The Taiwan Family Procedure Law does not stipulate that the place of residence of the children, the right to meet and interact, and the procedures related to the delivery of the children and the harm to the interests of the children should take precedence over other procedures and to deal with them promptly. The court is required to determine the discussion conference within one month after the start of the procedure, and it is necessary to analyze it from the viewpoint of safeguarding the rights of the participants in the procedure to have a verbal discussion date and to proceed with the child relationship issue promptly. In order to protect the interests of minor children, should this priority and prompt procedure be implemented? Will the Taiwan Family Procedure Law also add the same and similar provisions in the future? All of these require more research. Article 108 of Taiwan’s Family Procedure Law stipulates that before the court makes a ruling on the incident in Article 107 and other parent-child non-litigation, it shall inform the child in an appropriate manner, both inside and outside the court, according to the child’s age and physical and mental conditions such as ability to identify. The influence of the judgment result gives them the opportunity to express their wishes or express their opinions; if necessary, children psychologists or other professionals may be requested to assist. It does not clearly stipulate that in the event of personal care of a child, the child should state his opinion in “words”. In principle, the family court should listen to the statement of his opinion and consider it. For very young children (such as children under the age of three), should the court not have the impression of being in person, should they be notified of their presence? Moreover, the current law does not clearly stipulate which exceptions are not suitable for hearing opinions. In the case that the court should personally hear the opinion of minor children verbally, in practice, how should the court proceed with the opinions of minor children verbally? Can parents and litigation representatives be present when the child is making a statement? Should procedural assistants be present? All these are necessary to analyze and discuss from the perspective of protecting the best interests of minor children. What are the deficiencies of Taiwan‘s Family Procedure Law regarding the constitutional protection of minor children’s right to request a hearing for representation? To protect the right of minor children to express their opinions in these procedures, should it be recognized that they can directly invoke the provisions on the protection of the right to a hearing request in the Constitution?