Dissenting opinion in public care case
Verdict delivered
on
|
Background to the case: Believing that the rights that he knew were the same for everyone, the father contacted a member of the Swedish Parliament and complained about the treatment that he and his family had suffered at hands of the social workers. The MP recommended him to contact a lawyer in Gothenburg, who he could request the court to appoint as his public defender in the case.
It should be noted that it was the same judge, ie the chief justice, who delivered the verdict in the
case according to which the boy should be taken into public care and placed
in a foster home. The |
Lay Judge BLV dissents and states the following.
The youngster has been described by the school staff as clever and ambitious
but with difficulties in distinguishing between right and wrong and in
listening and coping with reprimands. He has shown anxiety and difficulties in
concentration in school and has on several occasions told people around him
that he has been exposed to assault by the father. It has not been shown,
however, that any assault has taken place. In view of the enmity existing
between the witness and the father, what the witness has claimed concerning the
father's assault on the son leads to no other assessment. The father and his
wife have limited economic resources and receive a maintenance allowance. The
youngster is now placed in a foster home that appears to be affluent. In
consideration of what has been revealed about the differences in economic
circumstances, the youngster's wish to remain in the foster home need not in
itself imply that the conditions with the father are such that residing with
the father is not consistent with the youngster's best interests. The father
has several times asked the Social Welfare Board for economic help so that the
youngster could have the things that a boy of his age normally has, for
instance, a bicycle and a cell phone. He has not received any help from the
Social Welfare Board. In that case, the Social Welfare Board has not fulfilled
its obligations to help the father in his role as a parent. In the case it has
come out that the youngster is somewhat afraid of the father, and that there
are some defects in the father's care of his son. In view of the existing
cultural differences, and since the father's wife appears to have a certain
stabilising function in the home, I find that there is no obvious risk of
harming the youngster's health or development if he resides at home.
Consequently, the fact that some criticism can be directed against the
circumstances in the father's home does not, in my view, mean that it has been
proved that the youngster's health or development is at obvious risk of being harmed
because of them. The conditions for taking the youngster into care by virtue of
§2 of LVU (The Law on the Ward of Minors) therefore do not exist. The Board's
application should therefore be rejected. - In other respects, I am in
agreement with the majority.
The Alexander Case.
A confiscated child
By Birgitta Wolf. Preface by Brita Sundberg-Weitman
The state child-abuse case that shook Sweden
A Family'a
Flight From the Welfare State
By Jacob Young, Joan Westreich and Donna Foote