Child
protection or child abuse?
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law
|
This
article was previously published as a comment to "the
story behind the horsewhip smacking case" on the Big News Blogg Spot in July, 2005. |
Child protection lobbyists and the
social services usually stress the importance of "protecting children from
violence". This was one of the arguments used to justify the smacking ban
in Sweden. Only six (6) of the 268 Swedish parliamentarians voted against the
law. Three abstained. They had looked beyond the façade and found that there
was a great deal of totalitarianism behind the law.
During the consultation period several important organs of the state e g the
State Prosecutor, the Regional Prosecutor in Östergötland and others voiced
their doubts and fears. For more info see THE
EFFECTS OF THE SWEDISH ANTI-SMACKING LAW - CONSULTATION PAPER.
Some important organs of the state were
very negative to the proposed law because of the indoctrination in violence
that permeates the society in the Newscasts, films etc. Some even meant that
the "administrative violence" that would be the result of the law
should not be taken lightly. In fact, children who are removed from their
parents care because mother or father has smacked them are severely punished by
the state - because separation from their parents, siblings and other members
of their family and their home environment is devastating for the children.
Here is a case that I am working on:
On October 16, 2003, the social council in the southern Sweden municipality
Svalöv decided to take seven brothers and sisters into public care. The seven
children were born between 1990 - 1999. Their father, Mats Nilsson, had been
accused of "disturbance of peace" of his children, for eg pulling
their ear, taking them by the back of their necks holding their arms or the like.
He was arrested and confined pending trial. The mother, Charlotte
Ydström-Nilsson, was not accused of any misdemeanors, yet five of the children
were immediately placed in foster care. The two boys who were not taken
immediately were at home because they were sick. One of them was suffering from
ear-ache and fever and the other, the middle child who was born with myelocele
thus an invalid confined to his wheel-chair, had only just returned from the
hospital after an operation. The social workers promised the mother that they
would let the sick youngsters remain with her but a few hours later they
returned with an ambulance and transported them to separate destinations.
On November 27, 2003, the father was completely acquitted in the Criminal
court. However, the social council proceeded in the care case and on December
18, 2003, three weeks after his acquittal, the Administrative County court
ruled in favour of the social council and against the children and their
parents. On April 21, 2004, the Administrative court of Appeal in Gothenburg
confirmed the ruling of the lower court. The lawyers did not appeal the case to
the Supreme Administrative court.
On June 30, 2004 the parents applied to the social council to have the care
order lifted. The mother, who was then pregnant with child no. eight has had to
keep out of the way of the social workers for fear that they would take the
baby at birth and she has had to avoid meeting her other children. The baby was
born in September 2004 and the mother moved to a neighbouring municipality, yet
on January 19, 2005 the social council that decided to take the couple's seven
children into care decided to take the newborn baby into care. However, it is
most unlikely that they will ever find the mother and her baby.
The couple has since then been fighting the Swedish bureaucracy to get their
seven children back from state care. The most recent verdicts concerning the
family were delivered on March 8, resp. March 31, 2005 in the Administrative
County Court and June 28, 2005 in the Administrative Court of Appeal in
Gothenburg. In these cases, the judges ruled in favour of the social services
viz against the parents and their children.
Do you really want cases like this one and many others that I have worked with
in New Zealand?
The anti-smacking lobby claims that children of "smacking parents"
are violated, will lose their self confidence and will become violent adults.
Why the exaggeration? Isn't is strange that all those generations of children
who have been smacked - and even beaten - are not necessarily mentally damaged
or violent individuals? In fact, statistics show and a former head of
penitentiaries in Sweden, Mrs AnnBritt Grunewald has confirmed, that the
majority of the prison interns in Sweden have been in the foster home system.
Also, it must be taken into account that violence is used to resolve
differences between individuals and States eg the war in Irak. And, for those
who would like to believe that Sweden is a peaceful society because of the
anti-smacking law should read Prof. Robert Larzelere's findings in
Sweden's
smacking ban: more harm than good
For more information about the Swedish/Nordic experiences see The NCHR's Article
Archives section "Bringing
up children and youths"