A child waited 240 days to be caught: Why are we always blaming the victims?

[Reading Reminder] This article contains information about child sexual abuse and self-harm, which may cause discomfort. Please read with caution. If you or your child is experiencing violence or sexual assault, please call the 113 Protection Hotline (24 hours); For emergencies, please dial 110. If you are feeling down or have thoughts of self-harm, you can call the 1925 Safety Hotline, 1995 Lifeline, or 1980 Teacher Chang Hotline.

A 10-year-old child had a 240-day gap from being notified to being actually placed.

According to multiple media reports and councilor questioning, a 10-year-old girl in Taipei City was suspected of sexual assault and exploitation in a family environment. After the case was reported, it took about 240 days before judicial protection and placement were initiated, during which the child exhibited self-harming behavior. The Taipei City Government's Social Affairs Bureau stated that the child initially showed no intention to enter the institution during the process, and relevant procedures have been initiated according to regulations; The Audit Office also revealed that there were as many as 303 cases of delays and delays in child protection in Taipei, and the mayor responded that a comprehensive review of the mechanism will be conducted. This article discusses the institutional and cultural issues exposed by this incident. The criminal responsibility of the case is still under investigation and judicial procedures. Please refer to the latest announcements from the competent authorities for details.

More than the case itself, what deserves our attention is who the entire society has focused on during these 240 days.

The first blind spot: the perpetrator habitually goes invisible

Every time a similar incident comes to light, the magnifying glass of public opinion almost always turns first to the victim and her family: why didn't the child leave? Why didn't the mother protect her daughter? Why did the family become like this? These questions sound like concern, but in reality, they push the most crucial issue into the corner: where exactly is the perpetrator who actually reached out and caused harm, and what responsibility should they bear? When society habitually treats sexual violence as an "unfortunate accident," it unconsciously uses the victim's perspective to fill gaps in understanding, while showing extra tolerance toward the perpetrator. This tolerance is actually a form of secondary cruelty toward the victim.

Image source: Illustration | Canva

The second blind spot: using 'the child's unwillingness' as a reason for inaction

The most heartbreaking sentence in this incident is, "The child has no intention of going to the institution." We all agree that the child's wishes should be respected, but for a 10-year-old who has long been under authoritarian and traumatic conditions, her "not daring" or "not knowing what to do" can easily be reduced to a simple sentence of "she doesn't want to." In a relationship with severe power imbalance, expecting a hurt child to make the "right" choice and fight for protection for themselves is itself a harsh demand; When the system shifts the responsibility of placement back to the child's hesitant answer, it means the most vulnerable person bears the heaviest decision. A truly mature protection mechanism should be able to read the child's unspoken fears and continue asking questions when she is silent.

The third blind spot: the system only acknowledges danger after the child is injured

240 days, 303 delays—these numbers are glaring because they reveal a disturbing logic: the system seems to wait until the child shows "serious enough" evidence of self-harm or bleeding before admitting the danger truly exists. But for a child, psychological pressure and long-term fear often occur even before physical scars are left. If a child protection system only sees the visible wounds but is insensitive to invisible risks, then in the end, it only protects the process, leaving the child in danger.

Image source: Illustration | Canva

Who should we review: the perpetrators, and the system that repeatedly misses the mark

Back to the original question: In these 240 days, who exactly are we criticizing? The one who should be severely held accountable is the perpetrator who committed violence; What should be properly examined is the system that repeatedly misses the mark. A child already battered shouldn't have to prove themselves miserable and in pain first to be worthy of being held back.

Protecting a child requires the strength of the entire society. When cracks appear in the system, as neighbors, teachers, relatives, or just passing adults, what we can do is actually very specific: take a closer look, ask one more question, and if something feels wrong, promptly report it (113 or 110). Shift the focus from "Is there a problem with this child's family" back to "Is someone harming this child?" and stop blaming the victim. Whether we can catch the next child often depends on this.

FAQ

Q: If I discover that my child is suspected of being abused or assaulted, which number can I call?

You can call the 113 Protection Hotline (24 hours) to report; in emergencies, dial 110 directly. Reporting does not require complete evidence; only reasonable suspicion is sufficient.

Q: When a child says 'I don't want to leave home,' does that mean he's actually fine?

Not necessarily. Children who have long been in situations of trauma and power imbalance often find it difficult to seek help from fear and attachment. "Unwilling" does not mean "no danger," and professional assessments should not be limited to the child's immediate responses.

Q: What is the current progress of this case?

The criminal and administrative investigations are still ongoing, with differing statements from various parties. Please refer to the latest announcements from the court, prosecutors, police, and competent authorities (Date of review: 2026-10-20).