儿童保护案件处理程序在我国属于新兴概念，虽然早在2008年就有学者提出专门的儿童保护程序是一国儿童保护体系的必备要素，但时至今日我国对此的研究仍然进展缓慢。监护困境儿童是儿童保护制度中较为典型的研究对象，自2014年《关于依法处理监护人侵害未成年人权益行为若干问题的意见》（以下简称“《监护侵害意见》”）出台后，我国从监护侵害案件入手，开启了对儿童保护案件专门处理程序的探索。但在实践中，各项政策衔接不畅、统筹困难、各机关推诿塞责的问题仍然存在。本研究系统梳理我国针对监护困境儿童保护的法律法规和政策文件，厘清工作基本脉络，并结合实践状况分析我国构建儿童保护程序的痛点与难点。同时本文还对域外儿童保护程序进行制度考察，通过对各国家和地区的主导机关、程序、条件、内容的深入分析，抽离普遍性的构成要素，为构建我国的监护困境儿童保护案件处置程序探寻先进借鉴经验。

第一章主要阐述监护困境儿童保护案件处理程序研究的基本问题。首先，通过厘清监护困境儿童及其上位概念的内涵，从致困原因出发剖析儿童面临的困境实质是家庭监护功能的缺失或失当造成的，并以此作为处理程序构建的出发点和落脚点。其次，明确监护困境儿童保护案件的范畴和特点，划定程序构建的基础。最后，明确此类案件处理程序的必备要素，提出要确定程序主导机关、构建专门程序并健全配套的国家监护干预制度。

第二章尝试论证程序构建的理论基础。国家亲权原则为国家对家庭监护的干预扫清了理论障碍，但是这种公权力对家庭生活的入侵要受到正当程序原则的限制。通过从广义和狭义两个角度理解儿童福利理论，并梳理儿童福利理论在各国的演进路径，明确我国当前的儿童福利体系建设重心仍应在完善救助型儿童福利体系之上，构建多元联动的儿童福利供给主体结构。合作主义理论则为本文厘清监护困境儿童保护工作中政府与社会的分工与协作关系提供了参考思路。

第三章介绍了英国、苏格兰地区、美国、日本等世界儿童福利发达国家和地区处理监护困境儿童保护案件的基本模式，并依据程序的主要责任机关不同将它们分为司法模式和行政模式两种类型。采用司法模式的国家主要依托于本国较为健全的少年司法体系，主要责任机关是少年法院或儿童听证会，在程序设计上体现出逻辑严密，环节清晰的特征。采用行政模式的国家依托于政府或得到政府授权的行使行政权能的组织机构，其背靠强有力的国家行政与财政支持，往往呈现出更为积极的干预态度。通过对司法模式和行政模式的比较，得出保护程序的基本要求，为我国的程序建构提供经验借鉴。

第四章梳理了国内规范的制定情况与实践试点情况的现状。当前我国虽然没有专门的儿童保护案件处理程序，但是与之相似的程序有未成年人司法国家救助程序和监护侵害案件处理程序，经梳理发现两类程序在组织架构、运行基础和具体环节设计中都存在局限之处，无法推而广之解决监护困境儿童保护的全局性问题。同时，我国的监护干预体系存在措施匮乏、程序不严等问题也亟待解决。

第五章根据对域外经验的借鉴和对我国现状的考察，为构建我国的监护困境儿童保护案件处理程序提出了整体性的建议。在确定以检察机关为核心的司法模式前提下，根据域外行政模式和司法模式提炼的共同要素，提出处理程序的具体构想，分为发现报告程序、筛入响应程序、临时安置程序、调查评估程序、结案安置程序五个环节。

Child protection procedures are a nascent concept in China. While scholars began advocating for the importance of special child protection procedures in 2008, research in China on this matter remains limited. Custody of children in distress is a prevalent area of study within the child protection system, and since the 2014 introduction of the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Legal Handling of Custodial Infringement of Minors' Rights and Interests" (hereafter referred to as "Custodial Infringement Opinions"), China has started to explore special procedures for handling child protection cases, specifically cases related to custody infringement. Despite these efforts, there remains a lack of coordination between various policies in practice, leading to issues such as poor policy convergence, difficulties in coordination and shirking of responsibilities by various authorities. This paper systematically reviews Chinese laws, regulations and policy documents on child protection in difficult situations to clarify basic principles, and then analyzes the practical challenges and limitations encountered during the development of child protection procedures in China. Furthermore, this paper examines the care and protection procedures of foreign countries and regions, and through an in-depth analysis of their leading authorities, procedures, conditions, and contents, it identifies universal components and fundamental experiences that can inspire the construction of China's child protection procedures for children in custody distress.

Chapter 1 examines the fundamental issues surrounding the procedures for cases involving the protection of children suffering from custody difficulties. Firstly, by explicating the meaning of the term custody difficulties and its significance, we posit that children facing distress are primarily caused by inadequate or improper family guardianship, and we utilize this as the fundamental premise and point of departure for constructing the handling procedures. Secondly, we outline the scope and attributes of cases relating to child custody protection and establish the bedrock upon which the procedure should be developed. Lastly, we expound on the essential components of the procedure, and suggest that a governing body should be appointed to lead the procedure, a special procedure formulated, and an augmented state guardianship intervention system established to support the process.

Chapter 2 expounds the theoretical foundation for the development of the procedure. The principle of state parental authority removes any theoretical impediments to state intervention in family guardianship, but such intrusion of public power into family life is limited by the principle of due process. By examining child welfare theories in both broad and narrow senses and tracing their progressive development in various countries, it is evident that the construction of China's current child welfare system should prioritize the improvement of a relief-oriented child welfare system and the creation of a diverse and interconnected structure of child welfare supply participants. The theory of co-operativism provides a benchmark for outlining the roles and coordination mechanisms between the government and society in the protection of distressed children.

Chapter 3 introduces the basic models of child welfare in developed countries and regions such as the United Kingdom, Scotland, the United States, and Japan, and classifies them into judicial and social models according to the main responsible authorities of the procedures. Jurisdictionally-based models typically rely on robust juvenile justice systems, with the juvenile court or children's hearing board acting as the primary responsible authority. Characterized by a clear logical structure and well-defined paths, these models emphasize comprehensive and integrated attention to the best interests of the child. Alternatively, administrative models rely on administrative powers vested in the government or its authorized organizations, with strong financial and administrative support reflecting an active approach to intervention. After comparing these different models with China’s localized adaptation, it is proposed that a judicially responsible procedure for handling child protection cases of children in custody difficulties should be adopted in China.

Chapter 4 provides a comparative analysis of the current state of development of relevant norms and pilot practices in China. It is noted that while China lacks a specific procedure for handling child protection cases, there exist comparable procedures such as the judicial state aid procedure for minors and the procedure for handling custody infringement cases. However, limitations are identified relating to the organizational structure, operational basis, and specific link design of these procedures, which undermine their ability to comprehensively address the issue of child protection for children in custody distress. The chapter also highlights the insufficiency of measures and procedures under China's guardianship intervention system, which require further attention.

Chapter 5 presents a comprehensive proposal for constructing China's child custody protection procedures by drawing on overseas experiences and analyzing the current situation in China. The chapter begins by arguing for the necessity of establishing a judicial responsibility model, with the procuratorate as the core, and making arrangements for the coordination between the judicial system and external administrative systems, social organizations, and the division of functions within the judicial system. The chapter also addresses the legality and feasibility of this proposal. Next, the basic principles that underpin the proposed procedure are identified. Subsequently, a specific handling procedure is presented, which is divided into five logical parts: discovery and reporting procedures, screening-in response procedures, temporary placement procedures, investigation and evaluation procedures, and closing and placement procedures.