Kai-kai case verdict announced; Social worker: Nanny deliberately concealed
Taipei District Court sentenced a Child Welfare League Foundation social worker to 2 years in prison for negligent homicide in the Kai-kai abuse case, citing her failure to investigate obvious signs of abuse and her over-reliance on the nanny's excuses.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 21, 2026 at 23:23
- 🔍 Collected: April 21, 2026 at 23:31 (8 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 22, 2026 at 05:08 (5h 36m after Collected)
Taipei, April 21 (CNA) -- In the child abuse death case of the young boy Kai-kai at the hands of a nanny, the Taipei District Court sentenced Chen Shang-jie, a social worker from the Child Welfare League Foundation, to 2 years in prison for negligent homicide. The full text of the verdict was published today. Chen claimed that the nanny deliberately concealed facts, stating, "Every judgment I made at the time was based on the best choice for him at that moment, and I did my utmost."
On the 16th, the Taipei District Court reached a first-instance verdict against Chen Shang-jie on the charge of negligent homicide. The full verdict published today includes LINE chat records between Chen, the nanny Liu Tsai-hsuan, and Kai-kai's grandmother, as well as work processing records. The court used over 7,000 words to discuss Chen's status as a guarantor of duty.
According to the verdict, Chen Shang-jie vehemently denied the charge, stating, "I believed what Liu Tsai-hsuan said; she deliberately concealed things from me, I just trusted the wrong person," and "I am a social worker, my service target is the child, every decision I made was the best choice for him at the time, and I tried my best."
Chen's defense argued that she was not the primary supervising social worker and did not have a close daily care relationship with Kai-kai. Furthermore, the management, supervision, and inspection of Liu's qualifications as a childcare provider fell under the jurisdiction of the Wenshan District Home Childcare Service Center in Taipei, not Chen's authority, thus she lacked the guarantor status.
However, the collegial panel determined that Chen possessed a negligence of duty—failing to notice what she should and could have noticed—regarding Kai-kai's death. Furthermore, there was a substantial causal relationship between Chen's negligent behavior and the boy's death.
According to the verdict, Chen admitted that during her visits, she never witnessed Kai-kai hitting himself, falling down, or swearing; nor did she directly observe him grinding his teeth, acting afraid of coat hangers, grinding until his teeth fell out, or having seizures. All of these were claims made by Liu Tsai-hsuan. "I completely did not witness or hear these myself, nor did I see any videos or photos."
The ruling pointed out that even if Kai-kai exhibited abnormal behavior, it all occurred after Liu took over his care. Chen failed to use her professional expertise to question the nanny's claims, did not ask for proof, and did not investigate obvious flaws in the nanny's stories. Instead, she hastily concluded that his abnormal behavior was a trauma response from previous care, blindly echoing the nanny. It is difficult to recognize that she fulfilled her duty to verify and protect Kai-kai's physical and mental development.
Kai-kai's previous nanny, surnamed Chou, testified that Kai-kai had a gentle personality. Although he might feel slightly afraid of strangers, he was not prone to crying, never swore, did not grind his teeth, and did not self-harm by hitting walls or his head. The panel relied on this to determine that Kai-kai did not have the abnormal behaviors Liu described.
The verdict mentioned that during a visit on September 25, 2023, Chen knew Kai-kai had a large bruise on his forehead. On October 6, she asked Liu if it had healed and requested recent photos. Liu delayed until October 11 to reply, claiming her "phone is under repair" and it was "not completely healed," providing no photos, yet Chen did not inquire further.
Moreover, on October 19, Liu told Chen that Kai-kai had a fever. Chen replied, "Wow, that's a high fever." It wasn't until October 23 that Chen asked, "Does Kai-kai still have a fever? Is he doing okay?" Liu responded citing allergy symptoms, but Chen failed to ask whether he received medical treatment for the fever and allergies.
The panel believed the chat records showed that in response to Kai-kai's abnormal situations, Chen mostly just expressed shock or asked verbally. After acknowledging the situation and saying she would evaluate it, she never followed up, taking absolutely no effective action. Her concern for Kai-kai's physical and mental condition was merely lip service, exhibiting a passive and dismissive attitude.
The verdict noted that before Kai-kai was handed over to Liu on August 31, 2023, he had a plump face, a healthy body, a lively smile, and bright eyes. However, during Chen's visit on September 25, he had a massive bruise on his forehead, no smile, and fearful eyes. By the October 23 visit, Kai-kai's face was significantly emaciated, his expression despondent, and his eyes hollow and lifeless.
During the November 20 visit, Kai-kai was even more emaciated, had another bruise on his forehead, and thinning hair suggesting baldness. Through long-term and intensive contact, Chen should have known that his physical and mental health had deteriorated drastically compared to before he was in Liu's care, meeting multiple clinical warning indicators for child abuse.
Furthermore, regarding the recurring new and old bruises on Kai-kai's forehead, Liu could not provide reasonable explanations. Chen had ample reason to determine the injuries were caused by Liu but fell into baseless blind trust, clearly violating her objective duty of care.
The panel concluded that if Chen had actively investigated, followed up, taken appropriate measures to confirm his health, or reported to relevant units for rescue, it would have highly likely alerted Liu and prevented Kai-kai's death. Chen's passive omission had a clear causal relationship with his death.
On the other hand, the defense argued that medical personnel did not detect child abuse when Kai-kai visited a pediatric clinic on November 7 and 9, and a dental clinic on November 23.
In response, the dentist testified that her consultation with Kai-kai lasted only about 15 minutes. She explicitly told them that teeth grinding was unlikely to cause such severe tooth loss. Because the nanny claimed the child constantly fell and hit the wall, the dentist worried about underlying medical conditions and recommended a hospital transfer to investigate the cause of the falls.
The dentist added that her responsibilities and the information available to her were completely different from a social worker's. "I cannot see his living environment, nor can I lift his clothes to check his body." A social worker is responsible for long-term case management and visitation, which cannot be compared to a dentist's single 15-minute medical encounter.
The panel ruled that since Chen claimed she spent up to an hour during each of her 3 visits and had tracked him long-term, having complete records of his environmental changes and physical data, her failure to act was glaring—especially when a dentist, after only 15-30 minutes, could acutely recognize the absurdity of teeth grinding causing severe tooth loss and proactively suggest a hospital check. Thus, Chen's defense was deemed an evasion of responsibility and entirely unacceptable.
On the 16th, the Taipei District Court reached a first-instance verdict against Chen Shang-jie on the charge of negligent homicide. The full verdict published today includes LINE chat records between Chen, the nanny Liu Tsai-hsuan, and Kai-kai's grandmother, as well as work processing records. The court used over 7,000 words to discuss Chen's status as a guarantor of duty.
According to the verdict, Chen Shang-jie vehemently denied the charge, stating, "I believed what Liu Tsai-hsuan said; she deliberately concealed things from me, I just trusted the wrong person," and "I am a social worker, my service target is the child, every decision I made was the best choice for him at the time, and I tried my best."
Chen's defense argued that she was not the primary supervising social worker and did not have a close daily care relationship with Kai-kai. Furthermore, the management, supervision, and inspection of Liu's qualifications as a childcare provider fell under the jurisdiction of the Wenshan District Home Childcare Service Center in Taipei, not Chen's authority, thus she lacked the guarantor status.
However, the collegial panel determined that Chen possessed a negligence of duty—failing to notice what she should and could have noticed—regarding Kai-kai's death. Furthermore, there was a substantial causal relationship between Chen's negligent behavior and the boy's death.
According to the verdict, Chen admitted that during her visits, she never witnessed Kai-kai hitting himself, falling down, or swearing; nor did she directly observe him grinding his teeth, acting afraid of coat hangers, grinding until his teeth fell out, or having seizures. All of these were claims made by Liu Tsai-hsuan. "I completely did not witness or hear these myself, nor did I see any videos or photos."
The ruling pointed out that even if Kai-kai exhibited abnormal behavior, it all occurred after Liu took over his care. Chen failed to use her professional expertise to question the nanny's claims, did not ask for proof, and did not investigate obvious flaws in the nanny's stories. Instead, she hastily concluded that his abnormal behavior was a trauma response from previous care, blindly echoing the nanny. It is difficult to recognize that she fulfilled her duty to verify and protect Kai-kai's physical and mental development.
Kai-kai's previous nanny, surnamed Chou, testified that Kai-kai had a gentle personality. Although he might feel slightly afraid of strangers, he was not prone to crying, never swore, did not grind his teeth, and did not self-harm by hitting walls or his head. The panel relied on this to determine that Kai-kai did not have the abnormal behaviors Liu described.
The verdict mentioned that during a visit on September 25, 2023, Chen knew Kai-kai had a large bruise on his forehead. On October 6, she asked Liu if it had healed and requested recent photos. Liu delayed until October 11 to reply, claiming her "phone is under repair" and it was "not completely healed," providing no photos, yet Chen did not inquire further.
Moreover, on October 19, Liu told Chen that Kai-kai had a fever. Chen replied, "Wow, that's a high fever." It wasn't until October 23 that Chen asked, "Does Kai-kai still have a fever? Is he doing okay?" Liu responded citing allergy symptoms, but Chen failed to ask whether he received medical treatment for the fever and allergies.
The panel believed the chat records showed that in response to Kai-kai's abnormal situations, Chen mostly just expressed shock or asked verbally. After acknowledging the situation and saying she would evaluate it, she never followed up, taking absolutely no effective action. Her concern for Kai-kai's physical and mental condition was merely lip service, exhibiting a passive and dismissive attitude.
The verdict noted that before Kai-kai was handed over to Liu on August 31, 2023, he had a plump face, a healthy body, a lively smile, and bright eyes. However, during Chen's visit on September 25, he had a massive bruise on his forehead, no smile, and fearful eyes. By the October 23 visit, Kai-kai's face was significantly emaciated, his expression despondent, and his eyes hollow and lifeless.
During the November 20 visit, Kai-kai was even more emaciated, had another bruise on his forehead, and thinning hair suggesting baldness. Through long-term and intensive contact, Chen should have known that his physical and mental health had deteriorated drastically compared to before he was in Liu's care, meeting multiple clinical warning indicators for child abuse.
Furthermore, regarding the recurring new and old bruises on Kai-kai's forehead, Liu could not provide reasonable explanations. Chen had ample reason to determine the injuries were caused by Liu but fell into baseless blind trust, clearly violating her objective duty of care.
The panel concluded that if Chen had actively investigated, followed up, taken appropriate measures to confirm his health, or reported to relevant units for rescue, it would have highly likely alerted Liu and prevented Kai-kai's death. Chen's passive omission had a clear causal relationship with his death.
On the other hand, the defense argued that medical personnel did not detect child abuse when Kai-kai visited a pediatric clinic on November 7 and 9, and a dental clinic on November 23.
In response, the dentist testified that her consultation with Kai-kai lasted only about 15 minutes. She explicitly told them that teeth grinding was unlikely to cause such severe tooth loss. Because the nanny claimed the child constantly fell and hit the wall, the dentist worried about underlying medical conditions and recommended a hospital transfer to investigate the cause of the falls.
The dentist added that her responsibilities and the information available to her were completely different from a social worker's. "I cannot see his living environment, nor can I lift his clothes to check his body." A social worker is responsible for long-term case management and visitation, which cannot be compared to a dentist's single 15-minute medical encounter.
The panel ruled that since Chen claimed she spent up to an hour during each of her 3 visits and had tracked him long-term, having complete records of his environmental changes and physical data, her failure to act was glaring—especially when a dentist, after only 15-30 minutes, could acutely recognize the absurdity of teeth grinding causing severe tooth loss and proactively suggest a hospital check. Thus, Chen's defense was deemed an evasion of responsibility and entirely unacceptable.