The court press release in the principal case confirms towel restraints, blindfolding and placement in a bucket after restraint. The supplied DAY1 observer account additionally records hands and feet fixed to a wooden stool and computer chair, and wrapping with luggage straps; compiled hearing notes mention the body being bent backward.
陳尚潔 Accountability · CHEN SHANGJIE FIRST-INSTANCE · 12 WITNESSES
12 witnesses, not 12 isolated islands
Hearing date range: November 27, 2025 to January 29, 2026
Five hearings: 2025.11.27, 12.11, 12.18, 2026.01.22 and 01.29.
Place the courtroom questions and answers of 12 witnesses, including 林心慈, 施盈如, 葉詩宇 and 葉亭希, on one evidence map of who knew what, when they knew it, and what they could do.林心慈施盈如葉詩宇葉亭希
Consistent boundaries for interpretationDifferent accounts ≠ proven falsehoodRecords completed after the incident ≠ necessarily forgedJudicial follow-up questions ≠ conviction
12 witnesses
Separate four layers to avoid turning questions into conclusions
- Observer accountsQuestions and answers heard in court by the recorder; not a court-issued verbatim transcript.
- Original documents/imagesVisit forms, messages, photographs, videos, medical records and file metadata.
- First-instance findingsThe court’s reasons concerning 陳尚潔’s negligent-homicide and document-forgery charges; the main page continues to provide legal-status updates.
- This site’s cross-checksIdentify agreements, differences and gaps, without deciding perjury, collusion or criminal liability in other cases on the court’s behalf.
Restraints, the body bent backward, a bucket and the “potty” account: do not combine adjacent evidence into a new fact
The currently publicly traceable court press release and these observer accounts do not yet present “a strap fastened directly around the genitals and tied to a potty” as one complete, established fact. This page therefore does not state it as a conclusion; it will be updated after matching original photographs, filenames, capture times and inspection records.
Sixteen key differences, turning points and points lacking mutual corroboration
Here, “contradiction” means an evidentiary relationship to be tested, not a criminal assessment of a witness. Each row links back to the relevant witness’s full text.
Who had “primary responsibility”? Formal roles differed from actual access to information
施盈如 testified that after the October call 陳尚潔 followed the child’s condition while she continued following the family; 徐珮華 said adoption work inherently includes monitoring children’s physical and mental well-being.
白麗芳, 江怡韻 and the defense emphasized that Shuying remained responsible for the vulnerable-family case; 丁雁琪 noted that “primary social worker” is a practical term whose meaning depends on the case and institutional model.
The first-instance court did not transfer New Taipei, Taipei or central-government responsibility to one social worker. It assessed actual duties through who personally saw the child, obtained photographs, received nanny reports, and could arrange extra visits and make reports.
Was CWLF merely an intermediary, or did it possess substantive care-management tools?
白麗芳 and 李芳玲 emphasized the lack of public authority, the home-based childcare center’s statutory oversight of nannies, and CWLF’s role in matching and connecting resources.
葉詩宇 and 葉亭希 explained nanny applications, inspections, matching, meetings and cooperation decisions. The court also examined actual control through contracts, payments, visits, training and termination of cooperation.
“No power to search or forcibly enter a home” does not mean “no means to verify, make extra visits, suspend referrals, change caregivers, request medical care or report.” Statutory oversight and contractual/actual management should be considered separately.
Was the first home-based childcare visit on September 22 or September 26?
林心慈 considered the actual visit date to be September 22 based on her photographs, acknowledging that the record said September 26. She said she changed the date because she had not completed the report that day.
黃玲芳 long believed it was September 26, discovering September 22 only after checking photos following prosecutorial questioning. 粘羽涵 testified that Taipei had referred the suspected inaccurate records to prosecutors and investigators.
The date discrepancy is more than a formatting issue: it changes the sequence relative to the September 25 photograph of forehead bruising. Whether it constitutes a crime must be determined in a separate case using original forms, photograph metadata and testimony.
The record says “completed daily”—was 剴剴’s baby diary actually seen during the visit?
Under prosecutorial questioning, 林心慈 said she had not seen 剴剴’s baby diary during visits, only asking how the nanny reported to the social worker.
The Control Yuan investigation found that 劉彩萱 made no baby diary for Child A, yet home-based childcare visit records stated “completed daily”; 黃玲芳 relied mainly on the visitor’s reports.
This distinguishes “having a form” from “conducting a check.” Original photographs, handwritten forms, signatures, upload times and supporting physical items or communications from that day should be checked.
When were service records completed? Post-incident completion and forgery must be separated
李芳玲 said records were unfinished on December 24; 江怡韻 had not seen the notes before the incident; 葉亭希 testified they were still being written on January 18, 2024; 葉詩宇 was still requesting conversations and visit records on December 29.
Supervisory witnesses mostly said internal rules allowed completion before adoptive-family matching and social workers could first use working notes. Prosecutors questioned how post-incident versions, file dates and contents came about.
Delay, post-incident compilation and false content are three different things. 陳尚潔 was acquitted of document forgery at first instance; full interpretation still requires original devices, version histories and appellate reasoning.
Three lost baby teeth: the abnormality was noticed, but was follow-up completed?
蔡函妤 testified that losing three baby teeth was inconsistent with grinding. At examination, the wounds had healed and there were oral ulcers, with no obvious grinding wear or jagged tooth fractures. Because external force, neurological conditions or other systemic disease remained possible, she recommended referral to a medical center. 黃聖心 likewise rejected grinding as an explanation.
劉彩萱 initially cited grinding, adding self-falling and self-collision only after the doctor rejected that explanation, and did not disclose that all three teeth fell out in one night. 陳尚潔 received the nanny’s retelling; the available accounts show no direct verification with the dentist, medical records or referral results.
Social workers need not make dental or internal-medicine diagnoses themselves, but can check whether referral advice was followed, obtain examination results, verify directly with medical providers, and make extra visits or statutory reports as warning signs accumulate—lost teeth, changing explanations, earlier bruises and postponed visits.
Does reporting require “clear evidence,” or is reasonable concern enough to escalate?
白麗芳’s courtroom account linked reporting and injury assessment to medical expertise and clearer evidence, emphasizing that CWLF lacks public authority.
徐珮華 said adoption agencies must monitor physical and mental well-being; 施盈如 had voiced doubts about unusual accounts; emergency and dental testimony shows several medical warning signs could be externally verified.
The first-instance focus was not on requiring social workers to become doctors, but on whether accumulating warning signs prompted investigation, cross-checking, extra visits, obtaining medical information and statutory reporting.
Post-incident photographs, cloud copies and lawyer contacts: evidence-preservation boundaries
葉亭希 acknowledged asking 陳尚潔 to send photographs and then delete them from her phone, and said cloud copies were deleted after the lawyer downloaded them; explanations concerned stress, personal data and copy security.
The judge asked why material was deleted and transferred during a judicial investigation. 葉詩宇 also testified that before appearing, she and 葉亭希 contacted the defendant’s lawyer and viewed her own interrogation record.
Original devices, hashes, cloud audit logs and the chain of instructions should be fully preserved. This site labels this only as “evidence preservation and witness preparation issues,” without independently concluding evidence destruction, collusion or perjury.
Why did an interview showing “child-protection knowledge” fail to predict later danger?
葉詩宇 recalled that when assessing the 劉 sisters, both could discuss child protection and reporting and showed emotional engagement with children awaiting adoption.
The principal-case court later found prolonged restraint, abuse and joint participation based on conversations, photographs, videos, expert examinations and testimony.
This does not prove the assessor lied; it demonstrates the limited predictive power of self-report, certification and one-off interviews. Systems must be corrected through continuing direct observation, data comparisons, complaints and unannounced inspections.
Each agency knew only a fragment: when does confidentiality break the information chain?
施盈如 did not receive the actual caregiver’s address or full details; 林心慈 and 黃玲芳 said they did not know the child’s background and relied mainly on the nanny or visit reports.
陳尚潔 had family information, photographs, nanny reports and visits; CWLF supervisors knew the cooperation system; Taipei’s home-based childcare services had administrative visits and escalation tools for refused visits.
Confidentiality should protect children, not prevent necessary professionals from cross-verifying safety information. Minimum necessary disclosure, shared risk forms and receipt confirmation are reform priorities.
How should differing medical observations, police-interview recollections and courtroom review of clinic video be cross-read?
On the day of death, emergency physician 黃聖心 saw marked thinness and injuries to the face and multiple other areas, and considered injuries at unusual sites difficult to explain by ordinary falls or collisions.
At an approximately 15-minute initial consultation a month earlier, dentist 蔡函妤 saw three missing baby teeth with healed wounds. In court she initially said she saw no external injuries on exposed areas, while an earlier police record included details such as head bruises. Supplementary observer notes say medical staff also discussed injuries on the child when clinic footage was later reviewed in court.
The emergency examination on the day of death cannot be directly equated with the dental visit a month earlier. But 蔡函妤’s courtroom recollection, police statement and reviewed clinic video are three sets of evidence from the same visit, requiring item-by-item comparison with official inspection records, original footage, police materials, medical records and X-rays. Staff discussions in the footage cannot be ignored or expanded upon without the original content.
What can 24°C establish? Can it alone pinpoint the time of death?
黃聖心 testified that the child had no breathing or heartbeat before arrival, had a temperature of 24°C, and showed no oral signs supporting milk regurgitation; the emergency team did not accept the nanny’s explanation at the time.
Body temperature is affected by surroundings, clothing, build, measurement method and prehospital treatment; a single value cannot precisely determine the time of death without a complete forensic model.
It can challenge a “just discovered, just happened” narrative, but precise timing still requires communications, CCTV, ambulance records, postmortem cooling and other forensic evidence.
How far do photographs and inspection establish facts? Separate restraint, backward bending, bucket and potty accounts
The principal-case court press release confirms towel restraints, blindfolding and placement in a bucket after restraint. Observer accounts additionally record hands and feet fixed to a wooden stool/computer chair, luggage straps, and references to photographs of the body bent backward.
The currently publicly traceable court press release and this site’s observer accounts do not yet state “a strap fastened directly around the genitals and tied to a potty” as one complete, established fact.
The webpage lists confirmed restraint, backward bending, fixation and placement in a bucket as supported by photographic/physical evidence. “Strap around genitals, potty” is separately marked “awaiting image-by-image comparison of original photographs, filenames and inspection records,” to avoid combining adjacent evidence into new facts.
How did the nanny’s account change? Were tooth loss, injuries and medical information cross-checked?
Observer accounts show that 劉彩萱 explained tooth loss as grinding, then cited self-falls and self-collisions after medical rejection of that explanation; 陳尚潔 mainly received the nanny’s retelling.
黃聖心 rejected grinding as sufficient to cause three baby teeth to fall out. The principal-case court found prolonged injury, increasing thinness and external injuries based on documentary and physical evidence, expert findings and witness testimony.
The issue is not requiring a social worker to diagnose, but whether changing explanations led to direct verification of medical records, referral outcomes and the child’s current condition, and escalation of accumulated warnings.
Did naming one nanny in the contract obscure risks from 劉若琳’s actual shared caregiving?
Childcare contracts and external visits generally treated 劉彩萱 as the cooperating nanny and principal contact; some testimony focused on agencies’ management boundaries for registered nannies.
The court found that although 劉若琳 was not the main caregiver, her daily living substantially overlapped with the child’s, she actually helped care for him, and actively monitored, encouraged and jointly participated in abuse.
“Contractual designation” must be distinguished from the “actual caregiving network.” Whether nanny family members, cohabitants and others who actually encounter the child are included in visits and risk assessment is a systemic issue.
Why did prolonged harm established in the principal case fail to trigger an alarm through visits, forms and interagency information?
The 12 witnesses separately described primary roles, visit frequency, baby diaries, record deadlines, medical judgments, reporting thresholds and management tools, showing each agency held only part of the information.
The court found that from September 4, 2023 through the evening of December 23, the 劉 sisters continuously acted together to injure, restrict the liberty of and abuse the child, who grew increasingly thin and had external injuries, ultimately dying.
The central discrepancy is why continuing risk later established by principal-case evidence was not, at the time, assembled from photos, medical information, visit observations and interagency reports into an actionable overall picture.
Individual analysis and complete observer accounts for all 12 witnesses
Full texts retain the original question-and-answer order and uncertainty markers. Search only hides nonmatching witness cards; it does not alter the text.
No matching witness or keyword. Shorten your search or try terms such as date, diary, tooth loss, photographs, records or primary responsibility.
2025.11.27 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
徐珮華
Inspector, Family Support Division, Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare; oversight of adoption-matching agencies
Explained that adoption is a government-licensed activity. Under the old system in force when the incident occurred, matching-service providers could arrange care themselves, but agencies still had to monitor children’s physical and mental condition and document services promptly and objectively.
Central licensing and oversightOld system permitting self-arranged careDuty to monitor physical and mental well-beingTimeliness and objectivity of records
- Differs from 丁雁琪’s institutional model: the Catholic welfare organization has its own placement facility; CWLF does not.
- Raises an issue over the scope of institutional tools alongside 白麗芳 and 李芳玲’s description of “only an intermediary/resource connector.”
徐珮華’s account of adoption agencies’ continuing duty to monitor well-being should be read with the principal-case findings that 劉彩萱 was the entrusted main caregiver and 劉若琳 actually shared caregiving. Caregivers’ criminal liability and agencies’ verification duties do not cancel each other out.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Presiding judge]Have the defendant and defense counsel changed their position?
[Presiding judge]Any objection regarding the previously disputed/undisputed facts?
[Prosecutor]& [Defense counsel] No.
[Prosecutor]Because the facts to be proved conflict, we request separate examination of the three witnesses.
[Presiding judge]Agreed. Entry and exit will be controlled during witness examinations. First, all three witnesses will take the oath.
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]What are your duties?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Inspector in the Family Support Division, Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare (adoption services, matching-agency oversight).
[Prosecutor]Does “matching agency” mean CWLF?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Yes. Adoption is a licensed activity requiring special government permission. There are eight agencies domestically.
[Shown: new (July 2025) and old (2021, before the incident) adoption-matching regulations]
[Prosecutor]Before the incident, what specific eligibility conditions did the Ministry review for agencies to conduct adoption work?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Broadly, compliance with the conditions in Article 3, submission of documents under Article 8, and the agency’s past record considered together.
[Prosecutor]Would you consider whether the agency has a placement facility?
[Witness — 徐珮華]I had not started working there then, so I am unsure.
[Prosecutor]Why do the regulations require adoption agencies to have social workers?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Because the work involves child development and welfare… (omitted), agencies must have social workers.
[Prosecutor]Do all adoption agencies have placement facilities?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Only CWLF and the Garden of Hope do not.
[Prosecutor]Why were the regulations amended twice?
[Witness — 徐珮華]The first was a major amendment on July 10. The second added Article 32-1 so Taitung’s 家立立 agency could complete its ongoing adoption work.
[Shown: Article 23-3 of the adoption-matching regulations]
[Prosecutor]Why was this provision on social workers’ pre-service training added?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Because social workers were considered to need sensitivity to these issues.
[Prosecutor]Was the addition meant to emphasize that “this expertise was unnecessary before,” or to “explicitly codify it”?
[Witness — 徐珮華]It was not only required under the new rules. Article 20 of the old rules already required 20 hours of training; the new rules simply make it more explicit.
[Prosecutor]Under the 2021 rules (before the incident), how did adoption and matching-service providers operate?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Under the old rules, adoption and matching-service providers could arrange placement themselves.
[Prosecutor]Even without having a placement facility?
[Witness — 徐珮華]I had not started working there then, so I am unsure.
[Shown: the 劉 child’s childcare contract (three-party contract: besides the grandmother and 劉彩萱, CWLF is Party C)]
[Prosecutor]Did CWLF find a cooperating nanny itself to place the 劉 child?
[Witness — 徐珮華]I do not know. Since I started this year, all placements are now arranged by local governments.
[Prosecutor]Was the change because of this case?
[Witness — 徐珮華]As far as I know, it was related to this case.
[Prosecutor]The social workers involved include the defendant, New Taipei’s Shuying Social Welfare Center and Wenshan’s home-based childcare center. What are their main duties?
[Witness — 徐珮華]The defendant: adoption matching; New Taipei Shuying Center: vulnerable-family services and strengthening families; Wenshan home-based childcare center: quality of nanny care.
[Prosecutor]Does CWLF have internal working guidelines for adoption matching?
[Witness — 徐珮華]I am unsure.
[Prosecutor]Are you a social worker?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Are there time requirements for social workers’ visit frequency and report writing?
[Witness — 徐珮華]There were no explicit rules in the past.
[Prosecutor]Not even in the social workers’ code of ethics?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Yes.
[Shown: social workers’ code of ethics]
[Prosecutor]Can social workers decide for themselves when to make records?
[Witness — 徐珮華]There is no uniform standard; I cannot give a general rule.
[Defense counsel examination]
[Shown: vulnerable-family risk-identification indicators]
[Defense counsel]Have you worked at a social welfare center? Do such centers serve vulnerable families? Was this a high-risk vulnerable family?
[Witness — 徐珮華]It would not be appropriate for me to assess this case.
[Defense counsel]Do high-risk vulnerable families need more public-authority intervention?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Risk level requires assessment, and intervention varies with needs. Vulnerable-family work is not my remit, so I do not know.
[Defense counsel]Is the social welfare center responsible for the whole family, including care and visits before adoption?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Its services are family-centered, aimed at restoring the whole family’s functioning. Social welfare center work really is not my area of familiarity.
[Defense counsel]Was six hours of child-abuse identification training first required under the new rules?
[Witness — 徐珮華]No. It was explicitly written into law on July 10.
[Defense counsel]Why must Wenshan’s home-based childcare center visit nannies?
[Witness — 徐珮華]The center presumably has relevant requirements.
[Judicial examination]
[Shown: Social Work Code of Ethics, Chapter 2, item 3, point 3-3: Social workers’ service records should comply with relevant laws, be timely, accurate and objective, and be properly preserved…]
[Presiding judge]Does “timely” here mean social workers decide the urgency themselves?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Usually based on 1. relevant laws and regulations, 2. internal work rules, and 3. discussion with the social worker’s supervisor.
[Presiding judge]Does social-work education or the licensing examination cover identifying abused children?
[Witness — 徐珮華]More so in protective-service agencies. Not in the examination, though it may arise during internships.
[Presiding judge]Before July 10, could adoption agencies place children themselves?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Yes.
[Presiding judge]How did adoption agencies without placement facilities arrange placement?
[Witness — 徐珮華]From earlier materials I saw, they engaged nannies.
[Presiding judge]After licensing, is there an oversight relationship between central government and CWLF? What is inspected?
[Witness — 徐珮華]An evaluation every three years and annual written review. The assessment indicators emphasized change each year; I do not know the earlier ones.
[Presiding judge]Besides adoption itself, do adoption social workers have other subsidiary duties?
[Witness — 徐珮華]The old rules already included much more. It was not only matching: before matching there were family assessments and children’s physical and mental development… [omitted].
[Assigned judge]Preparing the 劉 child for adoption required monitoring both physical and psychological conditions?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Yes.
[Further examination]
[Prosecutor]Under the old rules, could placement be arranged either by adoption-service providers themselves or by local government?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Yes.
[Prosecutor]If providers arranged placement themselves, would local government also visit or arrange another placement?
[Witness — 徐珮華]Usually the government would not appoint an additional new social worker for placement.
[Defense counsel]Do adoption agencies take cases directly themselves?
[Witness — 徐珮華]After the new rules took effect, there are no agency-direct intake cases.
[End of witness 1]
2025.11.27 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
施盈如
Former social worker, New Taipei Shuying Social Welfare Center; vulnerable-family services
Explained two referrals, birth-family services and the September 2023 handover. Testified she expressed doubts in the October call about “self-harm, swearing and forehead injury,” leading to an actual division in which 陳尚潔 followed the child and she followed the family.
Two referralsNot a government placementConcerns in the October callActual division of dutiesCaregiver address/details not obtained
- Not wholly incompatible with 白麗芳 and 江怡韻’s emphasis that “Shuying remained primarily responsible,” but shows a distinction between nominal primary responsibility and actual follow-up roles.
- Whether 陳尚潔 had the ability and duty to escalate concerns into verification or reporting is central to the first-instance judgment.
施盈如 had voiced concerns about the nanny’s accounts and the child’s condition. These should be compared with principal-case findings of prolonged shared care by the sisters, continuing injuries and increasing thinness, to examine whether concerns were fully passed on and escalated.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]Where do you currently work?
[Witness — 施盈如]I previously worked at Shuying Social Welfare Center, but no longer do.
[Prosecutor]What were your former responsibilities?
[Witness — 施盈如]Vulnerable-family case services, excluding violence—for example, economic disadvantage. There are six main vulnerable-family indicators… (omitted).
[Prosecutor]What services did you provide?
[Witness — 施盈如]After receiving a case, we provided services according to its circumstances and needs.
[Prosecutor]How did you come into contact with the 劉 child in this case?
[Witness — 施盈如]His mother discovered she was pregnant while imprisoned. Considering a possible sentence of over ten years, she wanted adoption. After giving birth she handed the child to CWLF and then became unreachable. When the family later decided on adoption, we continued with changing guardianship.
[Prosecutor]Did your work include visits? What was their focus?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes. Before each visit we set its purpose to decide what information to collect. Here, the main aim was interviewing caregivers to assess family functioning and whether adoption was necessary.
[Prosecutor]Did you refer the 劉 child to CWLF?
[Witness — 施盈如]There were two referrals. The first application was during the mother’s pregnancy; we contacted three agencies, but only CWLF replied that it could accept the case. The second followed loss of contact with the mother; because CWLF already had the child’s information, we referred only to it.
[Shown: referral form]
[Prosecutor]Did you accompany the 劉 child for a health examination before adoption?
[Witness — 施盈如]I helped arrange an examination before the second adoption referral, but did not personally accompany him. CWLF needed a physical examination report for certain items, but the cost was high and CWLF said it could not cover it, so I discussed assistance with the family.
[Prosecutor]Under what budget item was that expense reimbursed?
[Witness — 施盈如]I submitted it to accounting for reimbursement. It has been a long time; I no longer remember the details.
[Prosecutor]Your earlier statement said Social Welfare Department charitable donations were used. Why that source?
[Witness — 施盈如]Because the child was not in government placement, the examination could not be reimbursed from government placement funds, so Social Welfare Department charitable donations were used.
[Prosecutor]The 劉 child was not placed through the Social Welfare Department?
[Witness — 施盈如]No.
[Prosecutor]Did you hand over the 劉 child to defendant 陳?
[Witness — 施盈如]That September, the grandmother and I went to CWLF and handed him to nanny 劉; the grandmother also signed with CWLF then. In October, social worker 陳 called, saying he had a forehead injury, self-harmed and swore, asking about his condition with the previous nanny. I said I had seen no such behavior during my visit to nanny 周 and had assessed no bad habits there. I told 陳 I had concerns. 陳 said she was considering stopping adoption matching because of his condition. We divided duties, asking 陳 to continue monitoring him.
[Prosecutor]What do you mean by concerns?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes—if he did that, I should have seen it when children competed for toys during visits, but I saw no such behavior.
[Prosecutor]What do you mean by dividing duties?
[Witness — 施盈如]Simply put, I asked 陳 to continue following the 劉 child. I would keep following his older sister and consider closing the case at year-end if stable. The family’s biggest issue then was his adoption; handing it to CWLF would resolve the crisis and allow closure.
[Prosecutor]Why this division?
[Witness — 施盈如]Because this was not Social Welfare Department placement; the grandmother had entrusted him to CWLF.
[Prosecutor]Were there other minors in the grandmother’s home?
[Witness — 施盈如]Two: his older sister, also very young, and the grandmother’s own younger daughter. The financial burden was simply unaffordable, leading to the adoption decision.
[Shown: the 劉 child’s health examination form]
[Prosecutor]Have you seen this report? Was it in your handover documents?
[Witness — 施盈如]I have not seen it; I do not recall it.
[Prosecutor]When you referred him to CWLF, had your agency placed him protectively or by entrustment?
[Witness — 施盈如]No. Adoption was not then tied to government placement. Government acted only if the adoption agency requested it; CWLF had no mandatory requirement either. The family did not necessarily need placement and retained some ability to care for him if government provided resources.
[Shown: county/city procedures for entrusted child placements; principles for using home-based childcare personnel for out-of-home placement]
[Prosecutor]Since you did not place the child, did these principles apply?
[Witness — 施盈如]In my practical understanding, New Taipei requires all nannies accepting entrusted placements to join the home-based childcare center’s “Protecting Seedlings” program and receive professional training. Not every qualified nanny is eligible.
[Prosecutor]Does that apply only to government placement resources, or to CWLF too?
[Witness — 施盈如]I do not know CWLF’s rules, but county/city placement resources must follow it.
[Prosecutor]Did New Taipei assign the 劉 child a primary social worker?
[Witness — 施盈如]He did not enter the government placement process.
[Prosecutor]The defendant says she handled adoption only and was not the primary social worker. Who do you think was?
[Witness — 施盈如]I understand primary social work more in terms of case management. The 劉 child needed adoption because of family factors… (omitted).
[Prosecutor]After he was entrusted to CWLF, could you visit him?
[Witness — 施盈如]I had no information about the subsequent caregiver—not even her full name, only the surname 劉.
[Prosecutor]Then why could you visit nanny 周?
[Witness — 施盈如]She always knew the child was awaiting adoption and was cooperative. We maintained contact throughout.
[Prosecutor]How did you learn the child had died?
[Witness — 施盈如]It was daytime. I entered the office and received a telephone notification.
[Prosecutor]He was taken to hospital during the night of December 24. Did you know immediately?
[Witness — 施盈如]I learned much later. After his death, the family needed funeral assistance and did not want CWLF to handle arrangements, which brought me into the process. I was not involved in taking him to hospital.
[Prosecutor]Who was the accompanying social worker at the hospital?
[Witness — 施盈如]I do not know. Social worker 陳 briefly contacted me once, saying he choked on milk, went to hospital and died. All the information I received about the incident was secondhand.
[Prosecutor]Did you suggest to defendant 陳 that nanny 周 could continue caring for him?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes. 周 could continue caring for him, but the grandmother had financial difficulties and hoped care resources could ease the pressure. I raised keeping him with 周 with 陳尚潔, but she politely declined, saying CWLF already had regular cooperating nannies.
[Prosecutor]As you understand it, does CWLF have its own nanny-screening rules?
[Witness — 施盈如]I do not know their specific internal rules.
[Prosecutor]When did you visit nanny 周?
[Witness — 施盈如]I am no longer sure exactly. It was when I was preparing referral-form information so the adoption agency would know the child’s condition.
[Prosecutor]Do you hold a social-worker qualification?
[Witness — 施盈如]Not currently.
[Prosecutor]What deadline do you know for recording visit reports?
[Witness — 施盈如]Reports have a 30-day limit in the system. Records do not, but… (omitted).
[Defense examination]
[Defense counsel]When assessing adoption, why did you not choose resources allowing him to stay with nanny 周?
[Witness — 施盈如]In discussions with the grandmother, the Social Welfare Department could only maintain existing support, which did not ease her burden, hence the CWLF placement option. If monthly nanny fees were, say, NT$40,000—I cannot remember the precise amount—the government covered roughly half and she still owed the rest, whereas CWLF could pay all of it… (omitted).
[Shown: social welfare service center indicators for vulnerable-family services]
[Defense counsel]Under these risk indicators, did the child face personal-safety danger because the original caregiver was overburdened or unable to care for him? Was he high-risk? (Note: the observer later could not find personal-safety danger mentioned in those service indicators.)
[Witness — 施盈如]That improved after the Social Welfare Department intervened, so he would not remain high-risk indefinitely.
[Defense counsel]From your contact with him, did he meet the listed circumstances?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Then the Control Yuan report says “… (section concerning New Taipei Social Welfare Department shortcomings) …”. Why does it say that?
[Witness — 施盈如]I cannot explain why the Control Yuan reached that conclusion. This was not government placement and never entered that system. My registered client in the vulnerable-family system was actually his mother, but the family included his older sister and needed various resource connections… (omitted).
[Defense counsel]Shuying should follow up service connections, so did you not follow the child’s care either?
[Witness — 施盈如]In practice, I would learn about his care through social worker 陳.
[Defense counsel]When 陳尚潔 told you about the forehead injury in October, did you not follow up?
[Witness — 施盈如]My understanding was that after our contact, 陳尚潔 would continue following up.
[Judicial examination]
[Presiding judge]Ms. 施, do you currently still work as a social worker?
[Witness — 施盈如]No, but I still provide direct case services.
[Presiding judge]Have you always worked as a social worker?
[Witness — 施盈如]I have had two workplaces. Shuying Center was the first; after the incident I took a break, and my current job is the second.
[Presiding judge]Must visit reports be completed within a specified number of days or deadline?
[Witness — 施盈如]Visit reports have deadlines, but working records do not. Still, every step, including contacts during the work, should be recorded.
[Presiding judge]What is the visit-report deadline?
[Witness — 施盈如]Within 30 days; the system alerts if unfinished. “Visit report” means the initial visit report, due within 30 days of receiving a request for help to decide whether to open a case. Subsequent entries are records.
[Presiding judge]What do you consider your role in this case?
[Witness — 施盈如]Our side was the third party; the other party (Party B) was CWLF.
[Presiding judge]After he was handed to CWLF, did you have the nanny’s details to visit at any time?
[Witness — 施盈如]I followed resource connections between the adoption agency and the family.
[Presiding judge]CWLF did not give you information on nanny 劉, correct?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes.
[Assigned judge]Was the child not in placement?
[Witness — 施盈如]By “placement” I specifically mean entering the government system. Government placements involve regular placement meetings and reports, so I would not use “placement” to describe this.
[Assigned judge]Before this vulnerable-family case closed, did your work include monitoring his pre-adoption physical and mental condition?
[Witness — 施盈如]I learned about it through social worker 陳 at the time.
[Assigned judge]Did your duties overlap with defendant 陳’s there? How did you handle it?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes. That is why we divided duties in that telephone contact: she followed the child and I followed the birth family.
[Assigned judge]So you considered her primarily responsible for following the child?
[Witness — 施盈如]Because of that discussion.
[Assigned judge]After that discussion, did you think you no longer had responsibility to follow him?
[Witness — 施盈如][Choked with emotion] I do not want to say I bear absolutely no responsibility in this incident.
[Assigned judge]After speaking with 陳, did you obtain information on who was caring for the child and where, or simply trust 陳 to follow up?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes. 陳 was a professional. Based on trust in the social-work profession, I naturally assumed she would follow up.
[Assigned judge]You say you discussed dividing duties. Is there evidence, such as LINE messages, confirming that arrangement?
[Witness — 施盈如]We spoke on the office telephone that day. Shuying office phones have related data, but a long time has passed and I do not know whether it is still preserved.
[Associate judge]Was your relationship with defendant 陳 cooperative or one of entrustment?
[Witness — 施盈如]A cooperative entrustment relationship. We divided work on vulnerable-family issues and entrusted the child’s adoption to CWLF.
[Associate judge]Did you understand that you handled the vulnerable family and CWLF handled adoption?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes.
[Associate judge]Did defendant 陳 have other responsibilities in this vulnerable family, or only following the 劉 child?
[Witness — 施盈如]Yes.
[Further examination]
[Defense counsel]During your telephone conversation, did either of you realize the child was being abused?
[Witness — 施盈如][Choked with emotion] No.
[Presiding judge]CWLF assigned nanny 劉. If its care arrangement were refused, could CWLF decline the adoption case? Can these two parts be separated?
[Witness — 施盈如]The family’s financial burden was heavy, and CWLF could subsidize nanny fees. That was why its plan was ultimately chosen.
[End of witness 2]
2025.11.27 · Requested by defense
Witness / not a defendant
丁雁琪
Executive director, Catholic welfare organization; experienced social worker
Explained divisions of duties from the experience of an adoption organization with its own placement facility. Noted that “primary social worker” is a practical cooperation term, not a single legal answer applicable without regard to the case and institutional model.
Definition of primary social workerDifferences in institutional modelsDivision between home-based childcare and placementLimits of comparability of testimony
- Her organization did not use CWLF-style round-the-clock cooperating nannies, limiting her testimony about CWLF’s visit frequency and actual operations.
- Helps clarify that “primary responsibility” is not an exemption label, but cannot directly settle CWLF’s internal rules or this case’s facts.
丁雁琪 explained duties using other institutional models. Against the closed setting of the sisters’ actual shared care established in the principal case, the issue is whether outside agencies still needed verification mechanisms capable of going beyond caregivers’ one-sided accounts.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Defense examination]
[Defense counsel]What is your social-work background?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]I graduated in social work from Tunghai University and earned a master’s at Soochow’s graduate school of social work. I have been a social worker for 37 years and am now executive director of the Catholic welfare organization.
[Defense counsel]Do private adoption services accept cases directly?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]They could before. Since 2019 all must go through government.
[Defense counsel]For government referrals, is there a lead agency?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]There may be, if the family has other needs.
[Defense counsel]If so, who is the primary social worker?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]I cannot answer for an individual case.
[Defense counsel]Do all eight adoption agencies in Taiwan help match nannies?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]Six have their own placement facilities.
[Defense counsel]Do you have a mechanism for determining the primary social worker?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]The definition of primary social worker has changed over time… (omitted).
[Defense counsel]Do adoption agencies have service standards?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]Most agencies have service manuals.
[Shown: CWLF service manual, page 348(?)]
[Defense counsel]Please explain their work standards from CWLF’s manual.
[Prosecutor]Objection. The witness should not be asked to interpret internal work rules of an organization where she does not work.
[Shown: home-based childcare service center visiting and guidance work guidelines]
[Defense counsel]Have you seen these visiting guidelines?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]This is not part of my work. We handle adoption… (omitted); childcare is done by placement facilities, not us.
[Shown: child-abuse identification indicators]
[Defense counsel]Have you seen the child-abuse identification indicators?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]We do not have this material.
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]Were your answers about adoption work just now specific to your own organization?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Does your Catholic welfare organization have its own placement facility?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]Yes. Placement facilities are all government-registered.
[Prosecutor]For CWLF’s model of engaging nannies without a placement facility, regarding nannies… 12 indicators… (omitted).
(Further questions: The 劉 child did not enter a placement household; was there a primary social worker? If your follow-up report shows abnormalities…? Omitted because the recorder could not keep up.)
[Judicial examination]
[Presiding judge]How are nanny visits conducted for the two agencies without their own placement facilities?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]Nannies are managed by home-based childcare centers.
[Assigned judge]Since your organization has no round-the-clock nannies, are you unfamiliar with how frequently CWLF social workers visit nannies?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]We do not have them… (omitted).
[Further examination]
[Prosecutor]Is “primary social worker” a legal term?
[Witness — 丁雁琪]Primary responsibility is a practical cooperation concept… (omitted).
[Witness — 丁雁琪]The placement facility’s placement social worker makes them and sends them to the primary social worker.
[End of witness 3]
2025.12.11 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
黃聖心
Emergency physician, Taipei Municipal Wanfang Hospital; physician primarily treating the child on the incident date
Testified that the child had no breathing or heartbeat before arrival, a temperature of 24°C, and no signs seen by the emergency team supporting “milk regurgitation.” He appeared markedly thin and injured; injuries at unusual sites were difficult to explain by ordinary falls or collisions, and grinding could not cause teeth to fall out.
24°C and condition on arrivalMilk-regurgitation accountVisible injuriesInjuries at unusual sitesMedical basics of tooth loss
- Creates a direct factual dispute with the nanny’s account on arrival.
- Does not contradict 蔡函妤’s inability to determine the cause of tooth loss at her visit: timing, available information and clinical circumstances differed.
黃聖心 rejected grinding as an adequate explanation for tooth loss. Compare this with 劉彩萱’s successive explanations of grinding and self-falls/collisions, and the principal-case finding of prolonged injury, to examine whether medical warnings were improperly rationalized.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Prosecutor]1. 徐’s testimony shows adoption is a specially licensed government activity; CWLF could legally arrange placement itself and owed the 劉 child duties to understand care conditions and monitor physical and mental development. 2. 施 contacted him as the social worker for his vulnerable family. The registered client was his mother; services covered the whole family, including the grandmother’s minor daughter and his older sister. He had no primary social worker. The defendant called her, and she clarified abnormalities (he had not shown self-harm [source typo] or swearing with the former nanny). Citing accessibility and mutual trust between social workers, she divided duties with defendant 陳, who was to follow the child. 3. 丁’s Catholic welfare organization does not engage nannies. Its adoption social workers and CWLF’s have different scopes of responsibility.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]: We will comment during arguments.
[Defense counsel — 朱]: CWLF is a matching agency, not a statutory placement facility. Other comments will await arguments.
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]Where do you currently work?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Wanfang Hospital emergency department. I was a resident then and am now an attending physician. On the incident date, December 24, 2023, I was the child’s primary treating physician.
[Prosecutor]Were other medical staff treating him with you?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Drs. 劉英國 and 黃思偉 were also there. 劉 had other patients; 黃 and I treated the child and dealt with the nanny. Initially she brought him; only later did we learn he was in placement and request contact with a social worker and family.
[Prosecutor]How did you learn it was placement? Did you contact a social worker?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I have partly forgotten. The triage nurse said the accompanying person was not family. Resuscitation requires us to seek family members automatically. I did not make the contact; we asked the nanny to contact the social worker.
[Prosecutor]Who was the social worker who arrived later? Was it this defendant?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I do not quite remember the name; from her appearance, I think it was her.
[Prosecutor]What was the child’s condition on arrival?
[Witness — 黃聖心]We confirmed with the nanny that he had no breathing or heartbeat before arrival. She said it was milk regurgitation and she brought him as soon as she discovered it.
[Prosecutor]Did you doubt her explanation?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes, because his temperature was only 24°C. Opening his mouth revealed no signs of milk regurgitation, so it did not seem consistent with her account.
[Prosecutor]Did you establish the cause of death?
[Witness — 黃聖心]We took photographs. Because he was dead before arrival, the emergency department would not determine cause of death.
[Shown: Dr. 黃思偉’s statement]
[Prosecutor]The statement says the nanny was told the condition was serious and injuries unusual, matching typical child abuse and requiring reporting. Did anyone on your emergency team think it looked like milk regurgitation?
[Witness — 黃聖心]No.
[Shown: Wanfang Hospital nursing record]
[Prosecutor]According to the record, were injuries explained to the grandmother at 2:25 a.m. on December 24?
[Witness — 黃聖心]We explained that resuscitation had gone on too long with poor results and recommended stopping.
[Prosecutor]Was the defendant beside you when you explained the injuries?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I no longer recall.
[Prosecutor]Did you tell the grandmother or social worker it might be milk regurgitation?
[Witness — 黃聖心]We did not say that.
[Defense examination]
[Defense counsel]The nanny said coughing/choking and milk regurgitation. Was the attending physician unable to confirm cause of death that day?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Would you also relay the nanny’s account to the social worker?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Possibly.
[Defense counsel]How did she react?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I do not recall.
[Shown: Dr. 黃思瑋’s statement]
[Defense counsel]How did the nanny react then?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Compared with typical accompanying persons, she was unusually calm, as if uninvolved. The social worker seemed quite surprised.
[Defense counsel]Was the social worker from the Social Welfare Department?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I do not know either.
[Shown: Wanfang Hospital nursing record]
[Defense counsel]The nanny accompanied him at 00:43 and the social worker arrived at 01:49, but Wanfang’s 01:09 nursing entry says a Social Welfare Department social worker was contacted. Why does that differ from the facts?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I did not write the nursing record; I do not know.
[Further examination]
[Prosecutor](To be supplemented)
[Witness — 黃聖心]
[Prosecutor]After unsuccessful resuscitation, you explained matters separately to the social worker. Why?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I do not quite recall.
[Prosecutor]Are you familiar with placement issues?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Can you explain why the nursing record is inconsistent?
[Witness — 黃聖心]During busy resuscitation, we may sometimes not verify the identity of the social worker who arrives.
[Prosecutor]When reporting child abuse, did you tell the social worker?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I did not, but I am unsure whether someone else did.
[Judicial examination]
[Assigned judge]Could you describe the child’s initial triage process?
[Witness — 黃聖心]For death before arrival, there is no triage; resuscitation begins directly. [Assigned judge] How did you discover the injuries? Do you check before resuscitation? How do you distinguish injuries caused by resuscitation?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Resuscitation injuries from procedures such as chest compressions and intubation occur in those specific locations.
[Assigned judge]Do you particularly remember unusual injuries suggesting abuse?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Behind the ears, the genitals, and bruising below the abdomen… (omitted).
[Assigned judge]Apart from external injuries, were there other unusual physical conditions?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Generally a child aged one year ten months should weigh over 10 kilograms, but he was underweight on arrival.
[Assigned judge]What are your usual overall criteria for child-abuse reporting?
[Witness — 黃聖心]If injuries are inconsistent with what is expected, we first check with the caregiver for changing or implausible accounts. If the account does not fit the condition or raises concerns, we report suspected child abuse.
[Assigned judge]Who told you the nanny was the main caregiver?
[Witness — 黃聖心]The nanny herself.
[Assigned judge]Did anyone there say the grandmother was the main caregiver?
[Witness — 黃聖心]No.
[Assigned judge]Who said it was milk regurgitation?
[Witness — 黃聖心]The nanny.
[Assigned judge]Do you notify the main caregiver when reporting? Could there be safety concerns?
[Witness — 黃聖心]We check again with the person giving the account; if their response remains the same, we report. We assess whether they are aggressive… (omitted).
[Assigned judge]Did you interact with the social worker or nanny during resuscitation?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes.
[Assigned judge]Did you feel they wanted to evade responsibility?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes. The nanny said he drank milk at 10 p.m. and was breathing, then became increasingly breathless. But when he arrived around midnight, he was already dead before arrival.
[Assigned judge]Did you question her explanation?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I recall we did. We checked again, but she kept emphasizing milk and breathing at 10 p.m., then increasing breathlessness. She seemed to be steering the cause of death toward choking/coughing.
[Assigned judge]Was the social worker present when the nanny described the cause of death?
[Witness — 黃聖心]No. This was at the initial arrival.
[Assigned judge]After arriving, did the defendant speak on the nanny’s side?
[Witness — 黃聖心]No recollection.
[Assigned judge]Did you initiate conversation with the defendant? How much did you say?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes. Because the nanny could not make medical decisions, we needed to explain to the social worker and family why resuscitation should stop. We called police at the time.
[Assigned judge]Why did you call police?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Because we initially could not find family members and needed police assistance.
[Assigned judge]So it was initially to find people, not to report child abuse?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes
[Assigned judge]Do you remember what the defendant said then?
[Witness — 黃聖心]No recollection.
[Assigned judge]Given what you saw, could an ordinary doctor, or even someone without medical knowledge or experience, such as a judge or layperson, see that the child was abnormal? Why?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes. He was one year ten months old and underweight, with multiple bruises and abrasions on his face and body. Facial injuries were visible without removing clothing.
[Assigned judge]Could grinding cause a child this age to lose teeth? As a doctor, what is your view and basis?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Impossible. Teeth contain nerves and pulp; grinding affects the crown and would not grind them to the point of fracture.
[Assigned judge]The nanny said the child would hit himself against things?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Children may bump their knees or bony areas, but injuries behind the ears, to the uvula and genitals are unlikely to result from falls or collisions.
[Presiding judge]You called police because you could not find family?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes.
[Witness — 黃聖心]This was at the very beginning.
[Presiding judge]The nanny was trying to distance herself from responsibility, while the social worker appeared surprised?
[Witness — 黃聖心]It was not very obvious.
[Witness — 黃聖心]No recollection.
[Associate judge]What are your usual criteria or grounds for identifying child abuse?
[Witness — 黃聖心]1. Underweight, dirty/disordered clothing, possibly missed vaccines, untreated longstanding wounds or delayed medical care. 2. Physical abuse, such as injuries at unusual sites or circular burns/scalds.
[Associate judge]Apart from being cold, did the child look abnormal when brought in?
[Witness — 黃聖心]1. Markedly underweight and malnourished. 2. Multiple facial wounds. 3. Injuries behind the ears and multiple bruises on the body.
[Associate judge]Were bruises scattered across the body and visible without lifting clothing?
[Witness — 黃聖心]I remember the face more clearly.
[Associate judge]Could those bruises be seen without undressing him?
[Witness — 黃聖心]Yes.
[End of witness 1]
2025.12.11 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
李芳玲
Senior director / administrative supervisor, CWLF Northern Region Social Work Department
Explained cooperating nannies, social-worker training, supervisory roles and post-incident groups. Acknowledged in court that “grinding off three teeth in one night” was abnormal and that service records were unfinished when the incident occurred; conversations included requests to complete records.
Child-abuse identification trainingUnfinished work recordsTooth-loss warning signsNanny cooperation and management toolsPost-incident internal messages
- Together with 葉亭希, 葉詩宇 and 江怡韻’s testimony, indicates multiple formal records were unfinished or still being compiled after the incident.
- Late completion does not mean the court found forgery. 陳尚潔 was acquitted of the forgery charge at first instance; the matters must be presented separately.
李芳玲’s account of intermediary, supervisory and recording procedures should be compared with the truthfulness of 劉彩萱’s information and 劉若琳’s joint participation. Cross-checks cannot be omitted merely because frontline information came from the nanny.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]What is your current position?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I am a senior director in CWLF’s Northern Region Social Work Department. (25 years’ experience in adoption social work.)
[Prosecutor]What is your working relationship with the defendant?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I am an administrative supervisor.
[Prosecutor]Could you describe an administrative supervisor’s duties?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Contact with central government and planning adoption services, including supervision during adoptive-family matching.
[Prosecutor]Do your social workers receive child-abuse identification training?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Adoption has a 20-hour course, but it focuses on children and youth… (to be supplemented); there is no specific course.
[Shown: CWLF’s February 29(?) court submission]
[Prosecutor]This says “all our social workers attended child-abuse identification… courses.” Why does that differ from your account?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I was answering about statutory requirements; this refers to additional courses we organized.
[Prosecutor]So your social workers did receive child-abuse identification training?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Shown: messages from the “OO Little Angel” group]
[Prosecutor]This group was created on December 24, 2023. Were you a member?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Prosecutor]What was the group’s purpose?
[Witness — 李芳玲]An internal communication and work-allocation platform after the incident.
[Prosecutor]Do you mean to consolidate information and unify responses?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Mainly to divide work.
[Shown: conversations in the group]
[Prosecutor]You asked, “The nanny took the child to the dentist—was it because teeth fell out or because of grinding? Were any reports received between 11/23 and 12/24? This is important!” Why did you ask?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I am a first-level manager. I learned of this case only on December 24 and had to understand it… (omitted).
[Prosecutor]Had you seen the defendant’s work records then? (To be confirmed)
[Witness — 李芳玲]Her work records were not completed then.
[Prosecutor]Were they entirely blank? Did that violate your work rules?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Our rule is to complete service records before adoptive-family matching. This case had not reached that stage, so it did not violate the rules.
[Prosecutor]In the messages, the defendant said the nanny on 11/19… (omitted), and you replied, “Three ground off in one night?” Correct?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Under your risk assessment, did that require increased visit frequency?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I was surprised because in 25 years I had never encountered three teeth ground off overnight. Our rules increase visits to make the child and social worker more familiar… (omitted).
[Prosecutor]Do you mean three teeth ground off overnight does not require more visits?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We should seek medical professional help, so at the time the nanny was asked to take him to a doctor.
[Shown: conversation between 葉亭希 and 陳美怡(?)]
[Prosecutor]Do you remember this?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Is this from the “OO Little Angel” group?
[Prosecutor]No.
[Witness — 李芳玲]葉亭希 and 陳美怡 were successive supervisors.
[Prosecutor]So this was a supervisors’ group?
[Witness — 李芳玲]If there were only three people, probably.
[Prosecutor]On 12/24 you said, “I think child abuse is very likely. 陳尚潔’s answers are confused… We cannot believe everything the nanny says. 陳尚潔 knew on 12/7 but did not verify, and there was no home visit this month…” Why did you indicate negligence by 陳尚潔 here? Did no home visit this month violate rules, in your view?
[Witness — 李芳玲]It was social workers’ self-review at the time; supervisors naturally review things. I meant… there was no visit that month because of the nanny’s various reasons… (omitted).
[Shown: conversation record]
[Prosecutor]After the incident, on 12/28, you said, “麗芳 learned from Taipei/New Taipei supervisors that out-of-home placement does not meet the criteria for a major child-abuse review meeting; that counts as good news.” Why call it good news?
[Witness — 李芳玲]That was a government rule. Amid all the bad circumstances I was under great physical and mental stress, so I saw it as good news.
[Shown: later conversations in the “OO Little Angel” group]
[Prosecutor]On March 10, 2024, you said, “Explanations for the child’s physical abnormalities… a reporter just asked; let’s consolidate our public account.” Why consolidate it then?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Because rumors were everywhere and nobody wanted to hear our explanation… (omitted).
[Prosecutor]陳尚潔 replied that the nanny said the 9/25 photo showed an injury from playing in the park; she would wait until it healed on 10/24 before sending both to the grandmother. Did you require waiting until recovery to send photos together?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No. We have no rule on when to send them.
[Shown: “1224 Incident Handling” group conversation]
[Prosecutor]Were you in this group?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Prosecutor]What was its purpose?
[Witness — 李芳玲]To handle this incident.
[Prosecutor]Why exclude 陳尚潔?
[Witness — 李芳玲]She had worked for many consecutive days, so we let her rest.
[Prosecutor]With the “OO Little Angel” group already existing, why create another group excluding 陳尚潔?
[Defense counsel]Objection. The prosecutor already asked that.
[Presiding judge]What is the purpose of the prosecutor’s question?
[Prosecutor]Then I will revise it. Was this group created to compile a timeline of the child’s major events?
[Witness — 李芳玲]That was one task.
[Prosecutor]What were the others?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I do not remember. At the time… (omitted).
[Prosecutor]How was the timeline file completed?
[Witness — 李芳玲]By piecing together our internal files.
[Prosecutor]Did you refer to the defendant’s service records?
[Witness — 李芳玲]The service records were still unfinished then.
[Prosecutor]So only the case-opening record and referral form?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Shown: later conversations in the “OO Little Angel” group]
[Prosecutor]You said, “Let 尚潔 first complete the records; we… (omitted), that should be in time.” How does “complete” here fit with your statement that service records only needed completion before adoptive-family matching?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Social workers do not wait until the end to write records. They may have an outline, with details still in their own notes. That is what “complete” meant.
[Shown: CWLF short-term placement childcare guidelines]
[Prosecutor]Are these your childcare guidelines? Please explain.
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes. Our organization is not… a placement facility, so through… to ensure children receive good care.
[Prosecutor]It appears nanny qualifications are reviewed. What are the criteria?
[Witness — 李芳玲]1. They must first be licensed, qualified nannies. 2. The key is willingness to cooperate with what we need, such as adoptive-family matching and early intervention.
[Prosecutor]Does the review include personally visiting her home?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes, we do.
[Prosecutor]If you only need to establish willingness to cooperate, a signed document would suffice. Why visit the home personally?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Because we customarily work face-to-face, and it is where the child will live… (omitted).
[Prosecutor]Do you provide training courses for childcare households?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes. They must better understand the special circumstances of caring for children awaiting adoption... (omitted)
[Prosecutor]Do your rules require monthly visits and occasional telephone check-ins to assess children awaiting adoption?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Was caregiver 劉 in this case also recruited and screened?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I was not involved. I later learned that this caregiver entered through that process too.
[Shown: OO Little Angels group conversation]
[Prosecutor]In the group you instructed, ‘Stop saying our organization's caregiver, but do not tell outsiders we matched her with the family either’ and ‘...caregiver 劉 was introduced to us by a caregiver we knew.’ Why? Were you trying to distance CWLF from caregiver 劉?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I misspoke. I worried outsiders would misunderstand the matching... (omitted)
[Prosecutor]What is CWLF's relationship with caregivers? How are they managed?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We cooperate on childcare. We believe the caregivers are already under government childcare supervision.
[Prosecutor]Then any legally licensed childcare provider could become a CWLF caregiver. Why did caregiver 周 need special eligibility screening?
([Defense counsel] Objection. [Presiding judge] Overruled.)
[Witness — 李芳玲]Children awaiting adoption may have many issues initially, so we need caregivers to provide extra care... (omitted). We interview them to confirm their willingness to cooperate with the organization; they undertake this care only after understanding and agreeing.
[Shown: conversation]
[Prosecutor]江怡韻 said in the conversation, ‘The grandparents came today. The prosecutor questioned 陳尚潔 again, in a nicer tone. The Shuying Center social worker was openly criticizing the inadequate care; I secretly glared at her... (omitted).’ Do you know that social worker?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No. [Prosecutor] Why was the change in the prosecutor's attitude good news?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Because the prosecutor initially believed we and the caregiver together caused 劉皓剴's death... (omitted). It was terrifying.
[Prosecutor]Was the child 劉 formally placed in care?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No placement was made.
[Shown: conversation between 李芳玲 and 白麗芳]
[Prosecutor]Is 白麗芳 your executive director?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Prosecutor]In the conversation 白麗芳 asked, ‘Has he been placed for a long time?’ You replied, ‘Four months.’ Why did you refer to placement here?
[Witness — 李芳玲]It was my habitual terminology, not a formal term.
[Shown: OO Little Angels group conversation]
[Prosecutor]On the day of the incident you said, ‘Any chance of reaching the lead social worker today?’ Who was the lead social worker?
[Witness — 李芳玲]By lead worker, we generally mean the government social worker.
[Shown: statement from the same day]
[Prosecutor]In that day's statement you said, ‘陳尚潔 is the lead social worker, and I am her supervisor.’ Why did you call 陳 the lead worker?
[Witness — 李芳玲]She is the lead adoption social worker.
[Shown: CWLF letter to Taipei City Government (?)]
[Prosecutor]The document says, ‘...the infant's childcare situation must be reported to social worker 陳 (lead)...’ Why is 陳 called the lead worker here?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I cannot identify... I can only say my understanding... (could not keep up with notes)
[Shown: CWLF internal rules]
[Prosecutor]Under your rules... (omitted), social workers must make baby development records and monthly record forms?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We had this form to collect information about the child during visits.
[Prosecutor]Must this form be completed during visits?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Given social workers' heavy workloads, they may use it or instead write in the casework record. The required content is the same.
[Prosecutor]Have you seen 陳尚潔's casework records?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I am not her reviewing supervisor.
[Shown: 陳's casework record]
[Prosecutor]You provided this casework record to the prosecutor. Have you read it?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes, while handling it.
[Prosecutor]When was that?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I do not recall. It was over time.
[Prosecutor]On 2023/12/25 you asked 陳尚潔 to complete them. Did casework records already exist then? [Witness—李芳玲] No. It was to help us understand the situation quickly.
[Prosecutor]Did you know then that 陳尚潔 kept work notes? Had you seen this material on 12/25?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I do not know about 陳 personally. I only know many social workers habitually keep work notes.
[Prosecutor]During the CWLF search on 2024/3/20, you told 白麗芳, ‘陳尚潔 is now a defendant. We will hire a lawyer; say nothing else.’ When police took 陳 in for questioning, did you demand an arrest warrant, or did 白麗芳?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I was there, but I did not say that. I do not know. I was answering police questions... (could not keep up)
[Defense examination]
[Defense counsel]In your experience, should the social welfare center continue following the child?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes, we hope they can do that.
[Shown: government-commissioned placement procedures]
[Defense counsel]Item 3, point 4 says adoption cases are generally excluded from these procedures... Are all children awaiting adoption excluded from placement?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Some children awaiting adoption meet other government placement criteria and may be placed. Those meeting none, like the child 劉, are excluded. [‘record’ in source]
[Defense counsel]Since this is inappropriate out-of-home placement... (omitted)
[Witness — 李芳玲]We protested to the government that children awaiting adoption should not be excluded from government placement.
[Shown: OO Little Angels group conversation]
[Defense counsel]According to this conversation, did 陳尚潔 inform caregiver 周 of the child's death through social worker 施?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Was falling demand the reason you were not recruiting caregivers?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes. Adoptions declined, and many caregivers had no cases, so the 劉 sisters were the last.
[Defense counsel]Could 陳尚潔 alone decide who became a partner caregiver?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No. We must discuss it at a meeting.
[Shown: CWLF XX manual, section on charges to families withdrawing from adoption]
[Defense counsel]Pages 59–60 mention CWLF charges, installments and reductions... (notes incomplete). What does this mean?
[Witness — 李芳玲]If the person placing the child decides not to proceed, we have several payment arrangements for the preceding caregiver costs, including... installments and reductions. We hope families take children back themselves rather than place them for adoption.
[Shown: CWLF internal baby development record rules]
[Defense counsel]Must social workers use this form for baby development records?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We simplified the forms because of heavy workloads. They can write directly in the casework record.
[Defense counsel]Would changing the recording method affect babies' physical and mental development?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No. They have long internalized all these important recording items.
[Defense counsel]Should a social worker ask the previous caregiver about the child's physical and mental development?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Defense counsel]In your experience, what circumstances can affect adoption?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Many factors, such as the child's background at birth... (omitted)
[Shown: CWLF childcare contract]
[Defense counsel]Have you seen this contract? Why make it tripartite?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I drafted it, primarily because CWLF subsidizes childcare costs.
[Defense counsel]What obligations does CWLF, Party C, bear under this contract?
[Witness — 李芳玲]The main responsibilities lie with Parties A and B. We mainly relay information; under the contract... (notes incomplete). We hope children maintain ties with their birth families during the process.
[Defense counsel]Who can terminate this contract?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Parties A and B.
[Shown: OO Little Angels group conversation]
[Defense counsel]Did the group discuss how to enter casework records?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I coordinated 江 and 陳 jointly writing the records from 2024 onward.
[Defense counsel]Did anyone else join those discussions?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No.
[Defense counsel]Is the chronology you compiled the same as the casework record?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No.
[Defense counsel]At the end of this group (12/24 incident-handling group?), you said it was to let 陳 ‘rest,’ then said, ‘陳 is back at work, so we will return to the original group.’ Why?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We created it to avoid disturbing 陳 with group messages while she was on leave.
[Shown: county/city home-based childcare service center visiting guidelines]
[Defense counsel]Had you read these guidelines before the incident?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No.
[Defense counsel]To whom do you think they apply?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Home-based childcare centers.
[Shown: 12 reminders on clinical signs of child abuse]
[Defense counsel]Have you seen this child-abuse reminder document?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No.
[Defense counsel]Does it differ from CWLF's child-abuse identification material?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Of course. Social workers' child-abuse identification material would not be so limited. I think this is too rough.
[Defense counsel]Can adoption social workers constantly watch for abuse of children awaiting adoption?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No. We regard the caregiver as a lawful home-based provider. We visit to build a relationship with the child for a smooth transition to the adoptive family... (omitted). If the other party deliberately conceals things, we cannot constantly detect them.
[Further examination]
[Prosecutor]You protested the government's refusal to place children awaiting adoption?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Prosecutor]But witness 丁雁琪 said their children awaiting adoption are all in their own placement facilities, unlike your claim of ‘no government placement.’ Both organizations match adoptions; why do they have facilities and you do not?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes... (to be supplemented)
[Prosecutor]You record baby development either in (1) casework records or (2) monthly child development forms. To your knowledge, what had the defendant actually written when the incident occurred?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I do not know.
[Prosecutor]So you do not know whether the defendant completed either record as the work rules required?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Is willingness to cooperate with adoption services the focus of caregiver screening?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes, caregivers must cooperate with our work... (repeats earlier account)
[Prosecutor]During CWLF visits, is the child's personal safety something social workers need not care about?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We still must pay attention, but it depends on whether we receive truthful information.
[Defense counsel]Does ‘complete the missing records’ mean nothing had been written, or just finishing them?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I do not know how much she had written. I had not seen her casework records before 12/25.
[Judicial examination]
[Assigned judge]As her chief supervisor, are you responsible for her work?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I am responsible after matching with prospective adoptive parents.
[Assigned judge]Do you supervise pre-adoption preparations?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Not me.
[Assigned judge]Then who?
[Witness — 李芳玲]江怡韻 and other administrative supervisors.
[Assigned judge]Why do you handle post-matching work and 江 pre-matching work?
[Witness — 李芳玲]The adoption process is lengthy, so we divide the work internally.
[Assigned judge]Is that division just your assertion, or is there supporting documentation, such as meeting minutes?
[Witness — 李芳玲]There are no minutes. We divided the work ourselves.
[Assigned judge]Explain supervision before and after adoption. When duties are unclear, how do you distinguish your responsibilities from 江怡韻's?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Social workers receive supervision in every area. I am chief supervisor, but 江怡韻 is 陳尚潔's individual supervisor. [Commissioned judge] How do you define your own scope?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I handle post-matching work. In this case, for example, I do not know when intake occurred, but I chair the matching meeting... (omitted)
[Assigned judge]Are social workers required to make unannounced visits?
[Witness — 李芳玲]There is no such rule.
[Assigned judge]When would more visits be necessary?
[Witness — 李芳玲]When there are special needs, such as older children having difficulty adjusting to adoption... (omitted)
[Assigned judge]The case materials show head bruising, weight loss and unusual expressions. Did that meet the threshold for more frequent visits?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We would ask first, and increase visits if we found something clearly unreasonable.
[Assigned judge]Would losing three teeth in one night warrant more frequent visits?
[Witness — 李芳玲]She should seek a medical professional's opinion.
[Assigned judge]Based on the evidence you have seen, what should an ordinary social worker do upon receiving this account from caregiver 劉?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I cannot infer that.
[Assigned judge]But you are chief supervisor?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I am not her supervisor.
[Assigned judge]I am asking based on your supervisory experience.
[Witness — 李芳玲]As far as I know, 陳尚潔 did ask further what the dentist had said after caregiver 劉 took him there. I believe that if the caregiver concealed things well and doctors—a pediatrician and dentist—were involved, other social workers might have acted similarly.
[Assigned judge]Did she, the defendant, do what you consider sufficient?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I believe so.
[Assigned judge]Didn't you say pre-adoption work was outside your knowledge?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I understand it.
[Assigned judge]Then I will ask something I had not planned to ask: did you assess the change from caregiver 周 to caregiver 劉?
[Witness — 李芳玲]They assessed it.
[Assigned judge]Do you know how?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I was not involved.
[Assigned judge]Their materials in the case file say ‘周月 is a little scary.’ Could personal preferences or convenience have led them to choose caregiver 劉? Was the change based on her subjective view, departing from the usual view that continuity of caregivers best serves the child? [Witness—李芳玲] Our view differs from the public's. Outsiders do not understand adoption work's requirements.
[Assigned judge]Did 陳尚潔 decide between caregivers 周 and 劉? Could she decide alone, or did it require internal discussion?
[Witness — 李芳玲]She should have discussed it with her supervisor at the time.
[Assigned judge]Who held authority and responsibility for this decision?
[Witness — 李芳玲]... (notes could not keep up; to be supplemented)
[Assigned judge]Can personal preferences sometimes enter into this decision?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I think it should... (to be supplemented). Personal preferences cannot be ruled out.
[Assigned judge]After the incident, did your meetings conclude the defendant was entirely faultless, or that some actions were inadequate, poor or needed adjustment?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Our meetings discussed the system.
[Assigned judge]Did you discipline any staff?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We did not intend to discipline individuals. Everyone acted under the system.
[Assigned judge]So the defendant received no administrative sanction in this case?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No.
[Assigned judge]Do you think she did anything poorly?
[Witness — 李芳玲]We regret this case and will make improvements.
[Assigned judge]To improve, you must first know what was wrong. If your conclusion as an administrator is that she did nothing wrong, if there was fault... (notes incomplete)
[Witness — 李芳玲]As to her personally, I believe she did nothing wrong.
[Associate judge]Your visits have a different focus from the social affairs bureau and other bodies. What is your focus?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Social work has many fields. We handle adoption work, including pre-adoption assessment... (omitted)
[Associate judge]Those are not visits. What do you focus on when visiting caregivers?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Building a relationship with the child and understanding growth, eating and elimination.
[Associate judge]Do you have a duty to keep children healthy while awaiting adoption?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Children awaiting adoption may have many conditions. We cannot guarantee they are healthy... (the witness's response seemed somewhat incoherent, so omitted)
[Associate judge]Is grinding away three teeth a healthy condition?... (notes incomplete; additions welcome)
[Witness — 李芳玲]... (notes incomplete; additions welcome)
[Associate judge]What specific qualifications must a caregiver have to meet adoption needs?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Children awaiting adoption need 24-hour care. Caregivers must also frequently take them to early intervention and medical appointments and meet birth families. Many caregivers are unwilling.
[Associate judge]To your knowledge, did you use a comparison table when assessing caregivers for the child 劉?
[Witness — 李芳玲]They decided that in a meeting; I was not involved.
[Associate judge]Who attended that meeting?
[Witness — 李芳玲]陳尚潔 and her supervisor.
[Associate judge]So you have not seen its minutes or report?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Yes.
[Presiding judge]Did you know the defendant's caseload when the incident occurred?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Including cases at different stages, before adoption and post-adoption follow-up, I answered 20 at the time.
[Presiding judge]How many were at the same stage as the child 劉?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I am not sure.
[Presiding judge]After this incident, did CWLF review 陳's other cases?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No, because she should already have discussed them monthly with her supervisor.
[Presiding judge]Have you seen records of that?
[Witness — 李芳玲]No. I do not know.
[Presiding judge]Does 陳 still work at CWLF?
[Witness — 李芳玲]She is on unpaid leave; her position is unchanged.
[Presiding judge]Do colleagues doing the same work also fail to complete these written reports promptly?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Most can complete them before matching.
[Presiding judge]Do you understand the usual day-to-day situation?
[Witness — 李芳玲]Some certainly habitually turn in their work early. [Presiding judge] Did you immediately notify the New Taipei social welfare center which caregiver received the child and how the child was being cared for?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I heard that they did... (to be supplemented)
[Presiding judge]Who told you the center was notified immediately?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I learned afterward... I do not know. (to be supplemented)
[Presiding judge]Do you consider grinding away three teeth at once normal?
[Witness — 李芳玲]I do not.
[Associate judge]Were there successful adoptions from your cooperation with caregiver 劉?
[Witness — 李芳玲]There was no successful match, but this was the second child.
[Second witness concluded]
2025.12.11 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
江怡韻
CWLF supervisor; 陳尚潔's direct supervisor
Described monthly oral supervision, which photographs she saw and post-incident record compilation. Testified that before the incident she had not seen 陳尚潔's work notes or complete conversations, and only afterward, from police or additional photographs, felt the child looked ‘like a different person.’
Whether the supervisor saw original recordsScope of photographs seenMonthly oral reportsPost-incident record compilationDivision of lead responsibilities
- Cross-check against 李芳玲's ‘records not yet completed,’ 葉亭希's ‘did not look until the search,’ and 葉詩宇's ‘still requesting them on 12/29.’
- Her wording on ‘serious failings’ changed between investigation and court. Assess it using complete statements and related materials; do not directly label it false.
江怡韻's account of vulnerable-family lead responsibility and CWLF's role should be compared with the child's actual care within the 劉 sisters' shared network. Administrative divisions do not alter each party's referral, verification and reporting questions after receiving warning signs.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Prosecution examination]
(The beginning was not recorded because I entered partway through.)
[Prosecutor]...
[Witness—江怡韻]...
[Prosecutor]Has 陳尚潔 received child-abuse training?
[Witness—江怡韻]As I recall... (to be supplemented; outside interference made the witness hard to hear from the back row)
[Prosecutor]...
[Witness—江怡韻]...
[Shown: group conversation record]
[Prosecutor]In the January 4 (?) group conversation you said, ‘... (earlier part omitted: essentially comparing 剴剴's before-and-after photographs) he really looks like a different person...’ Why?
[Witness—江怡韻]陳尚潔 showed me the October photographs. I did not see the September ones... (omitted)
[Prosecutor]Would this situation meet CWLF work-rule conditions for increasing visits?
[Witness—江怡韻]That provision concerns building relationships with children in adoption services... (omitted). We discussed 剴剴's photographs at the time and thought the caregiver's explanation reasonable.
[Prosecutor]On January 4 you said ‘like a different person,’ but you say you had not seen them before?
[Witness—江怡韻]We were surprised only after seeing photographs on the female police officer's phone.
[Prosecutor]Is there an internal deadline for social workers to complete casework records?
[Witness—江怡韻]All records must be produced before matching the child... (possibly mentioned social workers keeping their own notes; omitted)
[Prosecutor]Have you seen her notes?
[Witness—江怡韻]She has not shown them to me.
[Shown: group conversation record]
[Prosecutor]On 2023/12/25 you told 陳尚潔 to organize screenshots of messages with the grandmother. Had you previously read their conversations?
[Witness—江怡韻]I had not.
[Prosecutor]You said... there were notes? (to be supplemented)
[Witness—江怡韻]... (to be supplemented)
[Prosecutor]As 陳's supervisor, what must you do to oversee her work? It sounds as though you need not help her?
[Witness—江怡韻]... (essentially, only ensuring records are completed before matching; to be supplemented)
[Prosecutor]So she need not show you any records before matching?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes, that is customary...
[Shown: OO Little Angels group conversation record]
[Prosecutor]李芳玲 said in the group, ‘尚潔 should first fill in the records she should already have written.’ What did that mean?
[Witness—江怡韻]As I understand it, perhaps... (essentially, 陳's records were in work notes; to be supplemented)
[Prosecutor]Have you ever seen her note summaries? Do you not need to see them?
[Witness—江怡韻]No. She reports to me regularly each month.
[Prosecutor]So hearing her report is enough?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Shown: CWLF short-term placement childcare guidelines]
[Prosecutor]Have you read these guidelines?
[Witness—江怡韻]I read them earlier on.
[Prosecutor]Did caregiver 劉 become a CWLF partner under these guidelines?
[Witness—江怡韻]She initially came to inquire, then supplied occupational registration and a police clearance certificate. We also make a home visit and discuss it in a meeting.
[Prosecutor]What does the home visit involve?
[Witness—江怡韻]A social worker visits to review the home environment. The caregiver must cooperate with early intervention...
[Prosecutor]What criteria do you use to select partner caregivers?
[Witness—江怡韻]We basically trust these government-qualified caregivers. Our main considerations are (1) cooperation with our work and (2) the environment. [Prosecutor] So your screening standard is higher than the government's?
[Witness—江怡韻]I am not sure, but we have our own perspective.
[Prosecutor]How do you assess children's physical and mental development before adoption?
[Witness—江怡韻]Using our established standards, such as visit checklists.
[Shown: CWLF internal baby development record rules] [Prosecutor] This says social workers must write monthly baby development records. How are they completed?
[Witness—江怡韻]Because social workers have much to record, if... (notes incomplete)
[Prosecutor]So either complete forms 2.6 and 2.7 in the work rules, or write in the casework record?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Prosecutor]When 李芳玲 told her to complete them on 12/24, how much had she finished, to your knowledge?
[Witness—江怡韻]I did not check.
[Prosecutor]陳尚潔 submitted three versions of the casework record: (1) 2024/2/2, (2) 2024/3/12 and (3) the final defense-brief version. Digital forensics identified you, not the defendant, as the author of all these files. Why?
[Witness—江怡韻]I do not know. I may have clicked into the files to view them, but I do not know...
[Prosecutor]Did you complete the work records together with her?
[Witness—江怡韻]She completed those through the end of December herself. Because she was accompanying the family, from January onward she told me what happened and I wrote it.
[Shown: 陳尚潔 casework record—version 2]
[Prosecutor]Did you stamp the approval at the bottom of this document? Did someone else use your seal?
[Witness—江怡韻]I probably stamped it.
[Shown: 陳尚潔 casework record—version 3]
[Prosecutor]This adds conversation records throughout version 2's content. Have you seen it?
[Witness—江怡韻]I have not seen it.
[Prosecutor]Can staff change casework records themselves after your review? Can they revise them at any time?
[Witness—江怡韻]They can revise them, but must resubmit them for approval.
[Defense examination]
[Defense counsel]Based on your experience, who was the lead social worker in this case?
[Witness—江怡韻]In my ten years of work, we call the government social worker the lead worker.
[Defense counsel]Should the Shuying social welfare center follow the child's condition?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Did 陳尚潔 mention a ‘division of work,’ with her following the child's condition?
[Witness—江怡韻]I have not heard that.
[Shown: CWLF XX manual, section on charges if families discontinue adoption]
[Defense counsel]What does discontinuing adoption mean?
[Witness—江怡韻]The person placing the child decides to discontinue it.
[Defense counsel]Did you discuss having caregiver 周 look after the child 劉?
[Witness—江怡韻]Using CWLF would reduce the family's financial burden. Staying with 周 would mean the grandmother and social welfare center paying the caregiver fees themselves.
[Defense counsel]Was CWLF recruiting new caregivers then?
[Witness—江怡韻]Demand for childcare was low then, so we were not recruiting.
[Defense counsel]Did 陳 tell you caregiver 劉 wanted to stop caring for 剴剴?
[Witness—江怡韻]I remember 陳 asking 劉 if she wanted to care for another child instead. 劉 said she wanted to keep trying.
[Defense counsel]Did you discuss the child's forehead bruising with 陳?
[Witness—江怡韻]After discussion, we considered the caregiver's explanation reasonable.
[Defense counsel]Did you discuss the child's continuing weight loss?
[Witness—江怡韻]陳 relayed the caregiver's account that the child kept having colds and poor appetite.
[Defense counsel]Did 陳 tell you the child lost three teeth overnight?
[Witness—江怡韻]We asked the caregiver to take him to a dentist.
[Defense counsel]Can baby development information be entered in the casework record?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes. The content is similar.
[Defense counsel]Did 陳 mention the child banging himself and swearing?
[Witness—江怡韻]I asked her to check the earlier care situation with the grandmother and social worker 施.
[Shown: casework record]
[Defense counsel]Your name is on this document. Did you enter its contents?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Did the others discuss how to write the casework records?
[Witness—江怡韻]No.
[Defense counsel]Are the chronology and casework records different?
[Witness—江怡韻]Different.
[Shown: county/city home-service center visiting guidelines]
[Defense counsel]Had you read these guidelines before the incident?
[Witness—江怡韻]No.
[Defense counsel]To whom do you think they apply?
[Witness—江怡韻]Home-based childcare centers.
[Shown: 12 reminders on clinical signs of child abuse]
[Defense counsel]Have you seen this child-abuse reminder document?
[Witness—江怡韻]No.
[Defense counsel]Did you go to the hospital with 陳 on the incident date?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes. She called before dawn, and we went together to Wanfang Hospital.
[Defense counsel]What was 陳's emotional state?
[Witness—江怡韻]Nervous and surprised.
[Defense counsel]Had the grandmother ever asked to visit the child?
[Witness—江怡韻]To my knowledge, neither the grandmother nor the Shuying social worker asked to visit.
[Defense counsel]Do you think 陳 was negligent in this incident?
[Witness—江怡韻]I think she did what she should. I know the prosecutor's statements contain many instances of me saying 陳 was negligent. I was exhausted at the prosecutors' office; it was already 11 p.m... The prosecutor asked whether it was negligence or an oversight. I answered negligence, then wanted to change it to oversight, but the prosecutor said that would involve perjury and would not let me change it.
[Shown: 江's statement]
[Defense counsel]The statement says, ‘陳, regarding three teeth lost overnight... [source wording: ‘rarely has serious failings’].’ This clearly differs from today's answer. Why?
[Witness—江怡韻]I do not know why I answered that way then.
[Defense counsel]Your Honor, regarding the witness's account... we will request examination of the prosecutor's interrogation recording.
[Further examination]
[Prosecutor]Witness, did you just say social worker 施 at Shuying Center was the lead worker?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Shown: statement]
[Prosecutor]In the statement dated December ??, 2023, 李芳玲 said, ‘陳 is the lead worker, and I am the supervisor.’ Why?
[Witness—江怡韻]陳尚潔 leads the adoption work.
[Prosecutor]What do you consider 施's lead responsibility?
[Witness—江怡韻]The vulnerable family, but the child is part of that too.
[Prosecutor]Who follows the child's physical and mental condition?
[Witness—江怡韻]It is tied to the adoption part.
[Prosecutor]Before the incident, did anyone give caregiver 劉's information to 施 or Shuying social welfare center?
[Witness—江怡韻]陳尚潔 said 施 had not said she wanted to see the child.
[Prosecutor]Did 陳 report the child's self-banging or swearing to you?
[Witness—江怡韻]Someone said an ashtray was seen at caregiver 周's home.
[Prosecutor]Who said that?
[Witness—江怡韻]I forget. Probably the grandmother.
[Prosecutor]Did 陳 tell you about the child's condition with the previous caregiver?
[Witness—江怡韻]... (uncertain whether the witness answered; to be supplemented)
[Prosecutor]In that situation, why did you consider 劉's account reasonable?
[Witness—江怡韻]Because the caregiver always prepared us beforehand, saying... (omitted)
[Prosecutor]But checking with 施 found no such behavior. Why still consider it reasonable?
[Witness—江怡韻]Perhaps 施 or the grandmother had not seen it.
[Prosecutor]So you found all 劉's explanations reasonable, including self-banging and three teeth lost overnight, without comparing before-and-after photographs?
[Witness—江怡韻]But she told us at different times.
[Prosecutor]Had you worked with caregiver 劉 before?
[Witness—江怡韻]The previous experience was pleasant and increased our trust.
[Prosecutor]Was your (third?) visit also arranged in advance?
[Witness—江怡韻]We do not drop in suddenly. The caregiver may be out or busy caring for other children... (omitted)
[Prosecutor]So you always visit when the caregiver is prepared?
[Witness—江怡韻]The caregiver is not necessarily always prepared.
[Judicial examination]
[Assigned judge]You said the female officer's photographs were newer and ‘we’ had never seen them. Who is ‘we’—you and the defendant?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Assigned judge]Why have supervisors? To understand social workers' current work and correct mistakes?
[Witness—江怡韻]So we can discuss work together.
[Assigned judge]Should the defendant actively follow the child's physical and mental condition?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Shown: conversation record, investigation file 96, p.383]
[Assigned judge]The defendant said, ‘I really was quite rude to caregiver 周 before, because she is scary.’ You replied, ‘That is why we change placements; if communication is impossible... (omitted).’ What did ‘scary’ mean?
[Witness—江怡韻]陳 and 周 disagreed about boundaries in how to act.
[Assigned judge]Could rejecting 周 and changing caregivers reflect the defendant's personal preferences? Generally, option A keeps a child's longtime caregiver and environment; option B means a new caregiver and unfamiliar setting. Would A not be better for the child? If insisting on B, should there not be a compelling reason, and what was it?
[Witness—江怡韻]We did not decide that. The grandmother and 施 did.
[Assigned judge]So they initiated the request to change caregivers?
[Witness—江怡韻]... (notes incomplete; uncertain whether the witness answered)
[Assigned judge]Did personal preferences influence the final choice of 劉?
[Witness—江怡韻]I do not think so.
[Assigned judge]After her September visit found bruising and drastic weight loss, how soon would you learn of it?
[Witness—江怡韻]I do not remember. There is individual supervision every month.
[Assigned judge]You previously described serious failings by the defendant. What do you say now?
[Witness—江怡韻]I do not know why the statement was written that way. When the prosecutor asked, I remained silent... I do not know why the prosecutor recorded it that way.
[Assigned judge]That is a very serious accusation against the prosecutor!
[Shown: interrogation statement dated 2024/3/12]
[Assigned judge]The prosecutor asked whether... (judge reads statement)... At the end the prosecutor merely asked, ‘Anything else to say?’ and you said, ‘We do have many social workers, but this time a failing caused the child's death...’ Do you still maintain your position denying the statement?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Associate judge]You said the prosecutor warned that changing ‘oversight’ would be perjury. Did you want to change it to ‘negligence’?
[Witness—江怡韻]... (notes incomplete; uncertain whether the witness answered)
[Associate judge]Besides money, you considered 周 difficult to work with. In what way exactly?
[Witness—江怡韻]Some children awaiting adoption need frequent early intervention or medical care... (omitted; same reasons as 李芳玲 gave)
[Associate judge]But 剴剴 did not need early intervention. What exactly were your caregiver criteria?
[Witness—江怡韻]I do not remember.
[Associate judge]So none of your discussions were recorded?
[Witness—江怡韻]No.
[Presiding judge]Did you read the statement before signing? At the April questioning you said you meant March...
[Witness—江怡韻]... (notes incomplete; uncertain whether the witness answered)
[Presiding judge]If 施 was the lead worker, did you think it reasonable when the defendant said 施 would not visit the child?
[Witness—江怡韻]... (notes incomplete; uncertain whether the witness answered)
[Presiding judge]Did you tell the defendant, ‘The child's care is not our responsibility’? (Presiding judge sounds angry.) It sounds as though the care is not your concern...?
[Witness—江怡韻]Our visits... (apparently said visits were only to build a relationship with the child, or similar; observer account incomplete)
[Presiding judge]After 劉 took the child in this case, did you proactively notify Taipei's home-based childcare center?
[Witness—江怡韻]To my knowledge, the center requires caregivers to report themselves... On 12/24, the next day, I called the center...
[Presiding judge]Can a New Taipei social worker visit a home-based caregiver in Taipei?
[Witness—江怡韻]Yes.
[Presiding judge]When the defendant said 施 would not visit, did you ask how their duties were divided?
[Witness—江怡韻]... (notes incomplete; uncertain whether the witness answered)
[Further examination]
[Prosecutor]In your... conversation, who is ‘we’? (notes incomplete)
[Witness—江怡韻]I am not sure.
[Defense counsel]How did the Wenshan home-based childcare center worker (social worker?) react to your call?
[Witness—江怡韻]They were shocked.
[Assigned judge](To defense counsel) Can the statement examination be completed in one go?...
[Prosecutor]Regarding the defense's challenge to the statements, the prosecution will review the interrogation records and respond next time.
[Assigned judge]The next hearing is 12/18, with three witnesses.
[Court adjourned]
2025.12.18 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
白麗芳
Former CWLF executive director
From an institutional-governance perspective, argued CWLF lacks public authority, statutory caregiver oversight belongs to home-based childcare centers, and environmental changes may cause regression or self-injury. Initially cited ‘clear evidence’ for reporting, then acknowledged the legal mandatory-reporting threshold is suspected abuse or mistreatment.
Lack of public authorityUnannounced visitsAdjustment difficulties as an explanationReporting thresholdResponsibility for caregiver oversight
- This creates a central tension with the practical means of control the court identified through recruitment, contracts, payment, visits, training and ending cooperation.
- Read alongside the warning-sign testimony of 黃聖心, 蔡函妤 and 施盈如, the question is not whether social workers diagnosed independently, but whether they independently verified and escalated concerns.
白麗芳 emphasized CWLF's lack of public authority and the reporting threshold. The main-case judgment confirmed the sisters' joint abuse and multiple visible warning signs; review whether reasonable concern already justified extra visits, changing caregivers or reporting at the time.
When the judge asked whether reporting required waiting for ‘broken arms and legs,’ observer notes record a brief interruption as spectators became upset and cried. 白麗芳 did not immediately answer the hypothetical, but she did answer later: first citing ‘clear evidence,’ then acknowledging the legal duty arises upon suspicion. We therefore do not summarize this as ‘speechless.’ The page retains the original observer notes' pause markers and explicitly identifies their scope.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Presiding judge]Prosecution, please state the substance of the indictment.
[Prosecutor]As detailed in the indictment.
[Prosecutor]Under Criminal Procedure Act Article 41, during questioning the person sees the record on screen in real time and signs its final line afterward. Statements record the gist, not every word, because the investigation and trial are fully documented [source wording: ‘related materials’], making verbatim transcription unnecessary.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Regarding 江怡韻's testimony differing from the statement last time, we merely believe that during the April 1 questioning she feared becoming a defendant herself and thus may naturally have given accommodating answers.
[Defense counsel — 朱]We have not obtained the interrogation disc... Where testimony differs... examination is naturally necessary. We will make a consolidated request next time.
[Presiding judge]You have not decided what to examine yet?
[Defense counsel — 朱]Yes.
[Presiding judge]Order: the panel will decide on examination after the defense submits a specific request. As to scheduling, presentation of case materials was to conclude January 29. Could both sides attend at 9:30 a.m. on February 26 to reserve a procedural preparatory hearing?
[Assigned judge]The case was to conclude in January. The penultimate hearing has four witnesses; to avoid running too late, we want to reserve February 26.
[Prosecutor]& [Defense counsel] No objection.
[Prosecution and defense comments on the previous witnesses' testimony]
[Prosecutor]1. 黃聖心: the witness testified that no one on Wanfang Hospital's emergency team thought this was milk regurgitation; the child's injuries were obvious.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]1. 黃聖心: the defendant merely mistook 黃 for a nurse. The defendant notified the grandmother.
[Defense counsel — 朱]1. The defendant was invited inside to take photographs at the hospital that day. 2. She told the grandmother it was milk regurgitation. 3. Adoption social workers need not assume placement social workers' responsibilities and duties.
[Determining witness examination procedure]
[Prosecutor]We request 白麗芳 first, then 葉亭希 and 葉詩宇, with all three questioned separately.
[Defense counsel]As executive director, 白麗芳 may not know the context. We suggest 葉詩與 [as written], 葉亭希, then 白麗芳.
[Presiding judge]We will follow the prosecution's order and restrict entry and exit during examination. First, all three witnesses will take the oath.
[Defense examination]
[Defense counsel]What is your work history?
[Witness—白麗芳]After university I joined CWLF, first as an adoption social worker, then team leader, and finally executive director. It has been 33 years.
[Defense counsel]What is the executive director's scope of work?
[Witness—白麗芳]CWLF has 400 staff and 20 services. The executive director speaks publicly and communicates with government authorities...
[Defense counsel]Which service networks are involved in this case?
[Witness—白麗芳]The lead-worker discussion involves: 1. Local government social welfare centers assessing vulnerable-family needs and referring resources. 2. CWLF as an adoption agency, with no contractual mandate from the center, only matching children for adoption and following up. 3. Local home-based childcare centers visiting and guiding caregivers. Children awaiting adoption may remain with their families or enter government-arranged foster care. Without government-commissioned placement, private agencies have no legal authority to arrange such placement, so we help find caregivers and use donated funds to support childcare costs. All social workers visit under the rules; no single worker must guarantee a child's safety 24 hours a day.
[Shown: county/city government commissioned-placement procedures]
[Defense counsel]Explain the rules on short-term placement for adoption.
[Witness—白麗芳]Initially there were no rules for parent-requested placement. These principles were established in 2019, but children awaiting adoption were excluded because placement resources were insufficient. Following this case, the rules were amended and now include all of them.
[Defense counsel]So did the previous provisions exclude placement for children awaiting adoption?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes, because foster-care staffing was insufficient.
[Defense counsel]Did CWLF still recruit caregivers in June after the incident?
[Witness—白麗芳]We knew the Ministry of Health and Welfare wanted adoption placement returned to local government, so we knew it would soon stop.
[Defense counsel]Does CWLF need to conduct unannounced visits?
[Witness—白麗芳]As previously reviewed with prosecutors, our aim is to understand the child. We treat caregivers as partners and do not make surprise inspections. Unannounced visits appear in local-government placement provisions.
[Shown: county/city home-service center visiting guidelines]
[Defense counsel]Apart from the commissioned-placement provisions you mentioned, do these visiting guidelines apply to CWLF?
[Witness—白麗芳]No. This provision was only enacted on 2024/4/30.
[Defense counsel]Before the incident, did CWLF require child-abuse identification training for social workers?
[Witness—白麗芳]There was a basic three-hour child-abuse identification course.
[Defense counsel]Training was required, but only a basic course?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Is identifying child abuse easy?
[Witness—白麗芳]No. The ministry established many child-abuse medical centers. Possible abuse cases must be photographed and sent to them for confirmation.
[Defense counsel]How do children awaiting adoption differ from other children?
[Witness—白麗芳]In the past, more than half had issues. A new environment may cause regression, reduced appetite or self-banging...
[Shown: CWLF short-term placement childcare guidelines]
[Defense counsel]Must CWLF caregivers accommodate the organization's needs?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes. Adoption work requires understanding these children's special circumstances: medical care or early intervention, meetings with birth families, and helping them transition smoothly to a new home.
[Defense counsel]Does CWLF interview caregivers to assess willingness to cooperate?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Have you seen all photographs in this case?
[Witness—白麗芳]Not all of them.
[Defense counsel]Do you think 陳 committed document forgery or negligent homicide?
[Witness—白麗芳]I am not sure.
[Shown: witness statement]
[Defense counsel]Why does your answer differ from the prosecution's statement record?
[Witness—白麗芳]I had already left the job, the interrogation was long, and I had not seen visit reports or details. I did not know how to explain the prosecutor's compound questions. Mandatory reporting, for instance, applies when we discover suspected abuse, but we had not discovered it then.
[Defense counsel]Why do you now say you cannot judge?
[Witness—白麗芳]Because of how I expressed myself during questioning, and I did not read the statement. I did not know it was recorded this way...
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]Were you CWLF's executive director when the incident occurred?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Does the required three-hour course refer to your social-worker days 30 years ago or the period before this incident?
[Witness—白麗芳]When I was executive director.
[Shown: 12 reminders on clinical signs of child abuse]
[Prosecutor]Senior manager 李芳玲 said last time that CWLF's abuse courses certainly differ from this 12-point clinical reminder. Your courses sound extensive. What specific material do they cover? Have you taken them?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes. We invite doctors to teach, but I cannot describe the specific course content.
[Prosecutor]How many departments does CWLF have?
[Witness—白麗芳]Research and development, fundraising, ... Social work is divided into north, central and south, each with over 20 teams.
[Prosecutor]Do you supervise all of them?
[Witness—白麗芳]Management is tiered.
[Prosecutor]What exactly does your work involve?
[Witness—白麗芳]Besides reporting to the board, I handle press conferences, and senior managers work under me.
[Prosecutor]So you do not know individual social workers' work at CWLF?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes, not very well.
[Prosecutor]Explain CWLF's adoption fees.
[Witness—白麗芳]We charge adoptive parents in stages, beginning only after matching them with a child. Government used to pay; later agencies were allowed to charge themselves.
[Prosecutor]Does CWLF provide ‘abandoned-child protection’ services?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Have you served children abused by qualified caregivers?
[Witness—白麗芳]No. I do not recall.
[Prosecutor]In 33 years, never a child abused by a qualified caregiver, not just in adoption cases?
[Witness—白麗芳]Correct, none.
[Prosecutor]Had you met the child 劉 before the incident?
[Witness—白麗芳]No.
[Prosecutor]How many cases did the defendant have before the incident?
[Witness—白麗芳]I do not know.
[Prosecutor]What did CWLF's internal review meetings examine after the incident?
[Witness—白麗芳]Different levels conducted different reviews. I later left, so I do not know.
[Prosecutor]So you do not know the adoption team's review findings?
[Witness—白麗芳]As I understand it, they discussed whether to contact child protection when children are injured in future.
[Shown: CWLF short-term placement childcare guidelines]
[Prosecutor]Point 6 requires ‘monthly visits and occasional telephone checks to assess the care of children in adoption services.’ What specifically must be assessed?
[Witness—白麗芳]Collecting information on the child's condition...
[Prosecutor]Does ‘collecting information’ mean not needing to consider why the condition exists?
[Witness—白麗芳]We seek to understand the situation...
[Prosecutor]So do social workers accompany children to medical appointments?
[Witness—白麗芳]The caregiver takes them, and we confirm it.
[Shown: county/city home-based childcare service center visiting guidelines] (apparently the pre-incident version)
[Prosecutor]These government guidelines require routine visits once yearly for care lasting over a year, and four times yearly for newly accepted children. Why does CWLF require more visits than the childcare center?
[Witness—白麗芳]Home-based childcare is a structured service for ordinary children whose parents take them home. CWLF's children are awaiting adoption, so visits are more frequent to prepare them.
[Prosecutor]So CWLF's children awaiting adoption differ from other children? Do children from vulnerable families need a different, more intensive visiting frequency and level of attention?
[Witness—白麗芳]I cannot say which is more intensive.
[Prosecutor]You cannot say whether six visits a year (childcare center) or twelve (CWLF) is more intensive?
[Witness—白麗芳](Silence)
[Defense counsel]Objection, repetitive questioning by the prosecution.
[Presiding judge]Overruled. The witness has not answered.
[Prosecutor]The child 劉 came from a vulnerable family and was about to separate from his birth family, unlike ordinary childcare while parents work. Did he need more intensive visits than an ordinary child?
[Witness—白麗芳](Silence)
[Prosecutor]How do you prepare a child with physical or mental abnormalities for adoption?
[Witness—白麗芳]Take them for treatment and connect medical resources.
[Prosecutor]Would you address a child's personal-safety problem?
[Witness—白麗芳]Of course, but personal safety is broad. At the time we did not recognize it as a safety issue.
[Prosecutor]Does social-worker training cover the concept of unannounced visits?
[Witness—白麗芳]We do not teach it.
[Prosecutor]Not in 33 years, even after it appeared in regulations?
[Witness—白麗芳]We seek to build relationships with service users, so all visits are arranged.
[Prosecutor]Do you know the purpose and rationale of unannounced visits?
[Witness—白麗芳]To supervise caregivers.
[Shown: Control Yuan report]
[Prosecutor]Any comment on ‘CWLF... already had the character of out-of-home placement’?
[Witness—白麗芳]I think the key is what follows. Child placement affects human rights; it should return to government control.
[Prosecutor]Since your work already amounted to out-of-home placement, why could you not adopt unannounced visits under local-government rules?
[Witness—白麗芳]1. As a private organization, we lack coercive powers. 2. Caregivers are partners, so we do not conduct surprise inspections.
[Prosecutor]Even without public authority, could you not stop cooperating if a caregiver refused?
[Witness—白麗芳]If the caregiver refused then, we would not make a surprise inspection, for the child's stability.
[Judicial examination]
[Presiding judge]How much did you pay this child's caregiver monthly? Was it NT$1,000 per day?
[Witness—白麗芳]I am not sure. It was probably calculated daily.
[Presiding judge]Where did the money come from?
[Witness—白麗芳]Fundraising.
[Presiding judge]Would these funds be unavailable if the family found its own caregiver?
[Witness—白麗芳]We want the caregiver's assistance with adoption procedures as a prerequisite.
[Presiding judge]Do you mean the funds cannot be used unless they choose your partner caregiver?
[Witness—白麗芳]We pay because we want caregivers to cooperate with adoption.
[Presiding judge]If a caregiver is not on your list but can cooperate, can CWLF cover the fees?
[Witness—白麗芳]No... (to be supplemented)
[Presiding judge]Does child abuse fall within child protection?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes.
[Presiding judge]CWLF documents say you may end cooperation if a home-based provider violates child-protection provisions in childcare regulations. Is that right? Can you assess termination?
[Witness—白麗芳]Yes. Violators would no longer be on our list, but only the parents can terminate the contract.
[Presiding judge]How do you assess violations of those child-protection rules? Wait until something happens?
[Witness—白麗芳]A violation such as exceeding the allowed number of children permits termination.
[Presiding judge]Do you still work at CWLF?
[Witness—白麗芳]No.
[Judge]If the first visit was in September and another in October, followed by such a huge deterioration in November, could a social worker conclude the child was not receiving proper care?
[Ms. 白]I was not involved and have not seen complete records, so I cannot directly infer that. I believe many considerations informed the decisions. Generally, when a child develops problems, social workers want medical attention, such as a pediatrician or dentist, to help assess them. In adoption work, children often have adjustment difficulties when care settings change, so the team's discussion may initially have understood it as adjustment difficulty.
[Judge]In your understanding, what should social workers do when faced with such a large change?
[Ms. 白]Discuss it. More information may need to be collected afterward. If existing information is still insufficient, they may decide to send the child to a doctor first.
[Judge]So all a social worker needs to do is send the child to a doctor?
[Ms. 白]Looking back, perhaps more should have been done. But I was not actually involved. Every judgment was based on information available then, consultations, past experience and professional knowledge.
[Judge]What exactly would make CWLF recognize a duty to report? Must a child be beaten all over and have broken arms and legs?
[Ms. 白 / courtroom] Spectators became emotional and cried; proceedings were briefly interrupted.
[Ms. 白]I cannot directly answer about the precise circumstances then. From our management experience, clear evidence suggesting abuse should lead to a report. However, legally, mandatory reporting applies upon suspected abuse or mistreatment.
[Ms. 白]I explained to the prosecutor that the questions were often compound: first showing a video and asking whether it was abuse, to which I said I could not judge; then mandatory reporting, where I said suspicion should be reported; then whether reporting would trigger emergency placement. These cannot be explained clearly in one sentence.
[Shown: 白麗芳's statement]
[Assigned judge]Here the prosecutor asked, ‘Should social workers report injuries within 24 hours?’ You answered, ‘If injuries are found, report within 24 hours.’ Asked whether reporting would lead to emergency placement and prevent the child's death, you answered yes. Is that consistent with your position now?
[Witness—白麗芳]I was answering about mandatory reporting... reporting suspected abuse, not simply injuries.
[Assigned judge]Your social worker, the defendant, saw a huge change but did not report. Do you now consider that a failing?
[Witness—白麗芳]Our administrative procedures should improve; the judge decides criminal responsibility.
[Assigned judge]Do you really have no firm requirements in such circumstances?
[Witness—白麗芳](Silence.) Improvement is needed, but it is not a failing.
[Assigned judge]As her superior, how do you assess the defendant's handling? Did she do what an ordinary social worker should?
[Witness—白麗芳](Silence.) There should be room for improvement.
[Assigned judge]What actions would meet your expectations?
[Witness—白麗芳]Beyond discussion, I think more medical expertise should have been sought.
[Associate judge]The associate judge has three questions. 1. You said unannounced visits are for government agencies, while CWLF lacks public authority and therefore uses appointments?
[Witness—白麗芳]Under the regulations, yes.
[Associate judge]Do regulations prohibit unannounced visits outside placement cases?
[Witness—白麗芳]No, they do not.
[Associate judge]2. You said you cannot guarantee safety 24 hours a day. But was confirming good care and protection in home-based childcare 陳尚潔's responsibility and duty?
[Witness—白麗芳]That would be the childcare center, wouldn't it?
[Associate judge]So confirming proper care and protection was not 陳尚潔's duty? Answer yes or no without digressing. This should not be difficult.
[Witness—白麗芳](Silence.) If I must answer yes or no, then yes.
[Associate judge]3. First you required ‘clear evidence of abuse’ to report, then ‘evidence of suspicion.’ From an ordinary person's perspective, would a child losing three teeth overnight make you suspect abuse?
[Witness—白麗芳]It is unusual. Perhaps I have had too much experience, so I... (witness inaudible; to be supplemented)
[Presiding judge]If you were on the front line like 陳尚潔, would you handle it the same way?
[Witness—白麗芳]I would ask more questions.
[Presiding judge]Ask the caregiver again and tell her to take him to a doctor?
[Witness—白麗芳]I would ask a doctor or dentist and consult professionals.
[Presiding judge]Does reporting not count as consultation—having professionals come assess? Instead you would find professionals yourself?
[Witness—白麗芳](Silence.)
[Presiding judge]Sorry, must you report upon suspicion, or only after confirmation? It is fine if you cannot answer.
[Witness—白麗芳]Upon suspicion.
[Assigned judge]Consultation was warranted when bruises were found in September. By November 19, when three teeth were lost overnight, had she clarified the suspected abuse within an appropriate time?
[Witness—白麗芳]I did not know at the outset. Many children awaiting adoption have many issues. She was not proactive enough, but that is not inaction.
[Assigned judge]So you say she was not proactive enough?
[Witness—白麗芳]In hindsight.
[Assigned judge]When would have been an appropriate time to check for abuse? The court considers this already a very long period.
[Witness—白麗芳]They did ask the caregiver. They sought play therapy and treated it as adjustment difficulty.
[Assigned judge]Do the child's extensive injuries really look like maladjustment rather than abuse? Over three or four months, was the care of a reasonably prudent social worker exercised? Was this reasonable?
[Witness—白麗芳]I cannot answer such a weighty question. We would check whether she discussed it with her supervisor. I do not want to excuse her. We simply trusted our partner caregiver.
[Assigned judge]Was that not an error of judgment plainly inconsistent with objective evidence?
[Witness—白麗芳](Silence.) I call it a limitation, not an error.
[End of witness 1]
2025.12.18 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
葉亭希
CWLF Northern Region Adoption Team leader
Testified that she did not proactively review 陳尚潔's work records before the incident and that records were still being written on January 18, 2024. Also explained requests to delete photographs from phones after sending them and delete cloud copies after a lawyer downloaded them.
Record completion timingPost-incident photo transfersDeletion of cloud copiesPartner-caregiver decisionsData-preservation boundaries
- The judge pressed strongly on data preservation and risks to judicial investigation; the witness cited stress, personal data and copy-security concerns.
- These exchanges raise evidence-preservation issues; they do not authorize this site to independently conclude destruction of evidence or collusion in testimony.
葉亭希's account of caregiver screening, cooperation and data handling should be compared with the main-case finding that 劉若琳 was not a bystander but a joint caregiver who actively followed up and encouraged the conduct. Whether risks from caregivers' household members were included in oversight is a central gap.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]Where do you currently work, and in what position?
[Witness—葉亭希]CWLF Northern Region Adoption Team leader, handling personnel administration, external liaison and cross-team discussions.
[Prosecutor]Is defendant 陳 a social worker on your team?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Shown: OO Little Angels group conversation record]
[Prosecutor]Are you a member of this group?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Is 亭Y your account?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Your message says, ‘Just saw New Taipei section chief 柯, Shuying's lead worker, Lung Yen and the grandmother; next... (omitted)... the section chief knows and asks us to provide pre-care caregiver assessments and follow-up visit information...’ Must you conduct follow-up visits to children?
[Witness—葉亭希]We visit children in adoption services.
[Prosecutor]Do you know about 陳's casework records?
[Witness—葉亭希]The supervisor would know. I do not proactively look. I only searched for them when police came to search and the two of them were absent.
[Prosecutor]So you had never seen them?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Shown: conversation between 陳 and 葉亭希]
[Prosecutor]This conversation was half a month after the incident (2024/1/18). 陳 said, ‘I plan to take leave tomorrow and return 1/23. I have been writing the child's records these days; it is agonizing...’ You said, ‘It is hard; as you write... remember to rest.’ Do you know how she wrote them?
[Witness—葉亭希]I do not know 陳's habits. Social workers are sometimes busy and may make notes at the time. She may have had notes and filled the records in afterward.
[Prosecutor]Did defendant 陳 still have other cases after the incident?
[Witness—葉亭希]She probably did. She mentioned going to Zhongli, so she likely still had outside visits.
[Prosecutor]In your experience, if someone has notes, could the preceding three months' work records still be unfinished on 2024/1/18?
[Witness—葉亭希]Each social worker progresses at a different pace; the requirement is completion before adoption matching.
[Prosecutor]Did CWLF hold internal review meetings after the incident?
[Witness—葉亭希]It was urgent and much had to be said publicly, so senior managers met first. I first checked the other teams' situations. In February–March, we discussed possible adjustments and points requiring attention over several meetings.
[Prosecutor]What specific adjustments and points requiring attention?
[Witness—葉亭希]More frequent regular contact with the home-based childcare center, and social workers accompanying children to medical visits when nannies report something unusual. For example, nannies previously took children to early intervention; in future a social worker might accompany them several times.
[Defense examination]
[Defense counsel]Was the OO Little Angel group not created to keep casework intervention records?
[Witness—葉亭希]No. It was to exchange information about events and their sequence after the incident, such as a chronology of major events.
[Defense counsel]Are work records and a chronology the same?
[Witness—葉亭希]No. A chronology is the sequence of events?
[Shown: OO Little Angels group conversation record]
[Defense counsel]In the chat, 陳 said, ‘Grandmother asked whether I wanted to contact the former nanny. I think that is her own decision, ...[observer notes incomplete]...’ You replied, ‘I think it is inappropriate.’ Why?
[Witness—葉亭希]This was on December 24, when the incident happened. We did not yet know what had occurred. The former nanny was not a partner of ours, so I felt it was inappropriate.
[Defense counsel]Do you think 陳 meant to keep it from the former nanny?
[Witness—葉亭希]No. She was asking what we thought.
[Defense counsel]Also, ...[communications between 陳 and 葉]... did you ask whether to act as the contact person because you feared Grandmother would receive too many outside calls?
[Witness—葉亭希]I feared Grandmother would become confused by a large amount of outside information.
[Defense counsel]Do CWLF social workers receive child-abuse identification training?
[Witness—葉亭希]New staff must take child-abuse identification training. It is compulsory.
[Defense counsel]CWLF stopped recruiting new nannies after ROC year 112 (2023)? Why?
[Prosecutor]Objection. The defense question is outside the scope of direct examination.
[Assigned judge]Please avoid going too far beyond the scope of direct examination. Defense, please explain.
[Presiding judge]The panel agrees to remove the restriction to the scope of direct examination.
[Defense counsel]CWLF stopped recruiting new nannies after ROC year 112 (2023)? Why?
[Witness—葉亭希]No. Demand for childcare has declined, and CWLF advocates government placements, so its childcare services should decrease.
[Defense counsel]Who decides whether someone can become a CWLF nanny?
[Witness—葉亭希]A nanny applies to us and must have a nanny license, home-based childcare registration, and police criminal-record certificate. We discuss possible cooperation, considering the home, family, partner and support system. Our children have more difficulties and may need early intervention or frequent medical visits. After checking that the nanny is willing, the responsible social worker brings the information back for discussion.
[Defense counsel]Who decided that 劉彩萱 would be the child's nanny?
[Witness—葉亭希]There was a meeting during summer vacation. We matched children based on age and assessment of the nanny's home environment. Several children were assessed then.
[Defense counsel]Is a decision meeting held only after the birth family chooses it?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes. After the birth family chooses, the social worker discusses it with the supervisor and then at a team meeting.
[Shown: conversation between 陳 and 葉亭希]
[Defense counsel]In the chat you said, ‘尚潔, I know you have many hospital photos. Delete them after sending them to me.’ Did you send that to her?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Did you see the photos she sent?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Did you see photos taken during visits before the incident?
[Witness—葉亭希]No.
[Defense counsel]You did not see any visit photos after the incident?
[Witness—葉亭希]I only saw the photos in the documents when outside parties requested information.
[Defense counsel]Were the visit photos very different from the emergency-room photos?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes. The emergency photos showed many injuries. In the visit photos, the skin still looked like that of an ordinary child.
[Defense counsel]Would 李芳玲 have access to case photos before the incident?
[Witness—葉亭希]No.
[Defense counsel]李芳玲 did not know the 劉 child's situation with nanny 劉 before the incident?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Shows group chat records of 李芳玲, 葉亭希 and 陳美怡(?)]
[Defense counsel]On December 24 李芳玲 said, ‘...陳尚潔 knew on December 7, did not verify it, and made no home visit this month...there were failings.’ Do you think she knew the circumstances?
[Witness—葉亭希]I think not. This was a message after the inquest, perhaps reflecting her thoughts that day afterward, but she may not yet have understood everything.
[Defense counsel]Did you know 陳尚潔 had asked nanny 劉 to take the child to a doctor and dentist?
[Witness—葉亭希]I saw a group message saying 陳 had a child who needed to see a dentist.
[Defense counsel]As far as you know, are casework intervention records continually updated?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes, we do.
[Further examination]
[Shows photograph of the 劉 child]
[Prosecutor]You just said the child was clothed in all visit photos, with normal skin like any other child?
[Witness—葉亭希]I actually did not look closely.
[Prosecutor]All clothed—does that include this photo?
[Witness—葉亭希]No.
[Prosecutor]So you actually did not look properly.
[Judicial examination]
[Shown: conversation between 陳 and 葉亭希]
[Assigned judge]After the incident you told 陳, ‘Email the photos to me separately, then delete them from your phone.’ Why?
[Witness—葉亭希]I feared the stress would be too much and she would keep looking at them, so I wanted her to send them to me...
[Assigned judge]Since you knew these photos were important, wouldn't deleting them keep prosecutors from finding them...?
[Witness—葉亭希]I wanted them saved externally, in the case file.
[Assigned judge]Was deletion your decision, or an instruction from a superior—for example CEO 白麗芳?
[Witness—葉亭希]Mine.
[Assigned judge]Is the case file in the cloud, accessible to anyone with permission?
[Witness—葉亭希]Yes.
[Shows chat records between witness 葉亭希 and 白麗芳]
[Assigned judge]In this record you said, ‘The file was too large to send earlier, so I put it in my cloud. The lawyer cannot download from CWLF's cloud; please have the lawyer delete it after downloading.’ Why wait until the lawyer downloaded it to delete it? Were you afraid investigators would find it? Hadn't CWLF just been searched by prosecutors and police on March 15?
[Witness—葉亭希]My superior instructed me to send the file to the lawyer. ...
[Assigned judge]According to this chat, what exactly did you delete afterward? Didn't you know files must not be arbitrarily deleted during a judicial investigation? Don't you know that is destruction of evidence?
[Witness—葉亭希]I only regarded it as a copy, ...a copy on a shared drive was not secure.
[Assigned judge]Why not keep everything? Why the rush to delete it?
[Witness—葉亭希]Google is not secure; case records should be handled carefully.
[Assigned judge]You deleted data from a phone and moved it to a cloud unknown to investigators. Wasn't that to collude over evidence?
[Witness—葉亭希]No...
[Assigned judge]You told the defendant to delete phone photos on the day of the incident. The court finds that very hard to imagine.
[Witness—葉亭希]I was concerned about 陳's physical and mental state. Once sent out, they would go into the case file. At the time nobody imagined 陳 would be indicted.
[Second witness concluded]
2025.12.18 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
葉詩宇
CWLF adoption-services supervisor; previously assessed the 劉 sisters
Described pre-partnership assessments of the 劉 sisters, impressions of their child-protection awareness, post-incident handover, and the Excel/chronology. Testified that she was still requesting chat screenshots and visit records on December 29 and, before testifying, met the defendant's lawyers with 葉亭希 and reviewed her own investigation statement.
Nanny screeningWork overview ExcelRecord status on December 29Discrepancies with investigation statementLegal consultation before testimony
- ‘Child-protection awareness at interview’ coexists with the subsequent criminal facts, showing that one-off screening cannot replace ongoing supervision.
- Pre-testimony consultation and review of statements require transparent disclosure, but do not alone establish witness collusion.
葉詩宇's account of nanny applications, visits, matching and partnership decisions should be checked against the main-case judgment to confirm both sisters' participation. A contract naming only one nanny does not mean only one person actually provided care.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]What was your workplace and position in September–December, when the incident occurred?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Supervisor of adoption-related services at CWLF.
[Prosecutor]What was your relationship with defendant 陳 at CWLF?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Colleagues.
[Prosecutor]You and 江怡韻 were both supervisors?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Yes, but I was not 陳尚潔's supervisor.
[Prosecutor]Who assessed 劉彩萱's home?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I did. Before that, the nanny had to submit her nanny license and home-based childcare registration.
[Prosecutor]What did you inspect on site?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Their address was on the third floor. We checked: 1. Family members, support, childcare knowledge and skills, and photographs of the environment. 2. Importantly, relevance to adoption work and understanding of adoption: for example, explaining that placing a child for adoption is not abandonment, so nannies regularly bring children to the agency to meet their birth families. The 劉 sisters left a strong impression. When I described the skills CWLF needed, they said a friend cared for children awaiting adoption. When I discussed adoption, they described past experiences as nursery teachers, ...saying they reported a child they saw with cigarette scars. So I knew they understood child protection; they even had tears in their eyes about children awaiting adoption...
[Prosecutor]So during your visit you checked the nanny's understanding of child protection, ...[omitted]... and inspected the whole environment to confirm it was safe?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]We assessed them. The nannies also knew they would need to give more and had to assess whether they could do it.
[Shows December 24 group chat]
[Prosecutor]In the chat you said, ‘Please have 尚潔 share the summary Excel sheet so I can understand the work overview.’ Why did you need that overview?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I joined later. Mainly, the prosecutor wanted to know subsequent arrangements for the privately placed children with nanny 劉; I needed to understand in order to take over 陳's work. The photos may have been from December 24. The Excel was probably the chronology.
[Prosecutor]Please clarify what this overview was. Did the Excel contain work records or a chronology? A chronology was already being shared in the group, so why specifically request this Excel?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I have forgotten.
[Shows chat between 葉詩宇 and 李芳玲]
[Prosecutor]Replying to ‘李芳玲 asked 陳 to complete the records,’ you said, ‘I will reply today, ...I will do the handover with 陳 today.’ Why a handover? [Witness — 葉詩宇] Because I was covering for her for a few days and would contact nanny 劉, so I needed to understand the situation.
[Shows private chat between 葉詩宇 and 陳尚潔]
[Prosecutor]At 1:02 a.m. on December 29 you said, ‘尚潔, for this case, any nanny chat screenshots or visit records you have not yet sent me...’ 陳 replied she did not yet have them. When you asked, had she not finished?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I don't know whether she meant she had none or had not fully completed them.
[Prosecutor]So she sent you screenshots first?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Yes.
[Shown: conversation record]
[Prosecutor]In the chat you said, ‘Looking at 陳's conversation with nanny 劉, I think the child did become thinner.’ Correct?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Yes. I looked afterward, so he had become thinner then. Emotionally it hurt; rationally, an adoption social worker would assess: 1. Children aged 1–4 grow taller and thinner; 2. A change of environment can make children thinner; 3. Exposure to drugs can make children thinner.
[Prosecutor]So, based on what you just said, was becoming thinner the child's own problem?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I was only making an objective assessment.
[Shows chat between 葉詩宇 and 陳尚潔]
[Prosecutor]You said, ‘A small question: did 采萱 tell you about the wounds at the perineum and armpit?’ This seems rather abrupt. Why ask that directly?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I guess I may have seen the photos from the 24th.
[Prosecutor]The photos showed perineal and armpit wounds on the child? You saw them, didn't you?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I'm actually not sure. I asked after it came to light.
[Prosecutor]陳 then replied, ‘She didn't mention the armpit; she mentioned atopic dermatitis, so it should count as skin.’ Why did 陳尚潔 say ‘count as skin’? Why ‘count’?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I don't know.
[Defense counsel]Objection, leading by the prosecution.
[Prosecutor]Then I withdraw the question.
[Prosecutor]Did you also know 陳 actually had no records and was filling them in from other people's materials?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I don't know the details because I wasn't her supervisor.
[Prosecutor]As an adoption supervisor, do you think 陳 had any failings?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I think she has many positive qualities, but I don't know too many details of this case to answer easily.
[Shows witness 葉亭希's statement]
[Prosecutor]In this statement the prosecutor asked, ‘Did 陳尚潔 and 劉彩萱 have any financial or other interest relationship?’ You replied, ‘I think not, but I think she missed key information.’ What key information did you mean?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I did not say she missed key information. As I remember, I shouldn't have said she missed it. I think I meant that perhaps information misled 陳 and caused a different interpretation.
[Prosecutor]Is this your signature on the statement?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]The prosecutor had shown me a video of 剴剴 and I cried in the hearing, so I signed without reading anything.
[Assigned judge]The court sees a difference between the statement and today's testimony. You said then, ‘I think she was negligent.’
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I didn't say ‘was negligent.’ I had a positive view of her—she was attentive. The prosecutor reprimanded me then, and afterward I nodded.
[Assigned judge]You mean you didn't say, ‘I think she was negligent’? Did you say it or not? Or did the prosecutor write it himself?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I don't remember clearly.
[Assigned judge]What exactly did the prosecutor reprimand you about?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]He mentioned some testimony and said, ‘What you said is wrong, that was such-and-such...’
[Assigned judge]Your testimony just now plainly differs from ‘From my knowledge of 尚潔, I think she was negligent’ in the statement?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I don't remember. I only remember saying that, as I knew 陳, she was attentive, and there were...perhaps this reason...[inaudible]
[Assigned judge]Do you know what taking an oath means? Untruthful testimony raises perjury issues. Having sworn, why didn't you object when you knew the statement was written this way?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I also want to know why...
[Assigned judge]The statement says, ‘I saw them; these photos should prompt a report, and a visit report should be written.’ ‘A visit report should be written’ was added by hand. Didn't you see those words when signing? You may give the court your answer today.
[Assigned judge]This is part of the evidence adverse to the defendant. Please recall carefully and answer the court.
[Witness — 葉詩宇]My response then was that I had seen these photos.
[Assigned judge]When the prosecutor added those words by hand, he had to ask you. Did you agree?
[Witness — 葉詩宇][Silence]
[Assigned judge]So you did not say that when signing?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I did not say it when signing. I am uncertain because it was my first investigative hearing. When I saw the statement written that way, I thought anyone can make errors in wording.
[Presiding judge]You just said ‘when I saw this statement.’ When was that?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]When we consulted the lawyers. We went a few days ago because of the upcoming hearing.
[Presiding judge]‘We’? Who besides you?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I don't know. My colleague 亭希 and I.
[Assigned judge]Were those who attended the previous hearing there too?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I do not know.
[Assigned judge]Were they CWLF's lawyers?
[Prosecutor]If they were lawyers in this case, the prosecution considers that witness collusion.
[Assigned judge]Lawyer 蔡 or lawyer 朱?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Both.
[Assigned judge]And they showed you the statement?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]...explained court procedures.
[Assigned judge]When? It was only days ago—you should remember!
[Witness — 葉詩宇]...We went to lawyer 蔡's office at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
[Assigned judge]Who was present?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Me, 葉亭希, lawyer 蔡 and lawyer 朱.
[Assigned judge]How long did it take?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I do not remember.
[Assigned judge]More than ten minutes?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Yes.
[Assigned judge]More than thirty minutes?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]About that.
[Assigned judge]What did you see during the consultation?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Parts of the statement.
[Assigned judge]Who dealt with you then?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Lawyer 蔡.
[Assigned judge]She showed you the statement? Did she coach you on what to say?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Yes. She said to tell the truth.
[Assigned judge]But what you say today is completely different from the statement.
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I am telling the truth.
[Assigned judge]Repeat the lawyer's exact words. This concerns not only you but also her legal career.
[Witness — 葉詩宇]About the hearing...[inaudible]
[Assigned judge]Did she tell you what questions the prosecutor would ask?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]...She didn't say much.
[Assigned judge]Did CWLF arrange the consultation? Did 江怡韻 and 李芳玲 receive the same consultation?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I do not know.
[Associate judge]Did you ask, ‘The hearing is coming, I want a lawyer,’ or did CWLF arrange it on its own initiative?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I asked.
[Associate judge]Why didn't you seek a lawyer during the investigation?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I did.
[Associate judge]Didn't the lawyer tell you to stay calm and read carefully before signing?
[Witness — 葉詩宇][Silence]
[Associate judge]Whom did you tell you were nervous and ask to arrange a lawyer?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I asked the CEO.
[Associate judge]So CWLF arranged it?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I suppose so.
[Associate judge]So you saw your investigation statement? When you noticed discrepancies, did you ask the lawyer how to answer?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Just tell the truth.
[Associate judge]The statement says you were certain a report and visit report were required. Did you say none of that? Did you say it in scattered pieces, or not at all?
[Witness — 葉詩宇][Silence]
[Associate judge]If you said it in scattered pieces, when we listen we will focus on whether it was distorted. If you never said it at all...
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I never said it at all.
[Associate judge]When you and 葉亭希 visited the lawyers, did you know whether she looked at her statement?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]We each looked at our own statement.
[Presiding judge]Was the CEO you mentioned the current or former one?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]The current one, 陳麗如.
[Assigned judge]During consultation, did you know these were the defendant's lawyers?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]Yes. Perhaps only she had the statement.
[Assigned judge]Who paid for the consultation? Did you? CWLF?
[Witness — 葉詩宇]I did not pay.
[End of witness 3]
[Court adjourned]
2026.01.22 · Requested by defense
Witness / not a defendant
林心慈
Former home-visit worker, Wenshan District Home-Based Childcare Service Center
Testified that the first actual visit was September 22, 2023, not September 26 as recorded; admitted changing the date because the report was unfinished that day, but did not fully explain why when it was still within the seven-day upload deadline. Said she saw no forehead bruise, did not find 剴剴's baby diary, and learned the child's background mainly from the nanny.
September 22 and September 26Altered visit dateNo forehead bruise observedBaby diary not reviewedInformation from nannyOrdinary daycare system handling round-the-clock care
- Corroborates the date discrepancy described by 黃玲芳, who said she discovered September 22 in photos only when questioned by prosecutors; connects to a separate proceeding involving Taipei City's referral for investigation described by 粘羽涵.
- Raises the effectiveness of verification alongside the Control Yuan's finding that records said the diary was completed daily although it was not actually maintained.
林心慈's account of visit dates, the baby diary and on-site observations should be checked against the main case's findings of prolonged injuries, malnutrition and joint care by the sisters. Forms must be checked item by item against actual conditions.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Presiding judge]Presiding judge; [Assigned judge] Assigned judge; [Associate judge] Associate judge
==== Examination ====
[Defense examination — 蔡]
[Defense counsel]What is your work history?
[Witness — 林心慈]Previously a kindergarten educare worker, then a visit worker at the home-based childcare center; now a childcare worker.
[Defense counsel]How long were you a visit worker?
[Witness — 林心慈]Three years at the time of the incident. I continued afterward, five years in total.
[Defense counsel]Are you a licensed social worker?
[Witness — 林心慈]Not then. I pursued further training afterward.
[Defense counsel]What were your visit duties?
[Witness — 林心慈]We checked the childcare environment and interactions between nanny and children... [observer notes incomplete]
[Defense counsel]Did your duties include checking the environment, service quality and care safety?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Was checking for inappropriate care also a key focus?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Did you inspect 劉彩萱's environment and interview her about her background?
[Witness — 林心慈]Initially 劉彩萱 and her younger sister said they wanted to become a foster family, which we politely declined. The second time they said they had checked and needed home-based childcare registration first to become a foster family. During the environment check she said she had worked in a kindergarten and sounded experienced.
[Defense counsel]Did you specifically verify her claimed kindergarten experience?
[Witness — 林心慈]No. She said...I'm unsure whether kindergarten or infant-care experience. She said someone brought a child to her from far away, perhaps Nangang.
[Defense counsel]How many visits did you make in total?
[Witness — 林心慈]I don't remember; I'd need the records.
[Shows visit record form]
[Defense counsel]According to the records, five contacts in total, including site visits and subsequent calls?
[Witness — 林心慈]About that.
[Defense counsel]How long was each visit?
[Witness — 林心慈]About an hour.
[Defense counsel]Did you take photographs?
[Witness — 林心慈]We photographed the environment, avoiding children where possible because portraits involve personal data. We checked the nanny's physical and mental condition, environment and interactions with children. On ordinary visits, nannies were usually quite welcoming.
[Defense counsel]Your first visit was September 26?
[Witness — 林心慈]No. After the incident we checked the photo dates. The first visit was September 22.
[Defense counsel]Please describe the September 22 visit.
[Witness — 林心慈]The nanny offered biscuits to the two children present. The 劉 child stood still and did not come to take any. I asked whether he...[observer notes incomplete]. 劉彩萱 said she had seen him take them under the table to eat, perhaps...[observer notes incomplete].
[Defense counsel]Did you consider that normal?
[Witness — 林心慈]The nanny said he had changed nannies three or four times. It was his first time seeing me, and one-year-olds recognize familiar people, so I thought it normal.
[Defense counsel]The visit form says ‘the 劉 child...caregiver...’ [observer notes incomplete]?
[Witness — 林心慈]His background came entirely from the nanny. I recorded development based on my observations and her description of him.
[Defense counsel]You said the childcare provider said the child previously had no nanny...[observer notes incomplete]?
[Witness — 林心慈]She didn't explain the repeated nanny changes, only that earlier caregivers might have influenced him.
[Defense counsel]What was the child's emotional state?
[Witness — 林心慈]He did not cry; he kept watching the two of us.
[Defense counsel]How did he interact with the nanny?
[Witness — 林心慈]She repeatedly asked whether he wanted biscuits and initiated interaction. I recall he watched her without responding.
[Defense counsel]Did the development you observed match his age?
[Witness — 林心慈]I thought so then. There is a standard template for developmental milestones by age.
[Defense counsel]Did 劉彩萱 say he was difficult to care for during the visit?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Defense counsel]Did he have injuries at the first visit?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Defense counsel]When did you discover the visit was September 22, not September 26?
[Witness — 林心慈]Last year. The social affairs bureau held a review meeting. I kept thinking why I had not seen his forehead injury, checked the photos again, and discovered September 22.
[Defense counsel]Did you complete a Childcare Environment Safety Checklist and Routine Visit Record each time?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes, we do.
[Defense counsel]Were both forms signed and dated?
[Witness — 林心慈]I have explained the date error to prosecutors in a separate case.
[Defense counsel]Why did you change the visit date?
[Witness — 林心慈]Because I did not finish the visit report that day.
[Defense counsel]Is there an internal deadline for completing visit reports?
[Witness — 林心慈]The supervisor's internal rule was within seven days.
[Defense counsel]Did you see a forehead bruise at the first visit?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Defense counsel]It was uploaded September 28, still within seven days. Why change the visit date?
[Witness — 林心慈]I didn't want the supervisor to know...[to be supplemented]
[Defense counsel]Did you conduct telephone visits?
[Witness — 林心慈]To whom?
[Defense counsel]To the nanny?
[Witness — 林心慈]No, if the child showed no abnormalities.
[Defense counsel]So you primarily did in-person visits?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes.
[Defense counsel]Do you know the required visit frequency?
[Witness — 林心慈]Four times a year.
[Defense counsel]How did you know whether a child had abnormalities?
[Witness — 林心慈]Mainly from conditions during visits and reports by parents or nannies, as my caseload was quite large. Nanny 劉 told me a social worker involved with her visited every month.
[Defense counsel]Did you know visit frequency differs for 24-hour care?
[Witness — 林心慈]Under the rules, ordinary childcare where a family takes the child home daily requires one visit a year. Round-the-clock care requires four.
[Defense counsel]You don't increase visits for children awaiting adoption?
[Witness — 林心慈]The supervisor gave no such instruction.
[Defense counsel]Why didn't the second visit planned for December happen?
[Witness — 林心慈]The nanny said someone at home had tested positive. As our visits were unannounced I still kept it in December, but when I was going to visit again, the child had already...
[Defense counsel]Were your visits scheduled or unannounced?
[Witness — 林心慈]Unannounced.
[Defense counsel]Did any other parents using 劉彩萱's care raise concerns?
[Witness — 林心慈]In December another parent reported the child came home with a red bottom each time.
[Defense counsel]Had you received child-abuse identification training?
[Witness — 林心慈]Not before the incident.
[Defense counsel]Then how did you identify child abuse during visits?
[Witness — 林心慈]Mainly from the nanny's reactions during visits and the communication notebook between nanny and parents.
[Defense counsel]Was that other parent's child the 潘 child? How did you handle the red-bottom complaint?
[Witness — 林心慈]I asked the nanny for her chats with the parent. She said the child sometimes arrived having already passed stool and that she had taken the child to a doctor for the redness.
[Defense counsel]Did the parent accept that explanation?
[Witness — 林心慈]I checked separately with the nanny and parent by phone.
[Defense counsel]Did you always review the baby diary during visits?
[Witness — 林心慈]I reviewed and photographed it. Initially the nanny had handwritten diaries; later she said the parents neither read nor signed them, so she switched to messaging. But the parent later said the nanny never wrote a diary and wanted another 24-hour nanny.
[Defense counsel]During your visits...[to be supplemented]
[Witness — 林心慈]She (劉彩萱) said getting up every two hours at night to change diapers was previously...[to be supplemented]
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]What is your educational background?
[Witness — 林心慈]University graduate, Department of Family and Child Development.
[Prosecutor]Did you obtain a social worker license after the incident?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes.
[Prosecutor]How many cases did you have at the time?
[Witness — 林心慈]Sixty to seventy nannies, caring for 120 children in total.
[Prosecutor]Were most of your cases ordinary family childcare or agency placements with partner nannies?
[Witness — 林心慈]In my experience they were all ordinary families. The 劉 child was the only agency placement with a partner nanny.
[Prosecutor]Did you have any information about the child?
[Witness — 林心慈]No. It all came orally from the nanny.
[Prosecutor]Did you have a contact channel with CWLF's social workers?
[Witness — 林心慈]I only had the contract, CWLF's standard contract.
[Prosecutor]Did you have any way to contact CWLF social worker 陳?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Prosecutor]Did you have any information about the child's health?
[Witness — 林心慈]Only a checkbox form completed by nanny 劉.
[Shows home-based childcare center visit guidelines]
[Prosecutor]The guidelines describe visit frequencies, ...[explains the various frequencies]; the last provision...[apparently the rule for first-time registered providers]. Was 劉彩萱 a first-time registrant?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes. Her registration was only approved in ROC year 111 (2022).
[Prosecutor]Did her situation qualify as ‘full-day/night care’ and ‘joint childcare,’ requiring four visits a year?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes. She qualified, so the frequency was four visits a year.
[Shows child-development checklist]
[Prosecutor]Is this the child's health information you meant?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Prosecutor]Did you have any other health information?
[Witness — 林心慈]Did you mean the child-health checklist? It was on the last contract page, a form with emergency contacts. I told 劉彩萱, ‘Ask the social worker to fill in what you can't.’
[Prosecutor]Which social worker?
[Witness — 林心慈]CWLF's social worker.
[Prosecutor]Do you use separate forms for children with special needs?
[Witness — 林心慈]No. Before this child, 劉彩萱 had another CWLF child, also using the ordinary form.
[Prosecutor]Why does your supervisor require visit records within seven days?
[Witness — 林心慈]That was the workplace rule when I joined...[to be supplemented].
[Prosecutor]Did you actually visit September 22 or September 26?
[Witness — 林心慈]I'm relying on the date of the photos I took.
[Prosecutor]So you visited before 陳尚潔 (September 25)?
[Witness — 林心慈]I don't know what day 陳尚潔 visited.
[Prosecutor]Did you see a forehead injury during your visit?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Prosecutor]Did you see the child's baby diary during visits?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Prosecutor]So you did not see a baby diary made by 劉彩萱?
[Witness — 林心慈]I asked how she reported the child's growth. She said she used messaging with the social worker. Out of respect for the social worker's expertise, and perhaps some child information was unsuitable for third parties...
[Prosecutor]What should a baby diary contain?
[Witness — 林心慈]Sleep times, meal times, bowel-movement times, number of diaper changes...[observer notes incomplete].
[Prosecutor]Before the child died, did you know he had a large head bruise and seemed listless?
[Witness — 林心慈]No.
[Prosecutor]Were you notified when he died?
[Witness — 林心慈]No. I learned later, on Sunday, from the social affairs bureau.
[Prosecutor]Do you know why 陳尚潔, not you, was contacted when he died?
[Witness — 林心慈]I do not know.
[Shows routine visit record]
[Defense counsel]Your earlier records say ‘2023/2/9 visit → 2/16 submitted to supervisor,’ ‘5/? visit → 5/16 submitted’... In that context, there seems no need to change the visit date?
[Witness — 林心慈]The first visit after care starts needs social affairs bureau review, which takes some time.
[Defense counsel]Was the first visit September 22 or 26? Why were dates wrong on both forms?
[Witness — 林心慈]I handwrote the date then and gave it to the nanny to sign.
[Judicial examination]
[Presiding judge]You said nanny 劉 told you, ‘A social worker comes once a month’?
[Witness — 林心慈]She said that when taking her first CWLF case, not the 劉 child. I confirmed it again at the first visit on September 22.
[Presiding judge]Is your center's system designed for full-day or half-day care?
[Witness — 林心慈]In principle, daytime care.
[Presiding judge]Where parents take children home every day?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes.
[Presiding judge]You initially declined their request to foster. Why?
[Witness — 林心慈]We don't handle foster care, so we directed them to fostering agencies.
[Presiding judge]Why then let them register?
[Witness — 林心慈]They contacted CWLF and said registration was required to take cases, so they registered.
[Presiding judge]Without parents helping you watch over this child, didn't you think visits should increase?
[Witness — 林心慈]My understanding was that a social worker would visit.
[Presiding judge]With 60–70 nannies, how many did you visit daily?
[Witness — 林心慈]One or two, because there was other administrative work and office duty.
[Presiding judge]When another parent complained of redness, nanny 劉 said she got up every two hours at night to change diapers. Did that seem odd?
[Witness — 林心慈]A red bottom can have many causes.
[Assigned judge]What were your visit duties?
[Witness — 林心慈]Mainly building a relationship with the nanny, observing the care environment and nanny-child interactions.
[Assigned judge]So you also observed the children. There may be several at a care site; if ten were present, would you need to check all ten?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes.
[Assigned judge]Like you, must the defendant also check children other than her own cases during visits?
[Witness — 林心慈]I've not heard that; probably not.
[Assigned judge]Did you need to frequently ask nanny 劉 to send photos of the child?
[Witness — 林心慈]Only before the first visit: she sent photos of him at CWLF and of cutting his hair when he first arrived at her home.
[Assigned judge]Did the defendant send you visit photos?
[Witness — 林心慈]No. We had no contact before the incident.
[Assigned judge]Do you know why you were called as a witness?
[Witness — 林心慈]Because I had seen the 劉 child?
[Assigned judge]In your understanding, who had the fullest information about this child?
[Witness — 林心慈]I think the social worker.
[Assigned judge]Which social worker?
[Witness — 林心慈]CWLF's social worker. Only from news after the incident did I learn there was also a Shuying Center social worker.
[Assigned judge]Was all your information secondhand—from social worker to nanny to you?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes.
[Presiding judge]Changing diapers every two hours sounds almost wasteful. Did you feel she exaggerated things to cover up what she did?
[Witness — 林心慈]I didn't. She said these children had a harder life, so she bought them things and took them on outings.
[Defense counsel]The childcare contract has contact details?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes, but only CWLF's office phone.
[Defense counsel]Is there a limit on the number of children a nanny can take?
[Witness — 林心慈]Yes. Under the rules, full-day care is limited to two.
[End of witness 2]
2026.01.22 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
黃玲芳
Wenshan District Home-Based Childcare Service Center supervisor; 林心慈's direct manager
Testified that she long believed the first visit was September 26, discovering September 22 only after prosecutors questioned her and she checked photos herself. The center knew almost nothing of children awaiting adoption's backgrounds and relied mainly on 林心慈's reports about care.
Supervisory reviewSeptember 22 photo evidenceSeparation of adoption-child informationVisit-worker caseloadUpload within seven days
- Her account cross-checks with 林心慈's dates, but also shows that the supervisor long failed to identify the discrepancy in images or original materials.
- She considered the workload insufficient to explain the date error. That is a managerial assessment, not a criminal-law determination.
黃玲芳 mainly relied on visit-worker reports. Against the main judgment's findings of joint care and prolonged warning signs, examine whether supervision obtained enough original material rather than only 劉彩萱's or the visit worker's accounts.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Presiding judge]Presiding judge; [Assigned judge] Assigned judge; [Associate judge] Associate judge
==== Examination ====
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]What is your workplace and position?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]I am a supervisor at Wenshan Home-Based Childcare Center.
[Prosecutor]What is your relationship to 林心慈?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]I am her direct supervisor.
[Prosecutor]What was her caseload during the incident period?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]The contract requires each visit worker to cover at least sixty nannies.
[Prosecutor]How does the center learn about children placed by agencies?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Previously experienced nannies took children from the Garden of Hope or...other agencies. I used records to understand care conditions.
[Prosecutor]Whose records? Did you have any records about this child?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]I read 林心慈's reports to understand the nanny's care. I don't know why the agency used these two nannies. Their contract said the child's background must not be disclosed to entities outside the agency.
[Shows the child's three-party childcare contract]
[Prosecutor]Which clause did you mean?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Clause 9 at the bottom of page 2: ‘During care, Party B must not disclose the child's background information to entities outside the agency.’
[Prosecutor]So for children awaiting adoption, you knew nothing about them?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Yes. With that clause, we didn't know what other information we could obtain.
[Prosecutor]Why is seven-day completion an internal rule?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]The Ministry of Health and Welfare has had it that way since I joined.
[Prosecutor]Do you know the date of 林心慈's first visit?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Until prosecutors approached me in ROC year 114 (2025), I always thought September 26. Afterward I checked the photo dates and discovered September 22.
[Prosecutor]So you yourself discovered September 22 from the photos?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Did CWLF call to ask about nanny 劉's care quality?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]No.
[Prosecutor]Did 劉彩萱 tell you about the child's care?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]No.
[Prosecutor]You learned only the day after the incident?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Yes.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]How do you supervise visit workers?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]They complete visit reports; if I find an issue, I ask them about it.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]How do you verify their records are accurate?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]We have 400–500 nannies. If visit workers aren't honest, how could we manage?
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Visit records must be uploaded within seven days?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Yes.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Why did 林心慈 change September 22 to September 26?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]I do not know.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Do you recall her submitting records late?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]No.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Had she ever made false entries?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]This is the only instance I found.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Why wasn't the absence of the child's baby diary discovered during visits?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Diaries now take many forms. Nanny 劉 said the child was fostered through an agency, so we didn't know the agency's recording method or format.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Did you know 劉彩萱 was also indicted for alleged abuse of the 潘 child in her care?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]I do not know.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Were there complaints about nanny 劉?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]The red bottom? We recorded the parent's complaint.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Which month?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Around November, I think.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]How long had the redness lasted?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]We started with the parent's complaint but couldn't know how long it had lasted. After receiving it we called both sides for their accounts, ...[roughly described both accounts; additions welcome].
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Did you find that explanation reasonable?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]...[could not write fast enough; additions welcome]
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Did 林心慈 receive child-abuse identification training as a visit worker?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]I cannot answer. The ministry mandated it after this case, but I would need to check whether she took it beforehand.
[Defense counsel — 朱]Did you collect childcare contracts between parents and nannies?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]We had contracts for all.
[Defense counsel — 朱]Do all contracts use the government template?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]It is recommended, but some draft their own.
[Defense counsel — 朱]Do you know the template identifies information providers must not disclose?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]CWLF's contract prohibits disclosure of background to ‘entities’ outside the agency, unlike ordinary contracts prohibiting disclosure to ‘individuals.’
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]You said you didn't know the agency's diary format. Had you seen other formats?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]I've seen Taiwan Fund for Children and Families diaries, which present time differently from ordinary ones.
[Prosecutor]How does the timing differ?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Some are written daily, weekly or monthly, with different things recorded for each interval.
[Prosecutor]What do baby diaries record?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Meal and sleep times..., developmental movements, and so on.
[Prosecutor]So those diaries record the same content on a different timescale?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]As I recall, yes.
[Judicial examination]
[Presiding judge]The seven-day upload rule was already in place when you joined?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Yes.
[Presiding judge]Is compliance with the seven-day upload deadline part of year-end assessment?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Yes.
[Presiding judge]Does submitting earlier earn a higher score?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]No.
[Presiding judge]How many nannies does a visit worker see daily on average?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Before the incident, 10–20 cases monthly; now about 15–30.
[Presiding judge]Why did it increase after the incident?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]The ministry changed the rules.
[Presiding judge]So before the incident, two nannies per day?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]Not necessarily. We previously had no administrative staff, so everyone had to plan carefully. Too much would overwhelm new staff.
[Presiding judge]Was the workload heavy enough to cause date errors?
[Witness — 黃玲芳]After a visit worker left, I took over some visits. I don't think the workload was so heavy as to cause wrong dates...
[End of witness 3]
2026.01.29 · Requested by prosecution
Witness / not a defendant
粘羽涵
Chief, Women and Children Division, Taipei City Department of Social Welfare; head of home-based childcare services
Explained Taipei's outsourced management of childcare centers, unannounced visits and escalation for refusal of visits. Testified that Taipei had referred 林心慈's suspected false visit records to investigators. Ten photos from November 19–20, 2023 were digitally presented in court.
Taipei childcare outsourcing oversightReferral of visit records for investigationUnannounced visitsEscalation after refused visitsPresentation of ten photos
- Creates parallel administrative and criminal tracks alongside the visit-date and record issues involving 林心慈 and 黃玲芳.
- Read alongside 白麗芳's statement that ‘CWLF has no public authority,’ this shows administrative escalation tools on the childcare-center side and contracts, payments and replacement of partner caregivers on CWLF's side.
粘羽涵's account of unannounced visits, improvement deadlines and license revocation should be checked against the closed joint-care setting revealed in the main case. The issue is whether authorities' tools could have penetrated the sisters' superficial information earlier.
Expand complete observer accountUnofficial transcript; retains “omitted / to be supplemented / inaudible” markers
[Presiding judge]Presiding judge; [Assigned judge] Assigned judge; [Associate judge] Associate judge
[Presiding judge]Do prosecution and defense have comments on the previous witnesses' testimony?
[Prosecutor]
(1) Witness 蔡函妤 first examined the 劉 child on November 23, ROC year 113 (2024). Only the 劉 nanny accompanied him, not the social worker. The witness said grinding teeth until they broke was unreasonable; the appointment lasted only fifteen minutes, and she knew he came from a vulnerable family, was being placed for adoption through an intermediary, was separated from his birth family, and had been in 劉彩萱's round-the-clock care since September, for three months. (2) Witness 林心慈 covered 60–70 nannies at the time. The actual visit date was 113/9/22 (2024), not September 25, as supervisor 黃玲芳 discovered from photos. According to 林心慈 and 黃玲芳, center visit workers must inspect the environment, nanny's physical and mental condition and relationship with children, while attending to all children present. The center also could not obtain the child's family-background information.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Witness 蔡函妤...[gist: if a dental professional could not identify abuse, how could a social worker?]. Visit worker 林心慈 described 劉彩萱 as welcoming..., visited her repeatedly before and after, and found the child's development age-appropriate in September. The September 26 entry was handwritten; it cannot be ruled out that she changed her account to September 22 to avoid blame. Defendant 陳尚潔 had fourteen cases × twelve visits, or 168 annual visits, at the time. ...
[Defense counsel — 朱]Even dentist 蔡函妤 was deceived by 劉彩萱. She testified the child's walking, expression and appearance were normal on November 23; the defendant last saw him before then. When 林心慈 visited, the 潘 child also in 劉彩萱's care was being abused, yet she did not notice; the red bottom was handled only by phone...
[Presiding judge]Did the defense file an evidence-investigation motion on January 27?
[Defense counsel — 蔡]Yes. ...
[Presiding judge]Has the prosecution received it? ...
[Prosecutor]The prosecution has not yet received it.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]The documents are on their way from the office. This copy can be given to the prosecutor first.
[Presiding judge]Having only just received it, the prosecution cannot comment immediately. ...
==== Trial proceedings begin ====
==== Examination ====
[Prosecution examination]
[Prosecutor]Where do you currently work?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Chief of the Women and Children Division, Taipei Department of Social Welfare.
[Prosecutor]What is your remit?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Parent-child...parent-child centers, home-based childcare services...
[Prosecutor]So you are the senior manager for Taipei's childcare-center operations?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Do you know 林心慈 and 黃玲芳?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes. I know they are a visit worker and supervisor at Wenshan Center.
[Prosecutor]Did Taipei's social welfare department refer 林心慈's false-visit-record case to this prosecutors' office? Why?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes. After this case, Control Yuan members...in their investigation asked why the visit worker had not seen the child's forehead injury. We held a meeting..., but could not establish why, so referred it to investigators.
[Prosecutor]Was 林心慈 invited to the meeting? What did she say?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes. She said that day she truly had not seen a bruise on the child's head.
[Shows center visit guidelines]
[Prosecutor]Page 767 covers visit frequency: 劉彩萱 provided round-the-clock care, requiring four annual visits. Would the center increase visits for a CWLF referral like this child?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]No, we follow the rules. Although central government says nannies may be used for placements, Taipei refers cases needing placement to institutions. Nannies therefore have no placement training; our cases are ordinary childcare where parents take children home.
[Prosecutor]So current visit rules mainly address ordinary family childcare, not...[special agency referrals like CWLF's?]
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes, mainly ordinary family childcare...
[Prosecutor]How do the center and CWLF divide care oversight for such children?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]There is no division. CWLF's adoption work is a centrally licensed service; we do not regulate it.
[Prosecutor]Must visit workers keep visit records?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Is there a completion deadline? [Witness — 粘羽涵] No formal rule, but the practice is within seven days.
[Prosecutor]Why the seven-day limit?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]I'm not sure, but wouldn't one forget if too much time passed?
[Defense examination]Defense (朱): Is Taipei's social welfare department the competent authority under Article 25(1) of the child and youth welfare act?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes, but that article is long; we only handle the parts referring to county and city governments.
[Witness — 粘羽涵]No.
[Witness — 粘羽涵]If a nanny refuses, workers can ask the social welfare department for assistance, and we can ask police to attend.
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes. Central government rules.
[Witness — 粘羽涵]The rule changed in ROC year 113 (2024)...I don't remember whether it specified unannounced visits earlier, as central government held many meetings. But I am certain Taipei always used unannounced visits.
[Witness — 粘羽涵]I cannot answer for why central regulations differ from later visit guidelines. But Taipei always uses unannounced visits.
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Round-the-clock, daytime, nighttime, half-day, temporary and extended care.
[Witness — 粘羽涵]No.
[Prosecution re-examination]
[Prosecutor]Are you a licensed social worker?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes, but I have not worked as a social worker.
[Prosecutor]What is the purpose of unannounced visits?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]We want to see actual care. With appointments, nannies can prepare.
[Prosecutor]Are you certain Taipei centers also used unannounced visits from September–December 2023?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Yes.
[Prosecutor]Don't unannounced visits require a legal basis?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]Because unannounced visits are better than scheduled visits.
[Prosecutor]You said police may attend when visits are refused. Can you force entry?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]That depends on whether police consider it necessary. We do not have that authority.
[Prosecutor]What can you do when a nanny violates the rules?
[Witness — 粘羽涵]We first order improvement by a deadline. Failure may lead to license revocation.
[End of witness 1]
[Presiding judge]We now address procedural matters. Defense, please state your position.
[Presiding judge]Does the prosecution have comments on the defense's request for inspection?
[Prosecutor]...[responds to defense accusations]...The prosecution believes the defense intends to delay proceedings.
[Presiding judge]The dental-clinic footage was previously obtained in the nannies' first-instance case. This court asked the High Court this morning, but they also do not have it. Could the prosecution provide it?
[Prosecutor]劉彩萱's lawyer requested the footage, but the presiding judge ultimately found investigation unnecessary. The prosecution obtained it but did not use it as evidence in this case.
[Presiding judge]Could the trial prosecutor give it directly to the defense after court?
[Prosecutor]Yes.
[Presiding judge]Article 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does indeed prohibit questioning the defendant before evidence investigation is complete, so the panel will discuss the pending requests first.
[Presiding judge]The dental-clinic footage issue is resolved. Regarding the defense's other inspection requests, the panel finds investigation unnecessary...Detailed reasons will appear in the judgment. Do either side have further evidentiary comments?
[Prosecutor]The prosecution wishes to present an enlarged photograph already in the record, sent by 劉彩萱 to the defendant on November 20 at 5:56:33 p.m.
[Prosecutor]The photo is in the record; click to enlarge it.
[Presiding judge]Prosecution, explain why you are presenting it.
[Prosecutor]It shows a round scar on the child's arm that 陳 should have seen during the November 21 visit. If the defense wants all photos, they can be printed now in court.
[Presiding judge]If it is in the record, let's view it now. Judicial assistant, please help access the drive.
== Discussion of inspecting investigation recordings in court ==
[Assigned judge]The prosecution already accepted your transcription of the investigation discs last time. What is the point of seeking another inspection? Explain in terms of the facts to be proved.
[Defense counsel — 蔡]...The witnesses were seriously influenced by the prosecutor...
[Assigned judge]The assigned judge still does not understand why inspecting the discs is necessary to prove the stated facts...
[Presiding judge]Prosecution, please explain the transcript issue.
[Prosecutor]As stated last week, the prosecution agrees to the defense using transcripts derived from the investigation discs, but they must be complete transcripts.
[Assigned judge]What exactly is the purpose of the facts you seek to prove? If words are insufficient, photos can also be used. What would spending so much court time inspecting discs prove?
[Assigned judge]The scope of discs you seek to inspect exceeds the amount in ordinary hearings. You only mentioned 周月 today, yet did not apply for that part at the time...
[Presiding judge]Are you alleging improper questioning of 周月, or...?
[Associate judge]Defense, what facts would inspection prove? 1. ...[to be supplemented]? 2. That this statement should not be used? 3. ...[to be supplemented]? What fact is your improper-questioning allegation meant to establish?
[Associate judge]The defense has strayed into admissibility of documentary and physical evidence. Which part do we need? Your stated aims are vague and the subject unclear. This case is not about investigating whether prosecutors used improper questioning...
[Presiding judge]The evidence you seek to inspect consists of the witnesses' original statements, which they signed. Much time and procedural hearings have passed, and only after a year and a half do you claim the witnesses...[to be supplemented]. In practice, coercion of a witness's will typically involves a prosecutor saying, ‘Unless you do X, I'll designate you a co-defendant.’ The prosecutor did not say that. Moreover, these witnesses are all the defendant's colleagues, so making them co-defendants would not be particularly difficult.
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
[Presiding judge]After further deliberation, the panel finds the defense has still not substantiated the necessity or facts to be proved, so inspection is unnecessary. Separately, the appearance shown in the prosecution's photo is the same as in the LINE digital forensics. Any defense comments?
[Presiding judge]Why does the defense request all photos?
[Presiding judge]The drive is loading. First we'll compare its digital-forensic content with the case file.
[Prosecutor]The entire forensic drive is given to the court, containing the full extraction from 陳尚潔's phone. It includes unrelated photos, so not everything can be printed; only case-relevant content is printed.
[Presiding judge]First confirm file identity. Defense, check whether the report on the prosecution's USB is the same as the digital-forensic report. Any objection?
[Presiding judge]Then print the November 19–20 photos as lawyer 朱 requests. Any prosecution objection?
[Prosecutor]None.
[Presiding judge]All right. We will print ten photos from November 19–20.
[A court assistant approaches and speaks to the presiding judge]
[Presiding judge]Given the citizen-judge courtroom's printing quality, we will first display them digitally for counsel and judges, then print copies after court for all and place them in an evidence bag. Display...[filenames/numbers of ten photos]. 2034.jpg matches the prosecution's printed photo.
[Prosecutor]The photo shows a circular scar on the left hand—sorry, the right hand.
[Presiding judge]All ten photos have been shown in court. Prosecution, comment mainly on 2034.jpg, which you presented today.
[Prosecutor]This is indeed a photo 劉彩萱 sent 陳尚潔 on November 21, showing the condition at the defendant's November 20 visit.
[Prosecutor]After the last hearing the defense already knew the dental footage existed but did not request it until today, and has not identified what facts inspection would prove...Across the hearings the prosecution has only seen repeated new subjects used to delay the trial, which it cannot accept.
[Presiding judge]So besides this court's subjects, you want to inspect...What facts would that prove? Are you seeking to complain about the investigating prosecutor's handling of the case? So...[to be supplemented]?
[Defense counsel — 蔡][This passage was not fully recorded in the observer notes]
[Prosecutor]But the defense does not dispute the non-issues of fact to be proved, so even without obtaining it...If that is used to accuse the prosecutor of bias, couldn't the defense also be said to have a position?
=== Scheduling the next hearing ===
[Presiding judge]Can prosecution, defense and complainant's counsel attend February 23? We will need the He division's non-regular hearing slot. Provisionally, Monday February 23 at 9:30 a.m., continuing all day. After presenting the case materials we plan to question the defendant. If things proceed smoothly, we will move directly to arguments, making February 26 unnecessary. Both sides should prepare.
[Court adjourns]
Check official findings separately from observer notes
Press release on 陳尚潔's first-instance judgmentTaiwan Taipei District Court, 114年度訴字第51號 (2025 criminal case No. 51)First-instance press release in the main case against 劉彩萱 and 劉若琳Restraint, placement in a bucket and joint-principal findingsControl Yuan investigation of the 剴剴 caseCentral government, New Taipei, Taipei and cross-system gaps