The best interests of the child in continued care according to the LVU

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! When a small child can no longer live with mom and dad and needs to be taken into care, it is not a small matter, but it is a decision that in some cases needs to be made to ensure that every child gets a secure upbringing.

Family affects us deeply. This applies regardless of whether the family functions well or poorly. And it is therefore important. It is important for individuals, and it is important for society as a whole. The family's fundamental task is to always support and protect those who are a part of it with love and responsible demands. This means that both children's and parents' rights must be respected, even within the family.

In cases where the home, which should be a fortress of safety, is transformed into a place of threats and violence or a place where parents can no longer provide their children with the love, care, and safety they need, then we as a society need to take our responsibility and protect the children.

Madam Speaker! When children are in the care of society, for example in foster homes, we as a society bear a particularly great responsibility to ensure the children's safety and security. This also applies when decisions are made regarding the termination of care.

What happened to the little girl Esmeralda - "Lilla hjärtat" (Little Heart), as she was called - came to shake Sweden. Esmeralda was taken into care as early as BB as a consequence of her parents' substance abuse. She was placed in a loving foster home. She had lived there her entire life when it was one day decided that she should be torn away from that security and instead live with her biological parents. It ended in catastrophe. In January three years ago, Esmeralda was found, neglected to death, under the bed in the biological parents' apartment. She never managed to turn four years old.

This case demonstrated the importance of stricter legislation to ensure every child's right to a safe upbringing. The legislation, which has come to be called lex Lilla hjärtat and which entered into force on July 1, 2022, was a step forward in that work.

The Social Welfare Committee may no longer decide that care according to 2 § LVU shall cease until the circumstances that give rise to the care have changed in a lasting and fundamental way. When the Social Welfare Committee examines whether care according to LVU shall cease, they shall specifically consider whether there are grounds for a relocation ban, and when the child has been placed in the same foster home for two years, the Social Welfare Committee shall specifically consider whether there are grounds to apply for a transfer of custody.

These were important changes, but several steps were missing. The Social Democrats were unfortunately not prepared to do enough in a position of government to ensure the children's best interests.

The Social Affairs Committee first noted that when care ceases according to LVU, the social services committee shall have a responsibility for follow-up for at least one year after the cessation.

The committee considered, for the second point, that the social services should be able to demand mandatory drug tests for parents before visitation and before the assessment of whether care should cease. This was by no means much requested, given all the children in our country who have once been let down and had to leave their parents precisely because of substance abuse within the family.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, the Social Affairs Committee found reason to make the historic decision to appoint the investigation "The Child's Best Interests in Continued Care according to LVU". The focus of the investigation has been to examine the conditions for introducing the child's best interests as an independent criterion in the assessment of whether care according to LVU shall cease.

Of course, in the vast majority of cases, it is best for a child to be able to return to their original family, but that is not always the case. I am therefore pleased that this investigation has now been able to be handed over to the Minister for Social Services by a unanimous committee and that we together are directing a mandate to the government to consider the referral responses and thereafter return to the Riksdag with legislative proposals aimed at strengthening the child rights perspective and the legal certainty for children and young people.

The Social Affairs Committee has now laid the foundation, and we have reason to feel hopeful that the new government will return with more proposals that seriously strengthen security and increase protection for society's most vulnerable children.

In conclusion, I would like to extend a big thank you to Court of Appeal President Anders Hagsgård, who has been the investigator, to the investigation secretary Mathilda Rydstern, to the investigation's experts, and to the entire committee secretariat who have worked hard with the investigation.

I also want to thank my current colleagues in the Committee on Social Affairs and our representatives for good cooperation in favor of the children's best interests. Let our continued work be characterized by consideration for our society's most vulnerable children so that more children can grow up in safety!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! The pain of losing a child in the family is probably impossible to fully understand for those of us who have not experienced it. But the story of "Lilla hjärtat" opened the door to that experience for all of us.

When I read the article in Dagens Nyheter, I thought of Ulf Lundell's lines:

As if my soul has left me to be with you I miss you so

But when former Minister for Social Affairs Lena Hallengren presented the bill lex Lilla hjärtat, it was not about adults' grief over a lost child, but about children's right to a secure upbringing.

Olof Palme spoke about our common responsibility for the children. He meant that we should not keep talking so much about my children and your children, because children are not adults' private property. We must assure the children the rights that follow from being human, even if their words, experiences, and muscles are not always sufficient for them to be able to assert their right themselves.

Madam Speaker! That is why the previous government pushed through that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is now Swedish law. Children's rights were also strengthened by the fact that Lex Lilla hjärtat became a reality on July 1 last year. It was a good and constructive cooperation across the party blocks that made new legislation possible. For this, each and every one of you sitting here today should have a big and heartfelt thank you!

Now, the law requires a lasting and far-reaching change of the conditions that led to the compulsory care.

Now there is an obligation for the social services committee to consider applying for a relocation ban. It is a way to prevent an abrupt move of the child that the child could be harmed by.

Now the social welfare committee is obliged to consider a transfer of care after two years instead of three, as previously. Transfers of care can create better conditions for continuity and security in care.

There is also now an obligation for the social welfare committee to follow up on the situation after a placement has ceased.

In conclusion, there is now also the possibility for the social welfare committee to decide that guardians and parents shall submit to drug testing before visitation and before an assessment of whether care according to LVU shall cease.

Madam Speaker! As everyone can hear, these are major and far-reaching changes to strengthen children's rights.

Are we there yet? the children usually shout from the back seat of the car. No, we are not, and we never will be, because as long as there are children, we have an obligation at all times to do our utmost to continue the construction of a Sweden where children have a natural place and equally naturally their own rights. In that work, we must not be careless.

That is why it is positive that we are now moving the legislative work there where it belongs. It is obviously in the Government Offices that legislation should be prepared. There is a completely different habit and capacity to produce bills.

Madam Speaker! I hope that we can soon further strengthen children's rights. I look forward to regular reporting from the government on how the work with this is progressing.

Laws are best achieved through careful and deliberate preparatory work with the help of experts, organizations and authorities, referral rounds and experts, Council of Legislation members and legislative commentaries. Swedish democracy is beautiful, do you hear!

It is thus that our time's politics is turned into law for the future. It is paragraphs that can contribute to a child's upbringing being characterized by tenderness and a sense of life, warmth and spontaneity, togetherness and community, and ultimately something as fantastic as joy.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Affairs Committee's report SOU9 The Child's Best Interests in Continued Care according to LVU. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision.

Madam Speaker! All children have the right to grow up under safe and secure conditions, receive good care, and have stable conditions at home. But unfortunately, that is not the reality for all children and young people here in our country.

I am therefore pleased that it is a unanimous committee that stands behind this committee initiative. We propose a notification to the government that it, based on the memorandum Child's Best Interests in Continued Care according to LVU and taking into account the referral responses, shall return to the Riksdag with a bill aimed at strengthening the child rights perspective and the legal certainty for children and young people.

Madam Speaker! I am a new member here in the Riksdag but have in my previous assignments, among other things, served as a member of the committee and subcommittee for individual and family care during the last two parliamentary terms. I have taken part in and been involved in making decisions in many cases concerning that which concerns me most: vulnerable children and young people.

It is about children and young people who are faring poorly at home and where we are forced to make decisions regarding care and placement for care outside the own home due to broken family situations, substance abuse, violence, or serious deficiencies in parenting ability. It can also be about one's own behavior and that children and young people, for various reasons, end up on the wrong track in life and risk being harmed to an even greater extent, either for the moment – in the situation – or in a lifelong perspective.

As much as it hurts in the heart when one sees children, young people, and families find themselves in a tragic and destructive situation or environment, just as much does it warm the heart when we, with small or slightly larger interventions, succeed in turning the development so that the families and individuals become well-functioning and well-being again.

Madam Speaker! I am therefore immensely happy and grateful to now be a part of this committee and, as a member of the Riksdag for the Sverigedemokraterna, to have the opportunity to participate and influence and contribute to more children having a good upbringing and to us having better legislation in place for all children and young people and their families here in Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats always work for all children's right to a safe and secure upbringing, good care, and a dignified upbringing. This is something that the children's guardians are primarily responsible for, but in cases where children and young people do not have their basic needs met in their home or where they risk being seriously harmed physically or mentally, society must step in and provide the help and resources that are required. No children should have to experience the feeling that society is failing them.

Madam Speaker! Separating children from their guardians is a major intervention, but unfortunately, in some cases, it is utterly necessary. Children have a right to their parents, and parents have a right to their children - but not if it is judged to be to the detriment of the child or in cases where it is judged to be necessary for the child's best interests to separate them, regardless of whether it concerns a shorter period or if it is relevant in a lifelong perspective. Sverigedemokraterna considers that the children's best interests and the children's safety must always be prioritized over the parents' rights.

The vast majority of guardians have the ability to meet their children's needs and provide them with good and loving care; that must be said. But there are those who, for some reason, are unable to fulfill their parental responsibility, temporarily or for a permanent period. The importance of early and preventive interventions cannot be overstated when it comes to the possibility of breaking an unfavorable development at an early stage and avoiding unnecessary placements. I am pleased to represent a party that prioritizes exactly this.

For the children and young people who are in the care of society, there is an extra responsibility. Social welfare committees in the country's municipalities shall ensure that the children and young people who are placed outside the home receive the care, nursing, and support they need, as well as that they are placed in a residence where they feel safety every day.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on Social Affairs has for several years actively acted to achieve improved legislation regarding vulnerable children, and I sincerely hope that we can soon have legislation in place that truly ensures that decisions are made with the children's best interests in mind - always.

Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child reads: "Children shall be protected from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or degrading treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse." In the case of "Lilla hjärtat", Esmeralda, as the little girl was named, lost her life so incredibly tragically. It happened after she had been placed in a foster home according to LVU, due to serious conditions in the home, but was moved back home to her biological parents. Such a thing simply must not happen. Society failed in its protection of the little girl.

Furthermore, a little boy named Tintin would have turned nine years old on February 9, Madam Speaker – a little boy who lived with his mother, who was the sole guardian. The little boy is said to have expressed both anxiety and fear towards, and did not want to go to, his father. Despite the mother's struggle as well as alarms from the police, social services, and school, a decision was made regarding unsupervised contact. A couple of weeks after the decision, Tintin was found dead at his father's. Once again, society has failed to protect a small child. I believe I speak for everyone in the chamber when I say that one truly becomes totally devastated.

These two children are unfortunately not the only ones who have fallen victim as a direct consequence of society failing in its protection of vulnerable children. Enough is enough now, Madam Speaker. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been law for three years, and it is high time to treat children as they actually are - human beings with their own rights who have the right to be listened to and protected from vulnerability. The children's rights perspective and the rule of law for children and young people must be truly strengthened.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Children's rights must take precedence over parents' interests. With that starting point, we Moderates have for many years worked to change Swedish legislation. We have conducted a persistent, purposeful, and consistent work. Regardless of whether we have been in government or in opposition, we have worked to ensure that the best interests of the child shall always come first.

The Alliance government already appointed an inquiry in 2012 with the mandate to review the Act Concerning Certain Provisions on Care of Young Persons, LVU. Håkan Ceder was given the important task of investigating how the children's rights perspective and the legal certainty for children and young people who are subjected to compulsory care according to LVU can be strengthened. In 2015, he submitted his 1,300-page inquiry to the then Minister for Children, the Social Democrat Åsa Regnér.

Regnér and the S-MP government did not act, however, and Ceders investigation was buried in a filing cabinet at the Government Offices. It was a serious betrayal, Madam Speaker - a betrayal against all the children whose best interests have been trumped by the parents' interests when the question of continued care according to LVU has been examined.

Madam Speaker! It was only when we Moderates in the spring of 2020, after the bottomlessly tragic case of little Esmeralda, sparked a committee initiative, that the previous government woke up and realized that something actually needed to be done. Esmeralda was the three-year-old little girl who was called "Little Heart" and who was found dead just ten months after she was torn from her safe, loving family home and returned to her biological parents. With different legislation, Esmeralda's life could have been saved.

Even Esmeralda's tragic death did not get the previous government to act with sufficient force. The then Minister for Social Affairs, Lena Hallengren, dismissed our demand that the child's best interests should become an independent criterion when assessing the termination of care. This led us Moderates to push for something as unusual as the Riksdag appointing its own inquiry, and, pleasingly enough, we received very broad support.

We joined forces with the Liberals, Christian Democrats, Centre Party, Sweden Democrats, and the Left Party, and on May 6, 2021, we in the Social Affairs Committee decided on a mandate to investigate the conditions for making the child's best a standalone criterion in the assessment of termination of care in foster homes according to LVU. The mandate was given shortly thereafter to the Court of Appeal President Anders Hagsgård, who on March 1 last year presented his very important and long-awaited investigation – an investigation that has since been out on a very broad consultation process.

Madam Speaker! There is now finally a proposal from the investigation on how the best interests of placed children can truly be ensured in Swedish legislation. The Hagsgård investigation is completely in line with what we Moderates have long advocated for, namely that the child's best interests shall become an independent criterion. When the child's best interests and the child's right to a secure upbringing come into conflict with the biological parents' right to their children, it is for us Moderates entirely self-evident that it is the child's best interests that should carry the most weight. What we have so persistently advocated for and what is now proposed in the Hagsgård investigation implies a fundamental paradigm shift for the child's best interests. The child's right to a secure future shall take precedence over the biological parents' right to their children.

Madam Speaker! I know that the new, Moderate-led government will ensure that this paradigm shift becomes a reality. I know that the government will do exactly what we now in this report urge the government to do.

I know that Hagsgård's investigation will not be buried in some office drawer at the Government Offices. On the contrary, it will form the basis for prompt legislative work. I look forward to the new government, with the responsible minister, Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, at the helm, returning to us here in the Riksdag with a bill on the best interests of children in continued care according to LVU.

Esmeralda - "Lilla hjärtat" - we cannot save, but new legislation can save other children in similar situations. Finally, we have a government that will ensure that such legislation is put in place. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! There is probably nothing that constitutes such an important part of the Riksdag's work as that which concerns giving our children and young people a good life and a childhood to develop in and play through, to then carry with them as armor on life's not always so easy path.

Last week, I got to meet my newborn nephew for the first time. There is something so breathtaking about observing this little creature, who is so innocent and vulnerable but who, in his small, soft body, carries a piece of our future. It is an inexorable fact, Madam Speaker, that what we do today for our children and young people, regardless of whether we succeed or fail, will leave an imprint for a very long time to come. A child's childhood is, in large part, the foundation for our future.

To secure children's right to a life filled with play and learning and to protect them from violence and mistreatment is a very heavy responsibility that now rests on the new government.

Madam Speaker! The fate of "Lilla hjärtat" is so terrible and so extremely painful that it is impossible to leave a single person untouched. That which must never happen happened. The crime that Esmeralda and her loved ones were struck by is so heinous that I can hardly put into words what I feel about it. The struggle that her foster mother has been forced to fight is so intense that it truly hurts.

We must all remember that it is not we here in politics who have ensured that things are finally happening, but it is this family's tireless struggle. It is that struggle that has led to the committee initiative from the Moderaterna that won the committee's majority.

In the initiative, there is a proposal to make the child's right a separate criterion. This is a legislative change that we in Vänsterpartiet have pushed for for many years, and we are very pleased that it is now on its way to becoming a reality. Even though the purely legal-technical part will in practice affect very few children, the significance is all the more important. In fact, this is indeed, quite literally, a paradigm shift in the work with the care of children and young people.

With this proposal, our intention is that children's voices shall have a greater - even a decisive - significance in their own lives, which is something that should be completely self-evident.

But even if I myself am almost lyrical about just this part, we must look soberly at such a change. To take a child into care is one of the most drastic and profound restrictions society can impose on a family. It has an enormous impact on those affected, both on the guardians and on the children.

It is easy to make the whole thing very simple for oneself and feel that a parent who does not take their responsibility has forfeited their right to care for a child. But such a mindset is not only wrong but can also be directly harmful. Reality is never, or at least very rarely, as black or white as it may seem at first glance. It is therefore very important that we get legislation that considers the conventions and rules that exist regarding parental rights but, above all, provides security for our children.

This investigation and the proposals presented therein have received a number of comments from the referral bodies. It is of the utmost importance that the government takes these comments into account and ensures that this results in correct and legally secure legislation.

Madam Speaker! It is our duty to ensure that no other child meets the same fate as Esmeralda and those around her have. But then we must also be honest that no law in the world will be of any help if the one who is to implement the law is not given the right conditions. For many years, the social services' mandate has grown at the same rate as its needs have been neglected. We can never ever ensure our children's safety if we do not prioritize creating a very strong social service. It is now the government's responsibility to ensure that it is built up again - otherwise, this important work risks becoming quite ineffective.

It is also important that the government ensures that the Social Services Act and LVU do not become a patchwork of lively proposals without everything being put together into a whole with laws that are balanced and that live up to the purpose of giving people – both children and adults – the right to a good life.

Madam Speaker! Children's vulnerability is not a phenomenon that arises out of nothing, but it is a very raw consequence of class and gender. Behind almost every broken childhood lie major societal problems such as economic and social vulnerability, men's violence against women, sexual violence and exploitation, and mental ill-health. This is something any researcher can attest to.

When we have the responsibility that every child should be given the best conditions to live a good life, we must understand and acknowledge that every child who reaches the threshold of social services is already a failure in one sense. These children have already suffered greatly, and in the vast majority of cases, the circumstances could have been prevented, mitigated, or avoided.

It is every government's duty to create the right conditions to prevent such suffering. It is completely unacceptable not to counteract, or in the worst case even exacerbate, social problems that create poor conditions. Even worse is to then give oneself praise for putting bandages on the wounds that we ourselves have created.

Since this is my first debate with the new government, I want to be clear about my position. I am very happy and very grateful for the work with lex Lilla hjärtat and with the legislation that we now want to implement, but in a society where people are being torn apart, the risks of children suffering increase regardless of what we do with LVU.

I am very concerned, Madam Speaker, because several children's rights organizations point out that large parts of the Tidö Agreement actually conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a very poor basis if one is serious about ensuring that children do not come to harm. In that case, legislation such as this will have very little significance for our young people's right to a safe life. To first strike and then stroke is not the way forward to strengthen children's rights.

We will do everything in our power to stop every proposal that does not benefit children and young people, but regarding this specific proposal from the committee, we say yes.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Becoming a parent is probably one of the greatest things that can happen in life. Suddenly, one goes from only having responsibility for oneself and one's own person to taking responsibility for an entirely new life. One's own needs are set aside, and instead, someone else's needs are put at the center. For most people, having one's first child is a major transformation in life.

Unfortunately, however, there are parents who, for various reasons, are unable to be parents and take on the parental responsibility that is expected. There can be many reasons for this, such as substance abuse or mental illness. It is in these cases that society steps in and takes the responsibility on behalf of the parents. Or rather: Society takes on the responsibility for the parenting in place of the biological parents. Thus, it is also society that fully takes the responsibility to ensure that the child's needs are met. The most fundamental needs of a child are to feel security and belonging, which most often occurs when one has someone to attach to. Society's way of taking over this responsibility is primarily to place the child in a foster home, in some cases for a shorter period, in others for a longer period, and in some cases for the child's entire upbringing.

Now it sounds as if society fully puts the child's perspective first and always starts from what is in the child's best interest. Unfortunately, reality shows that it does not always work that way. On the contrary, we have seen countless examples of the opposite. It does not have to go as far as it did in the case of Esmeralda, whose unfortunate fate we all know so well, but there are countless examples of when children have been snatched up from a secure family home environment to be reunited with still dysfunctional parents - not because the child has wished it but because the parents have wished it, not because it has been about the child's rights but because it has been about the parents' rights, not because it has been about the child's best interest but because it has been about the parents' best interest.

Madam Speaker! Do not misunderstand me now. Of course, children should be able to move back to their biological parents when it is appropriate, safe, and secure. But it must never happen if it is not with the child's best interests in mind.

This is also the background to the proposal for an announcement that the Social Affairs Committee is submitting to the Riksdag. The process regarding this announcement has been unusual because the Social Democrats, when they were in government, were not fully prepared to take the responsibility the issue required. Instead, the Social Affairs Committee was forced to appoint its own investigation into new legislation. Now, however, we are no longer advocating, therefore through this proposed announcement, that the government continues the preparation of the matter.

What is proposed by the Social Affairs Committee is, in brief, that the child rights perspective is raised into the legislation in a significantly clearer way during discussions regarding the termination of care in a case of placement. Today, a placement is assessed based on whether the conditions for care according to LVU have ceased and whether the circumstances that led to the decision have changed in a lasting and fundamental way. What the investigation proposes is an additional criterion, namely whether the child's health or development risks being seriously harmed if the care ceases. In the assessment of this risk, what is judged to be best for the child shall be decisive.

Furthermore, society's responsibility shall be clarified when a home placement does occur in the form of a statutory follow-up responsibility for the social services and mandatory drug tests of the foster parents. This too is about safeguarding the child's best interests.

There is much that needs to be developed within Swedish social services beyond the fact that we need to provide better legislation than the current one. Not least, we need to become better at the work of supporting foster homes, which have received the important task of taking care of the children that society has taken into care.

Today, it looks very different between the municipalities when it comes to what support is offered to foster homes. The Center Party wants that requirements be set for a basic education to be provided to those who step up as foster parents. It would provide a safer base to stand on for both social services and foster parents, but above all, it is also about the child's best interests here.

Furthermore, we want there to be access to everyday municipal support for the foster homes. I am not talking about money, but support in the form of help and guidance when needed. Many of the children who are placed in foster homes have traumatic experiences with them that need to be processed in a safe and professional way. We also know that many carry neuropsychiatric functional impairments, which also places special demands on the foster home. It is about giving foster parents the right support and conditions in their important mission, but above all, it is about the child's best interests.

Madam Speaker! Since 1 January 2020, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law, but unfortunately, this has to an all too small extent gained traction in Swedish society. Old legislation has continued in old ruts, established routines have remained established, and ingrained ways of working have continued without being reassessed.

Today we take an important step on the way towards a society where the child's perspective is put first. Through the Riksdag's announcement to the government, it is proposed that the child's best interests are finally to be highlighted as a separate criterion in the Act on Care of Young People.

When it comes to three-year-old Esmeralda, society failed to take the responsibility that was required. Let it not happen again!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that there is a strong political consensus on highlighting children's rights, and that is truly good and heartening. The entire committee has agreed that we must strengthen the children's rights perspective and the legal certainty for children and young people. The committee also considers that the government shall annually return to the Riksdag with information on how the work to strengthen the quality, the legal certainty, and the children's rights perspective is progressing. That is something the Green Party truly welcomes.

Today, the subject of our debate is the investigation on the child's best interests in continued care according to LVU. However, the subject is linked to many other children's rights issues. Society needs to take clear steps forward when it comes to children's rights in general.

The Green Party has been strongly pushing for the Convention on the Rights of the Child to become Swedish law. For a long time to come, there will be opportunities for improvement regarding the application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Something concrete that the Green Party desires is for Sweden to ratify the third optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This would enable children to pursue their own cases and turn to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child when their rights are violated.

That adults must fully have a child perspective and children's best interests in focus when measures concerning children are taken is something we must constantly work to improve in both laws and practice. What we are now debating is an example of how laws are so unclear or poorly designed that it is difficult to give children the support they need. The girl who was called Lilla hjärtat was affected in the worst imaginable ways by adults' inability to put children's best interests in focus.

It is valuable with the legislative changes and initiatives that the previous government has made in the area. Among other things, decisions have been made regarding requirements for better and more regular follow-ups and competence of public assistants to children during the LVU process, as well as that follow-up shall occur longer after a placement has ceased. Sharper rules have also been introduced on what changes must have occurred before LVU ceases, sharper rules for relocation bans, requirements for drug tests, and so on. A good deal of these changes have been clearly pushed for by Miljöpartiet.

It is clear that the Social Affairs Committee, both previously and now, is a progressive force for strengthening the children's rights perspective, and I think we should be proud of that together. This has resulted in the committee initiative we are now debating. The main issue here has been the best interests of the child as an independent criterion, which several previous speakers have also raised.

The investigation proposes that when the termination of care is to take place, an investigation shall be made in two steps, first regarding whether the criteria for the care are still met or not and thereafter, as a specific second step, whether there is a risk that a child's health or development will be seriously harmed by the termination of the care. This is the core issue, and Miljöpartiet welcomes the proposal.

We have also pushed forward on some other related issues. For example, we think it is important that children should have the opportunity to receive support measures even if the parents do not consent. This possibility exists today for children who have turned 15, but Miljöpartiet wants this to be possible even for younger children.

We also believe that children should have the right to have a so-called child advocate with them in all conversations with social services. This is something that the organizations Maskrosbarn and Barnrättsbyrån also highlight and that many children request. Several investigations in Sweden have explored this path previously.

We in the committee now wish for the government to take the memorandum further, taking into account the referral responses, and return to the Riksdag with a bill aimed at strengthening the children's rights perspective and the legal certainty for children and young people. Miljöpartiet looks forward to this.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to mention another current children's rights issue that several previous speakers have also mentioned. Märta Stenevi recently pointed out in the party leadership debate that a "lex Tintin" is needed. A child should not be forced to have contact with a parent that the child is afraid of or does not want to meet. It is time to take a stand once and for all – children have a right to safety and an absolute protection against violence. This must always weigh more heavily than parents' rights to their children. This very issue is also something that the collective Swedish civil society in the field of children's rights has raised as one of its recommendations to the government in the ongoing review of Sweden by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. We look forward to reading these recommendations when they are expected to arrive in early February.

Miljöpartiet has also for a long time championed the issue that children should have the right to a representative in all disputes between parents concerning custody, visitation, or housing. In this way, we can ensure that the child's voice is heard and the child's role as an independent rights-holder.

No contact shall take place when the child and a parent, usually a mother, live in a protected residence or have protected information due to fear of the perpetrator. It is completely unreasonable for children to be forced to have contact with their perpetrator - and furthermore be responsible for keeping their address secret.

That the government we joined submitted a proposal on so-called child peace crimes—that it has now become punishable to expose a child to witnessing certain criminal acts, such as crimes of violence and sexual offenses, in close relationships—was also an important step from a children's rights perspective. It was about time.

Finally, I want to remind that parents who want to be good parents have a much greater opportunity to do so if their own conditions improve. Anxious, stressed, and exhausted parents who do not know how to make the finances work have a harder time than others to be the parents they want to be. The support structures must become better so that all children are given the same chances. Miljöpartiet also wants to see a crisis commission for child poverty. But the legislation must, in parallel with this, become much better at capturing children's specific rights, and that is what the report today is about.

I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! Now we stand here once again to debate how the best interests of the child can become part of the assessment of whether care in a foster home can cease. This concerns children who have been taken into care because the child's parents have subjected the child to something and there is a tangible risk that the child's health and development will be harmed. It concerns children who have been subjected to violence, sexual abuse, and neglect due to substance abuse, and children who risk being taken out of the country and forced into marriage or female genital mutilation.

The list can be long regarding the horrific acts that form the basis for why the child must be protected from parents who should provide safety and love and give trust, but who instead have chosen to expose their children to abuse, leading to damage to the child's safety, trust, health, and development.

When the guardians then want the child to come home, the child, who has been cared for in order to receive protection, lacks the right to their own voice. Of course, we shall continue to look at the capacity for change of the parents who subjected the child to this. But furthermore, it should be just as obvious for everyone, except perhaps for the parents it concerns, that an investigation must also weigh in what is best for the child.

According to current law, the child's attitude towards the question of continued care has no significance for which decision is made. Nor does it matter to what extent the child has settled into the foster home. It is a completely unreasonable arrangement. It is unjustifiable that it should take such an enormous amount of time to reach the obvious decision to strengthen the child's best interests.

Håkan Ceder submitted an investigation as early as 2015 with proposals for amendments to the Act on Care of Young People. Some of the most important proposals in the investigation were to make visible the fundamental rights of children and young people. The care shall be of high quality, provided with care and based on respect for the child's human dignity and integrity as well as with regard for the child's personality and individuality. The child's best interests shall be decisive when assessing whether care in a foster home can cease. Particular attention shall be paid, among other things, to the child's attitude and whether the child has been cared for in the foster home from a young age or for a long period. The reunification principle shall not apply if it is not in the best interests of the child.

Central proposals in Ceder's investigation, however, ended up in a desk drawer at the Ministry of Social Affairs. The Social Affairs Committee was therefore forced to initiate its own investigation during the previous parliamentary term as the government was not prepared to take steps to strengthen the best interests of the child. I would like to extend a big thank you to the investigator Anders Hagsgård, who has handed over yet another solid investigation to strengthen the best interests of the child. An equally big thank you is directed to the members of the Social Affairs Committee who pushed this important work forward, and an extra thank you is directed to the Moderaterna who initiated this.

Eight years later we stand here again. I do not know how many times I heard during the previous parliamentary term that it is complex to investigate these cases, Madam Speaker. Yes, it is complex to investigate these cases. But it is significantly more complex for children who are forced to grow up in these vulnerable environments. And the most complex must be us politicians who fail to make decisions and fully stand on the children's side, despite knowledge over such a long period.

A recurring argument against introducing the best interests of the child as a requirement is that it would be legally insecure from the perspective of the guardians. But the legislation that exists today is totally legally insecure from the perspective of the vulnerable children. We allow parental rights to completely dominate over the child's rights.

We have all been deeply affected by Esmeralda's horrific suffering and that she died before she even managed to turn four years old. Now we have been faced with yet another tragic fate: Tintin, a boy who pleaded not to have to meet his father, a child who expressed fear but whom the court chose not to listen to. He is yet another child who has lost his life. These two horrific events differ in some ways, but the lack of a children's rights perspective unites these tragic fates.

I have met so many children who are forced into contact with a violent father. I have met so many mothers who are completely desperate because the court grants the violent father custody in some cases and visitation in others. I have met mothers who have completely lost custody because the court does not consider them cooperative with the violent criminal father who has plunged the entire family into terror. How can we politicians accept that children are the only crime victims who are forced to meet their perpetrator alone, completely unprotected, completely abandoned?

The best interests of the child in continued care according to LVU

It is entirely natural that mothers who are victims of violence do not dare to leave their perpetrator and the crime scene that the home has developed into when they know that there is an obvious risk that their children will be forced into contact with the violent father. I will never forget a conversation with a girl who asked the simple question: Why do they think I and my sister can live with our dad when they tell mom that it is dangerous for her to live there?

The common thread in these appalling failures is that there is currently a lack of a clear child rights perspective and that the parental right is enormously strong. It is a parental right that in practice takes over the child's need for protection and support, a parental right that is stronger than the child's plea to avoid contact when they feel anxiety and fear of being forced to live with their father.

I do not understand what it is that prevents us from understanding what it is like for children living with violence. And I do not understand that we want to hold onto a naive ideal that all parents are fundamentally good and want the best for their children. I understand that we wish it were so. But we who bear responsibility for the vulnerable children must accept that it is only a wish, a wish far from the reality of the vulnerable children.

Meetings should be for the child, not for the parents. And the child's right to protection must always take precedence over the parents' rights. We are obligated to listen to children when they express fear and anxiety and take it most seriously. Today, children cannot appeal a decision concerning their own lives. It is completely crazy. Therefore, children need their own representatives who can advocate for the child.

We parents have a choice and an own responsibility to never expose our children to abuse. The parents who choose to do so have opted out of the most fundamental aspect of parenthood, namely to give the child the right to security, trust, and love.

The Liberals support the committee's proposal and look forward to the continued process.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)