09/id/8998913.shtml.
[24] 最高人民法院. 深圳宝安: 探索家事审判新样本[EB/OL]. [2025-08-07]. https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-111301.html.
[25] 杨旭. 照亮隐秘的角落: 家事案件的社会工作服务与未成年人权利保障[J]. 河北法学, 2021(8): 108-131
[26] 中国社会工作教育协会. 会议综述|中国社会工作教育协会司法社会工作专业委员会2023年会暨第九届司法社会工作理论与实务研讨会在河南郑州成功举办[EB/OL]. [2025-10-28]. https://caswe.pku.edu.cn/info/1065/1817.htm.
[27] Taylor H, Beckett C, Mckeigue B. Judgements of solomon: anxieties and defences of social workers involved in care proceedings[J]. Child and family social work, 2008, 13(1): 23-31
[28] Lindsey J. Competing professional knowledge claims about mental capacity in the court of protection[J]. Medical law review, 2020, 28(1): 1-29
[29] Sheehan R, Borowski A. Australia’s children’s courts today and tomorrow[M]. Dordrecht: Springer netherlands, 2013: 31-37.
[30] Burns K, O’mahony C, Shore C, Parkes A. What social workers talk about when they talk about childcare proceedings in the district court in Ireland[J]. Child & family social work, 2018, 23(1): 113-121
[31] Ponnert L. Social workers’ accounts of custody and custody transfers in cases of homicidal violence[J]. Nordic social work research, 2022, 12(1): 1-14
[32] Abbotts D, Norman A. Social worker decision-making in court[J]. Child & family social work, 2023, 28(2): 469-480
[33] 徐顽强, 张婷. 公共危机治理中社会组织的角色审视与嵌入路径[J]. 郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021(6): 14-19
[34] 奚从清. 角色论: 个人与社会的互动[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2010: 190-200.
[35] 张丹. 苏州吴中: 家事调查助解纷[N]. 人民法院报, 2022-06-21(008).
[36] 风笑天. 社会研究方法(第四版)[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2013: 143-351.
[37] Mccracken G. The long interview, qualitative research methods series 13 [M]. Newbury: sage publications, 1988: 1-88.
[38] 戴维·波普诺. 社会学[M]. 李强, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2000: 173.
[39] 秦启文, 周永康. 角色学导论[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2011: 188-190.
[40] 尹泠然. 合适成年人讯问时在场: 以参与讯问为中心的讨论[J]. 国家检察官学院学报, 2021(2): 135-150
[41] 曹玲, 文军. 专业嵌入治理: 边疆地区社会工作机构的实践智慧[J]. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2023(3): 56-69
[42] 司法部. 中华人民共和国民法典[EB/OL]. (2025-05-07). https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/zwgkztzl/2025nianzhuanti/2025mfdxcy/2025mfdxcy_mfdql/202505/t20250507_518708.html.
[43] 袁芮. 社会工作介入婚姻暴力中的伦理议题——以案主自决和保密原则为例[J]. 伦理学研究, 2016(3): 104-110
[44] Warshak R A. Payoffs and pitfalls of listening to children [J]. Family relations: an interdisciplinary journal of applied family studies, 2003, 52(4): 373–384.
[45] 任容庆. 论家事诉讼中家事“三员”协作体系的构建[J]. 法律适用, 2017(19): 61-68
[46] 赵芳, 孔春燕, 何龙韬. 医务社会工作跨专业合作中的角色共识与角色实践[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2024(2): 32-42
[47] 郭伟和. 跨专业联合防控新冠病毒疫情: 问题界定、专业权威和干预能力问题[J]. 社会工作, 2020(1): 60-69, 109
[1] FAN Huifang, ZHAI Yue. Analyzing the Discourse of Judicial Social Workers in the Rehabilitation of Juvenile Offenders [J]. SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT, 2025, 25(6): 73-82,112.
[2] LI Fuqiang, ZHANG Shu. Analysis of the Service Mode of Township (Street) Social Worker Station under the Rural Revitalization Strategy [J]. SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT, 2023, 23(5): 46-55.
[3] XIANG Deping, ZHANG Kun. Role Positioning and Practice Methods of Social Work Participating in Epidemic Prevention and Control [J]. SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT, 2021, 21(1): 5-11.
[4] REN Wenqi. Judicial Social Work: The Return and Development of People's Mediation in the New Era [J]. SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT, 2018, 18(3): 5-11,27.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!