START WITH THE ANSWERS
Six questions, six direct answers
Doesn’t Taiwan have social assistance?
Yes. But “vulnerable-family” status is an assessment-and-referral mechanism, not a single cash benefit that automatically pays a fixed or full amount. Each step must be checked separately: assessment, application, approval, actual payment, and the remaining family share. Official description
Why did the grandmother still enter adoption placement?
The law did not force her. Ordinary support still left a family share she could not afford, while the adoption-placement program covered the entire childcare fee—creating something close to a financial one-way street. CWLF’s own timeline says that after the September 1, 2023 handoff, CWLF subsidized the full fee. CWLF timeline
Could caregiver Zhou have continued caring for Kaikai?
Family statements and hearing reports say Zhou, who had cared for Kaikai for more than a year, was willing to continue and expressed interest in joining CWLF’s cooperating-caregiver system. Prosecutors further alleged that fee reduction, installments, or an agreed repayment waiver could still have been requested if the existing care continued, but Chen Shang-jie neither disclosed nor assisted with those options. That is not proof of an approved, fixed government subsidy, and the complete application, eligibility review, and response records are not public. The checkable question is who assessed the options, what was compared, and whether the reason for exclusion was documented. See the selection comparison
Why not call police as soon as she became concerned?
She had neither the address nor direct caregiver contact and received only fragments relayed through the assigned worker. A report could trigger a safety check, but it did not automatically end full-time childcare or authorize her to see or retrieve the child immediately.
Why was Kaikai not simply placed first with a Taiwanese family?
Priority for adopters within Taiwan set the order of matching; it did not let relatives designate a household or let an applicant bypass fitness and best-interests review. The public record shows no completed match, pre-adoptive placement, or court approval when Kaikai died, and identifies no selected adopter. Section 8 explains
Do post-case rule changes prove children are safer now?
No. Local-government necessity assessment began in 2024 and 2025 reforms strengthened matching review and intercountry documentation. Rules must still be audited case by case for named ownership, direct observation, deadlines, cross-system handoff, and overdue escalation. See the audit checklist
- AssessWas need identified?
- ApplyFor which program?
- ApproveEligibility and amount?
- PayWas it received?
- GapWas the balance affordable?
Having welfare services did not mean the care gap was covered; having permission in principle to visit did not mean the family could arrange a visit independently.
Yellow | direct answersGreen | resourcesPink | contact barriersBlue | duties and verification
CORE ASSESSMENT
It was not that the grandmother failed to move toward the child. The decisive steps all ran through institutional gatekeepers.
She was already in the welfare system and, according to currently available hearing material, remained the guardian. But ordinary support left an unaffordable childcare share; after adoption-placement services began, the address, direct contact, visit coordination, and updates were concentrated among the organization, assigned worker, and caregiver. She could ask questions, seek a meeting, raise concerns, or request a change, but she could not locate, see, verify, or retrieve the child on her own.
When the grandmother could not see Kaikai directly, who should have completed an in-person check, cross-verification, statutory reporting, and any necessary protection?
Procedural update (as of September 13, 2026): Taipei District Court delivered its first-instance judgment on April 16, 2026. On May 15, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office appealed the acquittal and sentencing portions; the case is not final. The appeal is docketed in the Taiwan High Court as Case No. 115年度上訴字第4688號, with a preparatory hearing currently scheduled for September 16 at 2:30 p.m.; check the court’s latest notice for changes. Unless otherwise marked, “court finding” here remains limited to the publicly available first-instance reasons. Appeal report Hearing information
01 | HOW INFORMATION REACHED THE GRANDMOTHER
Separate what she received then from what became known later
- First-instance finding
Full-time care began
The public reasons state that the organization placed the child in full-time care from September 1. The grandmother joined the handoff but afterward did not hold the caregiver’s direct contact or care address.
- Hearing-material digest
The worker requested recent photos
Hearing material says Chen Shang-jie asked Liu Caixuan for recent photos. They were not immediately supplied because Liu’s phone was being repaired.
- Hearing-material digest
Two photo sets reached the grandmother together
Chen sent the September 25 and October 23 sets on the same day. This supports delayed delivery, but does not itself prove deliberate deception.
- CWLF public timeline
Photos and a dental explanation were relayed
CWLF says the worker shared recent photos and relayed accounts of tooth grinding, tooth loss, and a dental assessment. The grandmother could not inspect the complete medical record or examine injuries herself.
- Original record needed
The family’s last in-person contact and each visit request
The current public summary does not establish these dates. They must be reconstructed from the agreement, messages, call logs, visit requests, and original responses.
- First-instance finding
1:31 a.m.
The public reasons state that the child died at this time. It is the endpoint—not evidence from which to infer that the grandmother already knew the full risk inside the care home.
02 | EVIDENCE AND MISSING ORIGINALS
Every statement must identify who made or established it
Care and information were concentrated
Looking at recruitment, selection of the full-time caregiver, visits, reports, and the power to change care, the trial court found case-specific control and protective duties.
Three systems did not form a protection loop
The Control Yuan identified New Taipei vulnerable-family services, adoption-placement services, and Taipei home-childcare oversight, but found ineffective horizontal coordination.
Visits and direct contact were constrained
This site’s hearing digest says the grandmother lacked the caregiver’s direct contact and address and needed the worker to coordinate meetings. Observer notes are not an official transcript.
Were fee options explained?
Prosecutors alleged that Chen Shang-jie neither disclosed nor helped apply for fee reduction, installments, or an agreed repayment waiver. An allegation is not a court finding.
CWLF says it did not bar visits
The organization says it did not prevent the grandmother from visiting and respected her choice. No formal ban does not itself answer whether she could arrange direct contact independently.
The exact disclosures and restrictions
Benefit decisions, contract clauses, fee-option notices, and each visit request and response cannot be replaced by testimony, prosecution claims, or observer notes.
Evidence still missing
| Record to verify | Question it could answer | Current editorial boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Complete benefit decisions, eligibility assessment, and family-cost calculation | What support was actually available, and which costs remained with the family? | Verify each amount |
| Manual, disclosure, application, and decision records for fee reductions, installments, and repayment waivers | What conditions applied? Were options explained and applications assisted? How did the court assess this prosecution allegation? | Allegation is not a court finding |
| Zhou’s application, review, response, and caregiver-comparison records | Was a formal application filed? Who reviewed it? How were eligibility, familiarity with the child, and any reason for exclusion weighed? | Family concern needs original records |
| Complete service agreement, annexes, and revisions | What governed visits, the address, contact, termination, or a change of care? | Do not invent clauses |
| Visit requests, scheduling, cancellations, and responses | When did the grandmother ask, and who decided and replied? | Dates unverified |
| Original messages, calls, and photo transmissions | What updates reached the family, and could they be independently verified? | Do not presume knowledge |
| Records showing whether the address and direct contact were provided | Did the grandmother ever have enough information to visit independently? | Do not settle by retelling |
| Cross-agency referral, acceptance, and closure records | If a concern was raised, did a named person take the case and see the child? | Do not assume a report |
03 | SEPARATE THREE DIFFERENT RESOURCES
Resources existed, but their eligibility rules and family costs were fundamentally different.
The easiest mistake is to treat public vulnerable-family support, fee handling in CWLF’s manual, and fully funded childcare after entry into adoption placement as one “benefit.” They had different decision-makers, conditions, and legal effects.
| Program or resource | Nature | What is known—and what to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Public vulnerable-family support | A public intake-and-assessment process connecting a family to financial, childcare, caregiving, and other welfare resources. Opening a case did not guarantee a fixed, full payment. | New Taipei publicly said it helped apply for child living and childcare benefits and provided an additional NT$7,000 per month plus supplies. Hearing material still points to a substantial family share. What exactly was approved, paid, and left unpaid? New Taipei statement |
| Reductions, installments, or agreed repayment waivers in CWLF’s manual | An internal mechanism for handling specified childcare charges. Applicability and decision-making require the manual, agreement, and case record. | Prosecutors alleged that Chen Shang-jie neither disclosed these options nor helped the grandmother apply. Did the mechanism apply? What options were explained? Are there application and decision records? Indictment report |
| Fully funded childcare during adoption placement | After entry into this adoption-placement service and cooperating-caregiver arrangement, CWLF covered the full childcare fee. This was not a public benefit available to every family. | CWLF’s timeline records the September 1, 2023 handoff and full childcare subsidy. Did that cost difference create an incentive under which adoption was the only affordable path? CWLF timeline |
COOPERATING-CAREGIVER SELECTION
Why was caregiver Zhou, who had cared for Kaikai for more than a year, not brought into the system?
The question deserves forceful scrutiny, but three things must remain separate: child-specific caregiving experience, professional credentials and registration dates, and who made the selection. Being familiar with Kaikai does not by itself prove longer professional seniority; receiving a home-care registration certificate in 2022 does not mean Liu first qualified as a babysitter that year.
Zhou: more than a year of actual care for Kaikai
Published reports say Zhou was willing to continue care and had expressed interest in joining CWLF’s cooperating-caregiver system. The public record does not yet show whether she formally applied, what eligibility review occurred, or what response she received. Report on the indictment issues
Continuing care was not necessarily “pay everything or stop”
Prosecutors alleged that where the birth family or grandmother could not afford the childcare fee, reduction, installment, or agreed repayment-waiver options remained available to request, but Chen did not disclose or help pursue them. If applicable, Zhou’s continued care need not have left the full cost with the grandmother. This is still an indictment allegation—not proof that a government subsidy had been approved or that a court found deliberate concealment.
Liu: technician certificate in 2011, home-care registration in 2022
The Control Yuan says Liu earned a babysitter technician certificate in July 2011, applied for home-care registration in September 2022 to satisfy CWLF eligibility, and received the registration certificate on November 10. She took over Kaikai’s full-time care in September 2023. The Control Yuan also flagged the more-than-ten-year gap and questioned pre-service practical and training mechanisms. Control Yuan statement
CWLF recruited, screened, and assigned cooperating caregivers
The Taipei District Court’s public reasons found that CWLF recruited and screened cooperating caregivers, assigned Liu, and owed supervisory and protective duties. The public summary did not find that Chen alone decided to exclude Zhou. Public first-instance summary
| Issue | Caregiver Zhou | Liu Caixuan | Current conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual care of Kaikai | Published reports say more than a year; she was more familiar with his routines and needs. | Took over full-time care in September 2023. | Zhou had more child-specific caregiving experience; that alone does not establish longer overall professional credentials. |
| Credentials and registration | Her complete credential, registration, and cooperating-caregiver eligibility records are not public. | Babysitter technician certificate in 2011; home-based childcare service registration certificate on November 10, 2022. | It is inaccurate to call Liu “newly certified as a babysitter.” It is accurate that she received the home-care registration certificate about ten months before taking over this case. |
| Entry and selection process | The family questions why Chen did not facilitate entry; the application and response originals are not public. | The public first-instance reasons confirm CWLF recruited, screened, and assigned her. | Application, eligibility review, comparison criteria, exclusion reasons, supervisory approval, and notice records are needed before concluding that anyone intentionally blocked Zhou or made an improper selection. |
| Cost path for continued care | Prosecutors allege that reduction, installment, or agreed repayment-waiver options could still be requested, and that Chen failed to disclose or assist. | CWLF covered the full fee after the cooperating-caregiver arrangement began. | It is fair to ask whether non-disclosure created a false “change caregiver or pay everything” choice; it is not accurate to say Zhou had already been approved for a fixed government subsidy. |
04 | THE AGREEMENT AND PRACTICAL OPERATION
The practical exercise of rights was constrained.
The agreement did not erase every family status.
An adoption-placement agreement was not a court no-contact order, and currently available hearing material indicates that the grandmother remained the guardian. But that material also shows that once 24-hour care began, visits, location, contact, and updates were concentrated in the organization’s process, limiting her ability to maintain everyday contact and verify safety independently.
| Issue | What she could do | Practical limits shown by currently available hearing material |
|---|---|---|
| Visit | Request a visit or meeting from CWLF. | Chen Shang-jie had to coordinate; the cooperating caregiver then brought the child to the CWLF office. The grandmother could not schedule directly with the caregiver or simply arrive. |
| Contact and locate | Ask the assigned channel about the child’s location and condition. | She did not have caregiver Liu’s address or direct number. A hearing witness also said the childcare agreement listed only CWLF’s office telephone. |
| Verify safety | Ask for photos, question anomalies, and raise concerns with the organization or authorities. | Information mainly moved caregiver → worker → family/public agency. She could not see the child concurrently or independently check photo timing, changes in injuries, or care records. |
| Change care | Seek review of ending adoption plans, changing the caregiver, ending the arrangement, or obtaining welfare and legal help. | A request did not authorize immediate entry into a private home or removal of the child; guardianship, childcare, handoff, and fee procedures still had to be addressed. |
INSTITUTIONAL POSITION, COMPARED
Put the competing accounts side by side
| CWLF’s public position | What hearing material shows | What this page actually asks |
|---|---|---|
| CWLF says it never prevented the grandmother from visiting Kaikai and says it respected her decision not to visit because of the emotional pain. CWLF clarification | A meeting required coordination by Chen Shang-jie and the cooperating caregiver bringing the child to CWLF’s office. The grandmother lacked the care address and direct contact information. | Could she contact, locate, schedule a meeting, and verify safety without going through the worker? If not, who owed her an independently verifiable alternative safety check? |
“No ban on visits” is not the same as a family being able to arrange a visit independently.
05 | WHAT SHE KNEW—AND WHY REPORTING DID NOT MEAN RETURN
A police report could initiate a safety check, but it did not automatically end full-time childcare or authorize the family to retrieve the child immediately.
The grandmother was not at the care site and had neither the address nor a direct number. Her ability to assess risk depended on when the worker relayed information, which photos were supplied, and how anomalies were explained.
Hearing material says Chen Shang-jie asked Liu Caixuan for recent photos on October 6. Liu did not respond immediately because Liu’s phone was being repaired. On October 24, Chen sent the grandmother the September 25 and October 23 sets together. That supports delay, not automatic proof of deliberate deception.
A relative with a concrete concern may contact police or Taiwan’s 113 Protection Hotline without first proving abuse. Police still must locate the child, identify the safety issue, make required referrals, and coordinate with social services; the report itself does not immediately change care.
LEGAL EFFECTS
Reporting, protection, and adoption placement are three different procedures
The third column draws procedural boundaries from each article’s function; it is not statutory text. The competent authority must still decide each case on its facts.
| Procedure | Legal basis and function | What does not happen automatically |
|---|---|---|
| Article 53 reporting | Listed professionals who learn of specified child risks while performing their duties must report immediately and no later than 24 hours; any person who learns of such a risk may report. The competent authority must also classify the case immediately and no later than 24 hours. | A report is not a return order and does not itself decide who may immediately retrieve the child. |
| Article 56 protection | When a listed danger exists, the competent authority must provide protection, placement, or another measure and may use emergency placement. Suspected cases require a multi-factor, best-interests assessment; police or prosecutorial assistance may be requested. | Calling police does not itself change guardianship or the existing care arrangement at the scene. |
| Article 16 adoption | Except for statutory close-relative and stepparent cases, a parent or guardian proposing adoption because they cannot support the child must use a licensed matching provider to identify a suitable adopter; adopters within Taiwan receive priority (the statute’s term is “domestic adopters”). | Priority within Taiwan does not mean matching was complete; a safety report does not automatically end full-time childcare or complete a care handoff. |
VERIFIABILITY OF INFORMATION
Separate contemporaneous information from hindsight
| What the grandmother received at the time | What she could verify independently | Available action—and its limit |
|---|---|---|
| September 1 handoff: the child moved to full-time care by a CWLF cooperating caregiver; CWLF’s timeline says it subsidized the entire fee. | She participated in the handoff, but afterward lacked the care address and direct contact and could not observe everyday care herself. | She could ask the worker and request a meeting; time, place, and contact still ran through the institutional channel. |
| October 24: she received the September 25 and October 23 photo sets together. | Selected images showed moments, not the full context, the unreported interval, or daily safety. | She could question the delay or anomalies, seek an in-person view, or contact authorities; she still lacked the location and first-hand records. |
| December 9: CWLF’s timeline says the worker shared recent photos and relayed information about tooth grinding, tooth loss, and a dentist’s assessment. | The information came through the caregiver and worker. She could not inspect full medical records, examine injuries, or test whether the explanation was sufficient. | She could seek medical records, a meeting, an independent check, or make a report; a request still did not produce immediate access or return. |
| Before December 24: public material shows photos, relayed updates, and delays—not confirmed notice to her that “the child is being abused.” | The available public record does not establish that she knew the full harm occurring inside the care home. | A concrete concern was enough to ask 113, police, or social services to check. But those holding the address and authority had to complete direct observation, cross-checking, and protection. |
06 | SIX POSSIBLE ROUTES TO HELP
Why could rescue still be difficult under each scenario?
Every route below is a system scenario, not a claim about what the grandmother actually did. The purpose is to show why a relative acting alone would struggle to complete the whole chain: locate, see, verify, change care, and secure immediate protection.
Request a visit
System scenarioAsk the organization or assigned worker for an in-person visit, photographs, or an update.
She did not unilaterally control the time, place, address, or approval. A reply or photo was not the same as seeing the child and independently confirming safety.
Log the request and decide it by a deadline. If a visit cannot occur, provide an independent, verifiable safety check.
Go directly to the care residence
System scenarioOnly if she knew the correct address and was lawfully permitted to make contact.
Without the address or direct contact, kinship alone gave no right to enter a private home. Going there did not guarantee access to or removal of the child.
Those holding the address and inspection authority should intensify checks when warnings arise or contact is blocked.
Raise a concern with police
System scenarioDescribe prolonged lack of contact, conflicting accounts, or another concrete safety concern.
A police report did not automatically end full-time childcare or authorize the family to retrieve the child immediately. If treated only as a visitation or adoption dispute, the safety concern might still fail to become a formal check.
Separate family-rights disputes from child-safety concerns; document, report, refer, and confirm who takes responsibility.
Contact local social-welfare authorities
System scenarioRequest a safety check and explain the restricted contact and inconsistent information.
Across jurisdictions, service systems, and unclear lead responsibility, a relative may not know the right entry point. A referral did not prove that anyone had seen the child.
Use one intake point and record a named owner, deadline, response, and overdue escalation.
Ask to end the arrangement or bring the child home
System scenarioRaise concerns and request a change from the organization within the service and contractual relationship.
The agreement, stability of care, placement process, and guardianship arrangements required clarification. A request alone did not create an immediate legal transfer.
Even if care cannot change immediately, safety must be checked independently first. Procedure cannot justify delay.
Seek legal assistance
System scenarioAsk a lawyer or legal-aid service to clarify the agreement, guardianship, visitation, and available remedies.
Legal procedures require time, documents, and a clear opposing party. Advice cannot itself produce immediate in-person verification if urgent risk is not simultaneously routed into child-protection review.
Run rights remedies and safety protection in parallel. A family should not have to finish litigation before anyone checks whether a child is safe.
COMPOUND BARRIERS
Six limits combined into breaks in the rescue chain
- Could not seeDaily contact ended
- Could not locateAddress and direct contact missing
- Could not proveFirst-hand records held by others
- Could not take homeCare could not be changed unilaterally
- Passed between systemsPolice, welfare, and institutional roles differed
- Waited for repliesNo timed closure or escalation
The less direct contact the family had, the greater the system’s duty to verify independently.
07 | WHO HELD THE KEYS?
Where authority sat, duties to verify and protect must be examined.
| Actor | What they could know or initiate | Responsibility to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Grandmother | Ask questions, request meetings, raise concerns, seek a change, or ask for help. | Establish what she actually received and requested; do not assume she knew the address or full risk. |
| Chen Shang-jie and CWLF | Care address, direct contact, visits, photos and updates, visit coordination, and the process for changing caregivers. | Whether three visits, warning recognition, disclosure, cross-checking, supervision, and statutory reporting met their case-specific duties. |
| Local authorities and cross-system channels | Vulnerable-family services, childcare oversight, child-protection inquiry, public-authority support, and cross-jurisdiction referrals. | Whether a named person took ownership, saw the child, integrated the three systems, and escalated overdue checks. |
Replace “Why didn’t the family go?” with four verification questions
Were the address, direct contact, and last-minute changes held by only one channel?
When relatives could not visit, was an independent visit completed on time?
Not merely “referred,” but assigned to a named person with a deadline and response.
There should be substitute contact, supervisory review, statutory reporting, and public-authority support where necessary.
08 | PRIORITY WITHIN TAIWAN DID NOT MEAN MATCHING WAS COMPLETE
Had Kaikai entered matching within Taiwan or intercountry matching?
The premise needs correction. The available public record does not show that an overseas family had been selected and a Taiwanese family passed over. Kaikai died while still in full-time interim care, before completed matching, pre-adoptive placement, and court approval; no public evidence identifies a selected overseas adopter.
In Kaikai’s case, the grandmother was not free to choose between Taiwan and mainland China as destinations. Under Article 16 of Taiwan’s Child and Juvenile Welfare and Rights Protection Act, a non-relative adoption had to be handled by a licensed matching organization, which would identify a suitable adopter, with adopters within Taiwan receiving priority (the statute’s term is “domestic adopters”); the family could not independently designate a household with no kinship relationship.
Priority within Taiwan applied from May 30, 2012
Article 16 requires a licensed matching organization to handle non-relative adoption and gives adopters within Taiwan priority (the statute’s term is “domestic adopters”). Intercountry adoption is a possible alternative only after no suitable family within Taiwan is found.
Priority still required fitness and best-interests review
Priority within Taiwan set the order of matching. It did not replace preparation, adopter-fitness assessment, matching to the child’s needs, gradual contact, pre-adoptive cohabitation, or court approval—and it did not require immediate placement with the first applicant.
The case was described as still being prepared for matching
In a 2026 statement, CWLF said that stable intent, the child’s development, and possible health or developmental needs still had to be addressed before a family search began. This is the organization’s account; this site does not have the case matching file.
09 | POST-CASE REFORM STILL REQUIRES AUDIT
Public authorities now enter earlier.
Announcement or implementation is not proof of effectiveness.
After the case, Taiwan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare said a private organization should not be left to handle adoption-necessity assessment, matching, interim care, and follow-up oversight on its own. Responsibilities were revised in stages. The measures below were announced or implemented; their existence does not prove that each one is effective in practice.
Since May 2024, the local government where the child lives must first assess whether adoption is necessary and examine support available to the birth family. The matching organization no longer makes that threshold assessment alone.
The ministry expressly said that economic hardship should trigger family and financial support first; poverty alone must not be the reason a child leaves the family. This directly addresses the gap between inadequate ordinary support and full payment inside the adoption-placement program.
If a child needs out-of-home care before matching, the local authority should arrange lawful placement. Local government should also assign a responsible social worker to work with the matching organization rather than withdrawing after referral.
Guidance effective in May 2024 calls for unannounced visits at varied times, direct observation of the child, and risk-indicator checks, with stronger attention to children under three and those in round-the-clock or overnight care.
Children under three in vulnerable families, government placements, or adoption proceedings are included in a designated-child-doctor network, reducing reliance on information passed only through the caregiver and a single social worker.
The revised regulation requires the organization to notify local government for the necessity assessment and local government to convene matching review and select a suitable adopter. If the birth family withdraws the adoption plan, family support must resume; an intercountry case must also document that priority-for-adopters-within-Taiwan procedures occurred first.
10 | TURN REFORM INTO AUDITABLE RESULTS
A system is not one more form.
Someone must be responsible for opening every door.
If reform records only “referred,” “visited,” or “informed,” the same gaps can recur. A closed protection loop should leave at least five outcomes below. These are advocacy benchmarks drawn from the system failures examined here, not findings that any one agency has already met or failed them.
Support first
Record usable alternatives, approved amounts, payment dates, and the remaining family share—not merely “resources provided.”
Direct observation
If contact is blocked, photos are late, or accounts conflict, a separate source must see the child within a defined deadline and document the condition.
Signals combined
Injury, tooth loss, fever, abnormal discipline, and blocked contact must accumulate on one cross-system risk timeline rather than reset in separate files.
Named ownership
Every handoff needs an accepting person, deadline, and response. Delay or failed contact should trigger supervisor review and a higher check level.
Matching trail
Domestic assessments, non-match reasons, intercountry necessity, and exclusions need dates, grounds, and records that can be audited.
Every reform must answer three questions:
- Who owns it?Not merely “referred.”
- When is it done?Not an open-ended wait.
- What if it fails?Supervisor review and escalation.
11 | SHARE KIT · TRADITIONAL AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE
Bring the question into public discussion.
Do not shift responsibility back onto the family.
The new posters use Morandi autumn colors, layered paper, clay, and impressionist light to present three threads together: Zhou’s more than one year of actual care for Kaikai, the fee options prosecutors say could have been requested, and Liu’s credential and registration timeline. Every scene is symbolic artwork, not a reconstruction; no identifiable child is shown.
CONCLUSION
When the system closed the door,
it cannot blame the grandmother for standing outside.
Do not blame the grandmother for standing outside. Ask instead: who held the keys to the address, contact, visits, and reporting—and when the family could not see the child themselves, who should have opened the door to a safety check?
SOURCES AND LEGAL BOUNDARIES
Checkable sources
- Judicial Yuan | Taipei District Court public first-instance summary (April 16, 2026): full-time care, three visits, concentrated information, and case-specific protective duties.
- Central News Agency | prosecution appeal of the acquittal and sentence (May 15, 2026): confirms that the judgment is not final.
- This site | public hearing information for Chen Shang-jie’s appeal: Case No. 115年度上訴字第4688號 is currently scheduled for a preparatory hearing at 2:30 p.m. on September 16, 2026; court notices control if details change.
- Control Yuan | Kaikai inquiry and corrective action (May 29, 2025): failed integration among vulnerable-family, adoption-placement, and home-childcare systems; also records Liu’s July 2011 babysitter technician certificate and November 10, 2022 home-care registration certificate.
- Taipei Department of Social Welfare | Vulnerable-family service description; New Taipei Social Welfare Department | case-resource statement (March 12, 2024).
- Central News Agency | trial testimony on family finances, childcare fees, and visits (May 5, 2025).
- TaiSounds | indictment-day report (August 27, 2024); Knews | indictment issues and Zhou’s offer to continue care: fee adjustment, notice, and Zhou’s interest in joining are each labeled as allegations or reported accounts.
- This site | witness-hearing notes in the Chen Shang-jie case: public-observer notes, not an official court transcript.
- CWLF | clarification on visits (May 28, 2025); CWLF | case timeline; CWLF | adoption-system explanation: each is labeled as the organization’s public position, not neutral adjudication.
- Laws & Regulations Database | Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act: Articles 15–17 and Article 16’s priority-for-adopters-within-Taiwan rule (the statute’s term is “domestic adopters”).
- Child and Juvenile Adoption Information Center | current matching-provider rules: local-government assessment and matching review, priority for adopters within Taiwan, and staff training.
- Ministry of Health and Welfare | 2024 corrective directions; Ministry | 2025 reform update; Taipei City | joint-visit and full-time-care visit measures.
- This site | Kaikai Case, Chapter 3: hearing notes and evidence boundaries.
- The full agreement, benefit approvals and payments, Zhou’s application/review/response, caregiver comparison and selection records, visit requests, communications, original photo files, and casework records remain pending evidence.
Legal and procedural notice: This public Chapter 4 is public-interest commentary and institutional scenario analysis, not a substitute for the judgment or case-specific legal advice. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office has appealed the first-instance acquittal and sentencing portions; later proceedings and finality must still be checked against published court records. Institutional statements, prosecution allegations, hearing material, and court findings are labeled separately. Scenarios do not imply that the grandmother actually took the described action.