Family Act Article 18
This English translation was last updated on 2012-01-11, but the Chinese text was amended on 2023-06-21. Later amendments may not be reflected in the translation — please refer to the Chinese text.
A presiding judge or a judge may, upon motion by the parties or on its own initiative, order a family matter investigation officer to investigate facts with regard to a particular matter.The family matter investigation officer who has conducted the investigation in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall submit a report to the court.Unless considered unnecessary, prior to ordering an investigation in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article, the presiding judge or the judge shall give the parties and the interested parties an opportunity to make a pleading through an oral argument or a statement.Prior to making a ruling, the presiding judge or the judge, taking account of matters covered by the report submitted in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this Article, shall give the parties and the interested parties an opportunity to be heard or to present their arguments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the requirement for a hearing does not apply to situations where the privacy of the related persons or an inappropriate subject-matter is involved.When considered it necessary, the presiding judge or the judge may order the family matter investigation officer to appear before the court to testify, on the date designated in the summons.
中文原文 家事事件法第18條
審判長或法官得依聲請或依職權命家事調查官就特定事項調查事實。
家事調查官為前項之調查,應提出報告。
審判長或法官命為第一項調查前,應使當事人或利害關係人以言詞或書狀陳述意見。
但認為不必要者,不在此限。
審判長或法官斟酌第二項調查報告書為裁判前,應使當事人或利害關係人有陳述意見或辯論之機會。
但其內容涉及隱私或有不適當之情形者,不在此限。
審判長或法官認為必要時,得命家事調查官於期日到場陳述意見。
家事調查官為前項之調查,應提出報告。
審判長或法官命為第一項調查前,應使當事人或利害關係人以言詞或書狀陳述意見。
但認為不必要者,不在此限。
審判長或法官斟酌第二項調查報告書為裁判前,應使當事人或利害關係人有陳述意見或辯論之機會。
但其內容涉及隱私或有不適當之情形者,不在此限。
審判長或法官認為必要時,得命家事調查官於期日到場陳述意見。