아동학대처벌법상 피해아동보호명령 제도의 도입 – 성과와 한계

It has been 10 years since the child protection order system, introduced by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes Act in 2014 (hereinafter “Child Abuse Punishment Act), came into force. While it can be said that the child protection order system has achieved considerable success since its adoption, its limitations are also evident, and future improvements are needed. First, the scope of claimants is too limited, hindering the active utilization of the child protection order system. For example, people in professions where they are likely to recognize child abuse, such as doctors and teachers, are unable to apply directly to the family court for a child protection order and must instead report to a child protection official and hope that some action will be taken. This dual process not only impedes promptness, but can also lead to a situation where a child protection order is never sought and the abuse is effectively ignored. It is fair to say that the scope of claimants should be expanded to include people in professions that are more likely to encounter cases of child abuse, so that they can apply directly to the family court for a child protection order. In addition, the system needs to be reformed to simplify the process and procedures for applying for a child protection order so that non-lawyers can easily access the system, which is modeled after the 1966 German case where a doctor called a guardianship court judge directly to request intervention. Second, there is an urgent need to increase the number and professionalization of officers in charge of child abuse prevention. In order to prevent child abuse, it is necessary to secure personnel with expertise and experience. In Germany, the Children’s Agency, the national organization in charge of preventing child abuse, employs approximately 55,000 people, while the number of child protection officers in our society is only 875 as of 2024. Furthermore, while German children’s authorities typically work with children for the rest of their lives, the average length of service of a child protection officer in Korea is only 15 months. Without the experience and expertise of child protection officers, who are the most likely to request a child protection order in our society, the child protection order system will not be able to function as it should. Third, the best way to prevent child abuse is to proactively intervene in child abuse cases and prevent harm before it happens. It is not in the nature of child abuse prevention to wait to intervene until after serious harm has been done. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to immediately terminate parental rights or separate a parent from a child when there is a suspicion of abuse, so appropriate preventive measures that a family court can take before such measures are taken should be added to the list of child protection orders. For example, courts could order counselling or educational programmes for parents, while monitoring the situation to determine appropriate next steps. Such measures could make a significant contribution to preventing child abuse. In conclusion, while the Child Protection Order system has made considerable progress in protecting children over the past decade, addressing its current limitations is essential to further enhance its effectiveness in preventing and responding to child abuse.