Interview Summary | The Conviction of the Social Worker in the "Kai-Kai" Case: Do Social Workers Bear a Guarantor Position?!

On April 16, 2026 (the day of the judgment, when the court had only released a press release and the full text of the judgment was not yet available), JRF Executive Director Lee Ming-ju (attorney) was interviewed by PTS Taigi. Excerpts of her remarks regarding the legal liability of social workers in the first-instance judgment of the "Kai Kai" case are as follows:

I. The Construction of the Legal "Guarantor Position"

Lee Ming-ju explained that "negligent homicide by omission" under the Criminal Code of the Republic of China requires a specific guarantor position, negligence (should have noticed but failed to do so), and a proximate causal relationship between the negligence and the result of death. Among these, she pointed out that the court in this case constructed the social worker's guarantor position through two pathways:

• Control of the Source of Danger (Supervisor Guarantor): The court held that a supervisory relationship exists between the social worker and the babysitter, viewing the babysitter as a source of danger, while the social worker carried out the organization's duty to supervise the babysitter.
  
• Voluntary Assumption of the Duty of Protection (Protector Guarantor): Voluntariness refers to factual assumption distinct from a contractual basis. The court held that due to the exclusivity of information, the social worker, through verbal and implied means within the network, assumed the duty to protect the child.
  

II. Academic Perspectives and Practical Challenges

Lee Ming-ju pointed out that this is the first time in Taiwan's judicial practice that a ruling has addressed whether a social worker holds a "guarantor position".

(1) Regarding the supervision of the source of danger:

• Difference from Traditional Definitions: She noted that "sources of danger" in traditional legal interpretations usually refer to pet owners controlling their pets or construction site managers controlling hazardous equipment, which differs from the relationship between a social worker and a babysitter.
• Shifting of Organizational Liability: The court's logic treats the social worker as the "hands and feet" performing duties for a special legal entity (such as the Child Welfare League Foundation). Because the underlying logic shifts organizational liability onto an individual—and the individual's liability arises precisely from their status as an organizational worker—the court's assertion that "this is not targeted at the social worker community" remains unconvincing to the community.

(2) Regarding the voluntary assumption of protection:

• Information Asymmetry: A typical protective "guarantor position" role (such as social workers in Germany) generally should not maintain a close caregiving relationship while separated by a perpetrator who deliberately conceals information (such as the babysitter in this case).
  
• Legalization of Division of Labor Consensus: The court held that a "consensus on division of labor" among social workers constitutes a voluntary assumption of duty. She worries this will lead social workers to adopt a more defensive approach to the division of labor in the future.
  

Lee Ming-ju reminded that although the court recognized the guarantor position, it does not mean criminal liability is directly established. Rigorous determination of causality and the specific content of the duty of care is still required in between. Only when the full text of the judgment is available can we observe how "negligent liability" and "proximate causality" were inferred beyond the guarantor position—especially given the temporal gap: the judgment states that the abuse escalated in the final month, whereas the social worker's last visit took place on November 20. Whether causality and foreseeability exist between the two remains to be seen.

III. Social Impact and Future Developments

• Boundaries of Professional Division of Labor: Comparing the current situation to the medical malpractice disputes experienced by the medical community 20 years ago, she emphasized that how the legal boundaries between different professions (such as social workers and babysitters) are drawn will be a key focus to observe in the second instance.
  
• Non-Finalized Cases: She emphasized that as a wrongful conviction rescue organization, the JRF generally does not make excessive comments on unfinalized cases. Furthermore, since the full judgment text is not yet available, her remarks only provide comparative suggestions from academic and legal logical perspectives.
  

Originally published on April 16, 2026, by PTS Taigi