Sven Hessle's
contribution to the Alexander Aminoff debate in the Swedish Daily (Svenska
Dagbladet), July 3, 1984.
|
Sven
Hessle, professor in Social Sciences at the University of Stockholm,
was assistant professor in 1984 when he wrote this article as a contribution
to the Alexander Aminoff debate that Birgitta Wolf started in the Swedish
Daily on July 1, 1984. The Editor at the Swedish Daily, Fredrik Braconnier,
refused to publish Sven Hessle's article of July 3, 1984. This article was
however published in Birgitta Wolf's book "The Alexander Case - A
confiscated child". Sven
Hessle has kindly given his consent for us to publish his article on our
site. Translation:
Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Atty-at-law. |
The
greatest interference that a state can exercise against individual citizens is
to deprive an adult of his parenthood. To take away a mother's possibility to
exercise her parental responsibility over her child does not only mean that the
society cuts off her rights to build a bridge between the past and future
generations through her child. It also means that the society is giving the
child the message that he/she should deny his/her mother, and instead accept
another person, a stranger, as his/her new parent. Taking away parenthood from
an adult is therefore a kind of death declaration over living persons, which
risks affecting the children most of all. That is why such measures are so
uncommon. At least in other countries.
A
number of cases in the Swedish public-care-debate have received international
attention. Some people claim that these cases are the exceptions in an
otherwise well functioning welfare state. Others, indignant over the publicised
cases, claim that they are distorted and insufficiently presented by tabloid
journalists to suit the parents' terms and conditions.
As
far as I am concerned, these cases are the top of an iceberg, and below the
surface there is an on-going ideological change creating despise for and
indifference towards the most delicate relationship upon which a society
uttermost is built: the relationship parent-child.
For
that reason, the internationally observed and tragic case of the Aminoffs is an
important case of principles. In its grotesque and obvious nakedness, the handling
of this case shows not only how rigid and insensitive our social system can be,
when confronted with the unending richness in variety and emotional expressions
of human life. The Aminoff case is also an expression of the cynical attitude
towards people who refuse to adopt themselves to the ideological pattern that
is being forced on them by ideologically indoctrinated "experts" and
civil servants.
The
Southern Roslag District court decided on 20/6 1984: "that the care of
Alexander Aminoff, born 690316 civ. reg. nr. 9412, should be bestowed upon
Lars-Åke Lundqvist, born 430503 civ. reg. nr.0175".
The
final axe has thus fallen between the 15-year old boy and his mother. This case
has been reported in many articles during the past years, including this
newspaper. Alexander has spent 4 1/2 years in foster homes, hidden away from
his mother. The mother has done all that she, as a journalist and mother, could
do to get to see her only child again. Among other things, she has written
articles both at home and abroad.
In
those parts of the verdict that have been made public (greater parts have been
made secret) one can get a certain superficial opinion of the environment in
which Alexander has been held hidden for so long.
On
the one hand Rosa's foster home: "The District Court has ... got a
tangible impression that they (the foster parents) are suitable to take care of
children in difficult situations".
On
the other hand they deem that it is "serious" that the foster parents
have received far too many other children at the same time, and that it is
"a concern" that the foster parents have had a "schism"
which made the foster mother leave the foster home and marry someone else. The
fact that the foster mother was recently sentenced for gross fraud for having received
too much salary for the foster home does not seem to be aggravating
circumstances in this context, since the crime did not include the money that
was being paid by the municipality that had put Alexander in their care!!!
The
choice of words of the District Court reveals a lack of understanding for
Alexander's situation in the foster home. Or, perhaps they are making a
conscious effort to hide what is going on, like everyone has been doing these
past four years by consciously hiding the misery in the foster home behind
gold-edged, idealising phrases from some of our country's more experienced
experts within this field. And, not to mention the complete inefficiency and
incompetence shown by the Municipality of Lidingö in this case.
Against
this background, the District court could not in god conscience order Alexander
to remain in the foster home with for example the foster father as his
specially appointed legal guardian. They chose to let the parental
responsibility for Alexander fall upon a total stranger.
On
what grounds does one take parental responsibility from the mother? (the father
had renounced all rights).
There
are three grounds for the decisions, in my opinion.
1.
Old investigation material
Things
that happened before Alexander was hidden away in the foster home rest like a
cursed shadow over the present situation. Despite the fact that the material
used in the investigation is old (5 years and older) and contradictory. Eva
Aminoff objects to some of the information that appears in this voluminous and
aged material, among other things.
2.
Eva Aminoff's intransigence towards aspects in the Swedish society
As
a journalist, she has in many contexts pronounced very strong criticism against
the way the authorities have handled her own case, and also criticised the
Swedish society from the point of view of an immigrant. Her intransigence
against certain occurrences in our society has thus contributed to her being
not approved as a parent in Sweden.
3.
Expert opinions
In
my opinion, the most serious thing is that certain psychiatric experts have
been allowed to dictate the verdict this time. These experts are not only
accomplices to the fact that Alexander has been able to be held hidden in the
foster home for such a long time without anyone being allowed in. They have
also given the Municipality of Lidingö advice to remove the legal guardianship
for Alexander from Eva Aminoff: a recommendation that appeared as soon as they
began hiding Alexander in the foster home. The council of the Municipality of
Lidingö and the court are therefore acting upon their recommendation. I am
therefore no longer surprised that the reports of just these experts
have been declared secret. They will remain secret for many years, as shown by
Birgitta Wolf's articles in the Swedish Daily.
Since
the New Year, I myself have worked as an expert in the Aminoff case. I have
obviously diverging opinions from the Mafia that many years ago have grouped
themselves together around their misconceptions. I have for example been
shocked and distressed over the fact that Alexander Aminoff has been renamed
Alexander Jönsson in the foster home. And I have been shocked and distressed by
the fact that they have deemed it possible to question Eva Aminoff as legal
guardian, without having met her or at least to have made a qualified appraisal
of mother and son together. They were ripped apart violently when he was
a boy (10 years old). Now he is a teenager (15 years old).
This
court decision is unusual in so far as the court does not weigh the pros and
cons, which is the normal procedure. In the verdict there are open
speculations. The accusations are piled up uncritically against Eva Aminoff. The
verdict is therefore a dispatch of a pre-decided sentence.
But, perhaps the most shocking of all is that the verdict is pronounced
in full consciousness that Alexander is with his mother outside the country. After
having been interrogated during the court proceedings, he escaped from the
foster home one month before the verdict was delivered.
A
reunion could not be prevented. The question is how much damage has been
inflicted upon Alexander during these years when he "for his own
best" was hidden away from his near and dear ones?
For
Alexander's sake, if for nothing else, the court proceedings could have been
adjourned, when mother and son were reunited and taken refuge.
Instead,
the court has in fact condemned Alexander to return "home" from his
home country, Finland, and his mother, for his own best and subject himself to
the guardianship of a complete stranger of Swedish nationality!
This
is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sven Hessle
Assistant professor
The Alexander Case - A Confiscated
Child
Alexander Aminoff's linguistic proficiency in
childhood