寧為老人，毋為身障？──福利身分與安置費用追償間的爭議分析【本期企劃】 試閱
Rather Be an Elderly Person than a Disabled? - Analysis of Disputes between Welfare Status and Recovery of Resettlement Expenses
我國「老人福利法」關於第41條之安置費用追償，於2020年5月29日有重大修正，賦予地方主管機關得就老人保護及安置費用予以減輕或免除之職權，然而「身心障礙者權益保障法」關於身心障礙者之安置，迄今未有相應之配套措施，造成福利身分及安置費用追償間的爭議。本文以「臺灣新北地方法院110年度簡字第17號行政訴訟判決」為例，參酌身心障礙者權利公約、聯合國老人綱領、社會工作倫理守則之相關意旨，認為在現有制度的侷限下，若被安置者同時具有老人及身心障礙者雙重身分，宜向案主及親屬分析利弊得失，在案主自決之前提下，可優先轉換為老人保護安置，使可能具有法定減免事由且未送行政執行之個案，獲得依照老人福利法第41條第5項提會審查之機會。
In Taiwan, “Elderly Welfare Law” on the recovery of resettlement costs in Article 41 was significantly amended on May 29, 2019, giving local competent authorities the power to reduce or exempt elderly protection and resettlement costs. Regarding the placement of the physically and mentally handicapped in the “Security Law,” there has been no corresponding supporting measures so far, resulting in disputes between welfare status and the recovery of placement costs. This article takes the “Administrative Litigation Judgment of Taiwan New Taipei District Court No. 17 in 110 Years” as an example, considering the relevant meanings of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the United Nations Programme for the Elderly, and the Code of Ethics for Social Work, and argues that under the limitations of the existing system, if The resettled person has dual identities of the elderly and the physically and mentally handicapped at the same time. It is advisable to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the client and relatives. On the premise of the client’s self-determination, priority can be given to the elderly protection resettlement, so that there may be statutory reasons for exemption and no administrative enforcement. The case is given the opportunity for review in accordance with Article 41, Paragraph 5 of the Elderly Welfare Act.
029-045
