49 of the same Act have always lacked specific identification criteria. The “hindrance to the physical and mental health of children” referred to in subparagraph 1, Article 83 of the same Act confuses first-line social workers. The investigation results also hardly convince victims’ family members. The Ministry of Health and Welfare claimed that it has issued an interpretation in writing to explain the elements constituting the physical and mental abuse on October 2, 2014, but the interpretation is still ambiguous. Considering that the legal definition or identification criteria for “physical and mental abuse” and “hindrance to the physical and mental health” still remain undefined, it is difficult to expect consistency in the law-enforcement standards adopted by various social welfare authorities. Upon investigation and subsequent followup by the Control Yuan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has recommended various social welfare authorities invite regulatory units and relevant departments to convene meetings for discussion of this before rendering any administrative decision. The Ministry of Health and Welfare also makes the “Juvenile and Child Abuse and Neglect Crisis Diagnosis Form” available to social workers of various counties/cities. In order for various local governments to reach an agreement on the practices referred to in Article 49 of the Protection of Children and Youth Welfare and Rights Act, the Ministry will work with local social welfare workers to continue improvements through education and training. 140. When news broke of the two blatant cases of binding young children with adhesive tape and confining them to seats for a prolonged period of time in Chiayi and Taichung, the local social welfare authorities all thought to consider whether such behavior was repeated or not to determine if it fell under the “physical and mental abuse” requirements defined in the Protection of Children and Youth Welfare and Rights Act. The amended Criminal Code already expressly provides that repetition does not constitute a prerequisite for “abuse.” Even if the prerequisites defined for administrative versus criminal rules are not necessarily identical, it is questionable when social welfare authorities attach higher requirements to illegal administrative cases, which are usually considered minor, than the criminal cases, which are usually considered major; and whether the same practice may be applied to all child abuse cases uniformly warrants further discussion. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has directed the local social welfare authorities to render judgment based on factors that include the offender’s violation, the subject perpetrating the abuse, the motive of the abuse and the results of the abuse, as well as academic theories and practical experience, on a case-by-case basis prior to rendering any administrative decision. They are to do this when dealing with any of the complicated types of child abuse, and to refrain from judging whether the “physical and mental abuse” can be evaluated simply on the grounds of the “frequency of occurrence.” 60