Family Law

Ellen Juntti (M)

Mr. Speaker! We shall now debate the Committee on Civil Affairs' motion report regarding family law issues.

I vote in favor of the Committee on Civil Affairs' proposal.

The Committee proposes a notice regarding the division of property in the event of divorce. The Government should take the initiative to ensure a well-functioning, efficient, and legally secure order for property divisions. The Government should also review the possibility of introducing a reasonable upper time limit for when a property division should be completed. The Committee proposes that the Riksdag reject the other motions as the Government is already working on those issues.

Mr. Speaker! I say the obvious: the best interests of the child must always be put first, in all matters - whether it concerns custody disputes, crime, or other issues. These are difficult assessments, but it should be obvious that the child's best interests take precedence over the parents' best interests or other adults' best interests. That has not been the case until now in Sweden, but the Moderate-led government intends to change that.

Mr. Speaker! Before I entered the Riksdag, I worked as a police officer in Gothenburg, and for three years I worked as a child investigator at Barnahus. I conducted many interrogations with children, and the fates of some children have stuck in my memory.

I remember a little boy - he was about six or seven years old - whose parents were fighting over custody. The father had been violent, and the children were afraid of him and did not want to go to him. After the interrogation, the mother told the boy that he had to go to his father. The boy's legs gave way. I still remember this and almost start to cry here, because I thought it was so distressing. The boy's legs gave way, and he collapsed into a heap on the floor. He lay in a fetal position and cried heart-wrenchingly.

So this is 15 years ago, but I can still remember how terrible it was to see the desperate boy. And then that is nothing in comparison to how terrible it was for the boy and his mother.

I felt that this was completely wrong. I took the social worker aside and said that they had to stop the contact. She said that it had been decided that the boy should go to his father and that she could not do anything about the matter. I insisted that this was an emergency situation and that the visit had to be stopped. It was stopped, and the boy did not have to go to the father—at least not that day. How it went after that, I do not know.

It may be that I committed a breach of duty, because I interfered in the social services' work. But I actually don't care about that at all, because sometimes one must do what feels right in the heart. These forced visits must be stopped, and the moderately-led government will act on the issue.

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of what a family looks like, Sweden shall be one of the world's best countries to live in. Family policy shall safeguard rights and obligations and be equal regardless of people's sexual orientation. Family policy shall facilitate for those who long for children but also protect children through a well-functioning social network when the biological family does not exist or when there is no protection elsewhere.

In this motion report, there are many different proposals. They concern forced marriage, division of property, parenthood, transfers of custody, powers of attorney, and so on. I cannot address everything in my speech, but I mention the issue of division of property in that we receive a referral to the government regarding it.

When a couple divorces, the division of assets can be troublesome and take a very long time if the parties do not reach an agreement. It has been mentioned that in some cases it has taken ten to twelve years if one party delays the process – if they simply want to be difficult and delay the process. During these years, it can be difficult to, for example, get a mortgage, and it becomes completely impossible to move forward in life. That it takes so long is, of course, completely unreasonable.

Minister of Justice Strömmer has already acted on the issue. He has invited to a round table discussion on the division procedure. The meeting will take place on May 3, and all parliamentary parties as well as representatives for various interest organizations are invited.

It is a unanimous civil affairs committee that stands behind this announcement, but it should be noted here that the Social Democrat-led government did nothing on the issue for eight years. It was also the Social Democrats who removed the legal aid that previously existed for division of property processes. This has led to many not being able to afford to pay and therefore having received an unfair division of property. In some cases, the court can decide on financial support in the division of property process, but only for a maximum of five hours. That does not go very far.

Mr. Speaker! As I said at the beginning of my speech, a great deal of work is ongoing in the Government Offices regarding family law issues. To mention one thing, there is a report called Safer Home for Children. The report contains, among other things, proposals on how the protection of the child can be strengthened when it concerns visitation with a parent who has committed violence or committed some other serious violation.

This is very important, because no child should be betrayed by society in the terrible way as in the case of the boy I told about earlier. We unfortunately also have a quite current case in Luleå - the poor Tintin. You can imagine: an eight-year-old boy who is terrified of his father and who is forced to travel to him completely alone. It is so terrible that I do not know what to say. And the boy is murdered. He was not killed, but he was murdered with violence.

Society cannot fail children in that way. There must be a change. It is so terrible that one hardly wants to think about how terrified the little boy must have been.

In the report, the investigation considers, among other things, how one should view visitation in a situation where the child or a parent has protected personal data or is located at a protected residence. The investigation also submits legislative proposals regarding transfers of custody. The consultation period expires in May, and after that, the government will begin working on various legislative proposals.

There is a report titled A childhood free from violence. The assignment has been to submit proposals on how to prevent and combat violence against children. The report was submitted in January this year. It contains many good proposals, including a unified national strategy to prevent and combat violence against children, including honor-related violence and oppression. Work on this is ongoing in the Government Offices.

This is what I worked on when I sat in the Committee on Justice and I had experience from the children's courts. I read in a report that it is very different - across all of Sweden - how crimes against children are investigated. In some places there are children's courts; in other places there are no children's courts. It was very different, and that is not how it should be - all children should get the same help regardless of where in the country they live. It is very good that a national strategy is coming so that all children get the same help and the help they need.

There is also a report titled All-time Parenting - a strengthened protection for children's family life. The assignment was to review the rules of the Children and Parents Code and take into account different family constellations. Work is also ongoing in the Government Offices regarding this.

There is a report called Gode män och förvaltare. In that, various proposals have been submitted, for example that future powers of attorney should be able to be signed digitally. Work is also ongoing in the Government Offices regarding this.

In addition to these reports, several family law issues are raised in the Tidö Agreement. These concern cousin marriage, polygamy, proxy marriage, as well as inheritance and wills. There, there will be tightenings.

It appears from my speech that the Moderate-led government considers family law issues to be very important and is working hard to present legislative proposals as soon as ever possible. The Minister for Justice has said that he will ensure that training is provided for people who work with family law issues in various ways, for example in courts or within social services. Whoever it may be, there must be more and better training with higher quality to increase knowledge.

It is a self-evident matter for the Moderate-led government that children should be protected against violence and other abusive treatment.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: The best interests of the child must always be most important - not the parents' best interests. Often one hears that all children need their parents. I heard it a thousand million times when I worked with child investigations and when for many years I investigated gross violations of women's peace. Then I usually say: No, there are plenty of bad parents. It may sound harsh to say so, but that is how it is. Most are good, and most of us are good enough, as they say - we do our best and are decent parents. However, there are very many bad parents, and one must also dare to say that. One can very well love one's children and still be a bad parent. Many I have heard that the parents love their children, but they can still be bad parents. One can love as much as one wants, but one perhaps does not take care of one's children.

It may sound harsh, as said, but I will always stand on the children's side. No child should have to grow up with violence. No children should either be forced to have contact with a parent they are afraid of.

(Applause)

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Far too many children are affected by violence and experience violence and death. It is something that must not happen; I believe we can all agree on that.

In order for this not to happen, early interventions from many different parts are required. It is about support for small children and their families where help is needed. We need to have good evidence-based methods both within family law and within social services for this to function in a good way.

But it can also be so that the worst happens and a child is affected by seeing violence or such as what we can read about in Dagens Nyheter today. The father of three children killed the children's mother. After four years of struggle from the foster home, custody was moved from the father to the foster home. I and Centerpartiet believe that a parent who kills the other parent should automatically lose custody. It is not reasonable that that parent gets to keep custody.

In today's consideration, there is a reservation where it is proposed that a parent who has killed the other parent shall automatically lose custody of the children and that this shall be announced to the government. I will move for approval of this reservation later this evening.

Since the member says that this is an important issue for the government, I would like to ask: Will the Moderaterna be able to vote for such a proposal to prevent children from having a guardian who has killed the other parent?

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

Ellen Juntti (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I personally think it is terrible that a parent who has murdered the other parent should still be able to have custody.

A couple of years ago, temporary transfers of custody were introduced specifically in cases where one party had killed the other. However, I read in an article in the newspaper that this assessment still had not been made by the social services, so it seems that the social services have not quite understood. They had apparently thought that a judgment had to be made first, but it does not need to be a judgment; instead, they can intervene directly and ensure that the murderer cannot have custody of the children.

I really do not think the murderer should have that, but I am not alone in deciding this. I refer to the report that I spoke about, which is called Safer homes for children. In this work, custody transfers will also be addressed. The consultation period expires on May 8. I think we should wait and see what proposals the government comes up with.

One thing is certain, however: We will come with tightenings. We Moderates and our Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson actually care deeply about these issues, so I can promise that tightenings are on the way.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

There lies a great and heavy responsibility on the Moderaterna and the government to ensure that children's rights are what comes first. Many talk about it, but when the media's reporting decreases, the interest in these issues also tends to decrease. The government has a responsibility to ensure that this does not happen again.

These tightenings were needed. What the member was touching upon regarding how the social services operate is also an important issue. It is important to achieve strengthened risk and protection assessments, so that better assessments are made and so that we get a competence reinforcement across the entire country. It concerns many different parts.

The committee member was also involved in conversations with children, which she herself has worked with. Within social services, there is no training that corresponds to that which takes place at the children's houses and within the police. This is truly something that would be needed to strengthen children's rights and to hear the child's word. What is it the child wants, and what is it that can potentially come from an adult?

I think it is a pity that the Moderates cannot consider following up on such a clear proposal, which, regardless of the social services' assessments, would in practice mean that the parent in this case would not retain custody. I have not seen corresponding proposals in the various investigations that are on the table and which are being prepared within the Government Offices.

It must not happen that more children die or see a parent murdered, and as said, there lies a heavy responsibility on the Moderaterna and the government.

Therefore, I ask the question again: Could the Moderates consider approving this reservation at the vote next week?

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

Ellen Juntti (M)

Mr. Speaker! Martina Johansson said that there is a heavy responsibility on the Moderaterna and the government in this matter. We are prepared to shoulder this responsibility, because we feel ready for it and are truly of the opinion that there must be tightenings. Until now, the parents' rights have taken precedence over the child's best interests. There must be an end to that; it must not continue.

Making an announcement in this situation is quite pointless in the sense that it will take much longer before the government comes with proposals. Work is already underway, and the referral period, as mentioned, expires in May. After that, the government will work out legislative proposals, and there will be tightenings. These legislative proposals also include transfers of custody.

We believe it is better to wait for the government's bill. Then we will see if it is sufficient or if it needs to be tightened further. We will ensure that the child's best interests shall prevail, unlike now.

I have worked quite a bit in parallel with the social services, and sometimes I became downright angry at how naive they were there. The purpose was good, and they well-meant. But many times the social secretaries were young and wanted to believe the best of everyone. If a father who was suspected of having hit his child said he loved his child, they let the child go home again. One must have good education, and it is welcome to have some older social secretaries who have a bit more routine.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ellen Juntti for the presentation.

Let me get straight to the point and take up what the member said regarding what Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer recently stated in an interpellation answer concerning a strengthened child rights perspective in legislation regarding visitation and custody. He meant that it is a self-evident matter for the Moderate-led government that children should be protected from violence and other abusive treatment and that every child should be given the opportunity to participate in matters concerning him or her.

In the same interpellation answer, the Minister for Justice pledged to contribute to the implementation of training to increase the knowledge of courts and others who in a concrete way shall take the child's interest into account. According to the Minister for Justice, it is also absolutely essential that those who judge and ultimately decide these issues have proper knowledge of the cases they are to take a position on.

We in Vänsterpartiet fully agree with this, and therefore we motioned that the government should return with a proposal for an amendment to the legislation which means that the judges who are to adjudicate in cases regarding custody, residence, and visitation shall have acquired a specific competence in children's matters.

How is it that the government did not reach an agreement with us in Vänsterpartiet and other opposition parties that support our motion to introduce a legal assistant for children and that the judges who rule in cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation shall have acquired special child competence? Why do you reject these motions?

It makes me wonder if you would not rather wait for the government's bill than ensure that the Committee on Civil Affairs and thus the Riksdag reach an agreement on something as important as a strengthening and ensuring of judges' competence in children's matters.

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

Ellen Juntti (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the question is that this is included in the report Safer homes for children. This includes questions about custody, residence, visitation, transfers of custody, and legal counsel for children. Work is already underway, and the consultation period expires in May. Then the government will start. I can promise that it will not be dragged out, because all government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna think that these are incredibly important issues. I can therefore promise that the government will go full speed when the consultation period has expired, because they really want to ensure that the best interests of the child apply. Until now, it has mostly been empty words, but now consideration for the child's best interests will become a reality.

If we make an announcement now, it will take quite a long time before this becomes a reality. It will be faster to produce legislative proposals if we wait until after the consultation period for the report has expired and the government has started working on the issues.

I also noted that Justice Minister Strömmer stated that he commits to contributing to education taking place to a greater extent and of higher quality than today. I can promise that these are not empty words but that it will happen. It is also included in the report.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that the report Safer homes for children mentions that the children's competence of judges shall be increased and that children shall have access to legal counsel, and I look forward to the government taking this further.

What is not mentioned and not clarified regarding custody, access, and residence is that forced access shall not be permitted. There is talk of making a holistic assessment of the child's best interests, which makes the legislation even more vague. This has met with harsh criticism from civil society. Women's organizations and children's organizations have stated in the media that it is unreasonable that the proposals in the report do not specify when access, custody, and residence shall not be permitted. But in the report, it is argued that it is inappropriate to specify when it is not suitable for a parent to have, for example, custody.

The proposal in the report does not include a specification that forced cohabitation may not occur in cases of violence or other violations, but does the member think that is something the government should proceed with? Otherwise, it goes completely against what Ellen Juntti raised in her statement about forced cohabitation being unreasonable and should be stopped.

Will the government specify when custody, visitation, and residence may not take place, even though the report Safer Homes for Children is against it?

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

Ellen Juntti (M)

Mr. Speaker! Forced meetings should not take place. Children should not have to go to a parent, regardless of whether it is the mother or the father, if they are afraid or truly show that they are suffering, like that boy who collapsed. I still have him on my retina, because it was so terrible. I cried inside, because I was not allowed to cry in my professional role.

In many cases, people talk about the best interests of the child but still think that it is important for parents to meet their children. I think that many who work with these issues are quite naive. It may sound harsh to say "you are not allowed to meet your child, because it is not good for the child," but we must dare to be brave and say it. We cannot keep haggling and sacrifice the well-being of children.

According to the report Safer homes for children, a holistic assessment based on the child's best interests shall be made, and it goes without saying that forced visitation with a parent the child is afraid of is not in the child's best interest. No one in the whole world can say that it is in the child's best interest to be sent completely alone to a father they are afraid of where horrible things happen.

I am sure that the government will come forward with good proposals. There will be tightenings. I look forward to that very much, because it is high time to do something about this. It is far too many children who are suffering. We must stop closing our eyes. We must stop being naive.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Honorable members! This debate concerns the Committee on Civil Affairs' report 6 Family Law. It covers a long series of questions. We Social Democrats want to highlight two of them here - both concern violence in close relationships.

Everyone who is subjected to violence in close relationships shall receive help and support from society. This applies to everyone, regardless of gender. Since the most common form is men's violence against women, it is primarily in that way we describe the societal problem when we formulate our proposals for solutions.

In government, we conducted systematic work to stop men's violence against women. We implemented or initiated a number of important proposals, for example the consent legislation, strengthened protection for women exposed to violence to stay in their homes, and the principle that it is the perpetrator who should move.

We worked based on a 40-point program against men's violence against women. We also took important steps to strengthen children's rights, for a life free from violence. Unfortunately, there is much left to do, and we continue this systematic work now in the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! The first issue I want to raise concerns the division of property. When a woman dares to take the step to leave a violent partner, it is important to receive support. Equally important is achieving long-term stability to be able to start a new life. There are women who have left a violent relationship but felt forced to go back when they have not been able to secure a good housing situation for themselves and the children. For example, it concerns women who have not been able to achieve a division of property and thus do not have the financial means for a sustainable housing situation.

The ex-partner has refused to cooperate with a division of property, and it has ultimately forced the crime victims, the woman and the children, back to the perpetrator. It is part of the man's domestic violence against the woman. It is a type of economic violence in order to continue to control and harm the woman's and the children's mental and physical well-being.

Mr. Speaker! In the report we are now debating, four committee motions are addressed where proposals for improved division of property processes are raised. They are from the Social Democrats and from SD, C and Vänstern. The Social Democratic motion was concrete and concerns introducing a time limit for when the division of property procedure shall be completed.

At the first preparatory meeting in March, all four of these parties moved for approval of their motions, and MP also moved for our Social Democratic proposal. As appears in the public records, it meant that we Social Democrats had a committee majority for our proposal to introduce a time limit before the continued preparation.

At the next meeting, we were therefore very pleased when the government parties pushed for SD's proposal and the committee was thus later able to reach a joint drafting and consensus. It is obviously better for a united committee to stand behind our motion to introduce a time limit in partition processes than for a narrow majority consisting only of S and MP to do so. We would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank you for the good cooperation at the committee meetings on this issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a unanimous committee is therefore presenting the proposal to review the possibility of introducing a final deadline, and it will be an announcement to the government, just as my Moderate committee colleague has said. We will closely follow the government's work. We want to remind the government of what the Committee on the Constitution has repeatedly established, that is, the importance of the government handling the Riksdag's instructions promptly. In this matter, much of the preparatory work has already been done and there is agreement here in the Riksdag.

We assume that there will be a prompt response from the Minister for Justice, so that the law can enter into force as soon as possible and the use of division of property proceedings by violent men against women and children subjected to violence can be put an end to.

Mr. Speaker! The second issue we Social Democrats want to raise here today is the issue of men's violence against children and women in cases concerning custody, housing, and visitation. Children are the only crime victims who are forced to meet their perpetrators.

Earlier this year, a boy in Luleå died, killed by his father during a social gathering - murdered. The boy in Luleå was forced into the gathering with his father despite his fear, despite the mother's warnings, and despite several authorities being aware of the risks. The boy was then found dead.

Nine out of ten children who have contact with their or a relative's perpetrator experience anxiety, fear, sadness, and frustration from the contact. Nine out of ten suffer lasting psychological harm.

The Gender Equality Authority's report "Information about violence is no exception" examines over 800 district court judgments concerning custody, residence, and visitation. The review shows that in 64 percent of the cases, information about violence and abuse was presented. Despite this, the courts have not weighed it in their decisions. It is not in the children's best interests.

Last year, the research report *Utan mig är du helt ensam* (Without me you are completely alone) was also released, which deals with women's lived experiences of isolation from their surroundings and society in the wake of men's violence and post-violence. The report is published by Högskolan i Gävle and the Church of Sweden. Both this research report and the Gender Equality Authority's report show that mothers exposed to violence are often left completely alone to protect their children from violent fathers.

It is not about individual cases or exceptions, where certain people are rewritten in the media. On the contrary, it is the case that children and mothers exposed to violence are systematically left alone by society's support systems and the justice system, to be forced to defend and protect themselves against the violence.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that no child should have to have unprotected contact where there is a risk of violence with a parent who has committed violence against the child or other family members. We also believe that men's violence against children and women must have consequences for issues regarding custody and residence. We therefore wish to move for the approval of our reservation number 26.

We regret that we have not yet been able to reach an agreement on these issues in the committee during this parliamentary session, but we have good hopes for the future. As far as we have been able to see, most parties have expressed support for amended legislation so that children do not have to have unprotected contact where there is a risk of violence. We had also hoped for a concrete announcement here.

We Social Democrats have been clear, and we repeat it again today: Children should not have to have unprotected contact where there is a risk of violence.

The government party, the Liberals, have also been clear, as said, and it is Member of Parliament Juno Blom I am now quoting. I see her sitting here in the chamber. She said in a debate on behalf of the Liberals: "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 gives the violent father custody in some cases and access 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 put the entire family in 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?"

Juno Blom also said: "Interaction shall be for the child, not for the parents. And the child's right to protection must always take precedence over the parents' rights." We welcome the Liberals' clarity. It obligates the government.

Mr. Speaker! Where do we stand now? We Social Democrats have been and continue to be clear. The law must be changed. The government party, the Liberals, are also clear. It is also the Centre Party, which in its motion, being discussed here today, says: "In cases where an encounter entails a risk of violence, threats, or breaches of the peace, an encounter shall also not be established in judgments or decisions."

Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet are also clear on this issue. SD has also expressed itself clearly. When Member of Parliament Carita Boulwén recently stood in this rostrum and spoke about the girl who was called Lilla Hjärtat and the boy who was killed in Luleå, she said that these two children unfortunately are not the only ones who have fallen victim as a direct consequence of society failing in its protection of vulnerable children. She said: "The children's rights perspective and the rule of law for children and young people must be truly strengthened."

Mr. Speaker! Honored members! I note that we Social Democrats are not alone in considering that the law must be changed. There is a consensus among a majority of the parties in the Riksdag here in the chamber. Let us hold fast to this consensus. Children should not have to have contact where there is a risk of violence.

I really want to welcome the Moderates' and Ellen Juntti's clear message here in the chamber today, that forced cohabitation must be stopped.

I had actually prepared this and written that it would be welcome if the Moderaterna wanted to clarify their position, as we have not heard anything clear from the government earlier. Therefore, it is wonderfully good that we receive these messages today.

We appreciate that the current government is following up on the work that we initiated during the previous government. This applies to the investigations that were commissioned and which now, just as Ellen Juntti described, are out for consultation. Now, it is a matter of us really following up on this.

Mr. Speaker! We welcome that the committee was able to reach an agreement on the important issue regarding a time limit for division processes. But, Mr. Speaker, we regret that the committee did not succeed in the issue of custody, residence, and visitation in cases of violence. It had been needed here and now for all the children who are exposed and afraid and who are forced into visitation today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow - every day - all over our country.

Based on what a majority of the parties in the Riksdag have said, we Social Democrats assume that at the latest in the next motion report on family law, during the next parliamentary meeting, we will jointly be able to create a change in the legislation concerning custody, residence, and visitation in cases of violence. The beautiful and strong words commit us.

But now we move for the approval of our reservation number 26. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, we are prioritizing this one. Everyone who wants to strengthen the children's rights perspective right now is of course welcome to vote with us. For the sake of the children, that decision was needed here and now. Children must be protected from violence.

(Applause)

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to speak regarding the issue of property divisions. Property divisions that drag on can cause major problems, especially for the economically weaker party, who often is the woman. Not infrequently, the division process is used as part of economic violence, and it can cause much suffering and stress for the one who is subjected to it.

The previous Social Democratic government, which held power for eight years and claimed to be a feminist government, did not lift a finger during these eight years to improve the property division process, even though it is important from an equality perspective.

The question has been dealt with by the Committee on Civil Affairs previously. The Social Democrats chose then to say no to changes in this area despite the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats together constituting a majority – that is what we do now as well. We could, therefore, have pushed through this issue much earlier.

That one now seems to have turned in this matter is absolutely very welcome and very good. I share the view that it is strong and that it sends a good signal that we are a united committee behind this announcement. But I would still like to ask the member a question: Are there more proposals in the area of family law that the Social Democrats did not push for during eight years in government but that one now in opposition can imagine supporting?

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Lundberg, for the remark! Let me say that we are conducting systematic work regarding this, and we have seen results from it. As I mentioned in my speech, we pushed through several reforms and initiatives. We have also been able to see how this systematic work has had an effect. For example, various agencies in regulatory letters have been tasked to pay attention to men's violence against women within their areas. A concrete example, when we talk about economic violence, is how the Swedish Enforcement Authority's website has been updated regarding men's violence against women and economic violence, and where one can turn if one is subjected to economic violence.

This is not something that has happened of its own accord. It is a systematic effort that has resulted from us having had a feminist social democratic-led government that has ensured that all of the state's tools, all of the state's agencies, hopefully will work with these issues within their respective pieces of the state's activities. I just want to mention that.

I understood the concrete question and shall answer it. We are prepared to look at all issues in our systematic work. We look at and read all the proposals that come in - absolutely.

But now that I have answered the question, I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question. We believe that the government should be able to quickly return to the Riksdag on this issue. It is a unanimous committee, and much of the preparation has already been done in the departmental report mentioned in the Sweden Democrats' motion: Some division issues.

The Sweden Democrats are part of the government base - they are the largest party, and very decisive. My question to the Sweden Democrats is: When do you believe the government should be able to return to the Riksdag with a concrete proposal so that we can get this legislative change as soon as possible?

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The investigation that the member mentions was tabled in 2005. If the Social Democrats wanted something to happen quickly regarding that investigation, something could have been done during the eight years that they sat in government.

I also heard the member speak about how it is a pity that we do not receive a statement today regarding custody, residence, and visitation. It is actually the same thing there. It is a bit late to now come with a statement to the new government when one has sat in government for eight years and had the opportunity to make exactly those legislative changes that one wanted when one had a majority.

Another proposal that could improve the situation for women exposed to violence, but which the Social Democrats are saying no to today, is the proposal to abolish the reflection period when, for example, violence or similar crimes against a person within the marriage have occurred. Today's regulations state that a divorce shall be preceded by a reflection period of at least six months if one of the spouses requests it or if either of the spouses lives permanently with and has custody of children under 16 years of age.

This will be very problematic in cases where there is violence in the relationship. In these cases, it should be possible to separate immediately. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats want to investigate how more situations can be exempted from the requirement of a reflection period. I want to ask the members here today: Is this something we can hope to get support for from the Social Democrats the next time the issue is addressed?

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! There were several questions. I will try to use my time well. We can continue the discussion in the committee if I do not have time for everything.

You mention the issue of custody, residence, and visitation in cases of violence. It is not for nothing that it was our government that commissioned the investigations that the Moderate colleague in the committee creditably reported on. It is a long series of investigations, a long series of products, that the current government has taken over and is working with. We appreciate that. We truly believe that in this country we are served by unity in these issues. We really want to extend a thank you to the government for continuing to work with this. It is not a matter of party differences.

This is what we did, then, in a government position.

Then I did not quite hear that I received an answer to my question regarding when the Sweden Democrats consider that the government should return to the Riksdag on this issue.

We are happy to note that we are now in agreement. Of course we can look back - absolutely. We do that when we review the work, and we do that in our annual reports. But now we are talking about here and now. We have an agreement. My question to Member Lundberg is still: When do you consider it reasonable for the government to return? Or are the Sverigedemokraterna not prepared to give a statement on that? Now, it is still you who are the government basis.

Speaking of that we ruled, I would like to say: We absolutely had the power of government, but we know that we did not always rule with our budgets. We also know how it looked here in the chamber.

I have surely forgotten some of all the questions I received, but then I hope that we can continue with the discussion in the committee. I mean nothing other than that I hope that we will be able to have good and constructive discussions to reach consensus on important issues.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Mr. Speaker! Since Laila Naraghi, in her speech, apostrophized me, I think it is important to try to explain how we reason.

During the previous parliamentary term, we introduced, for example, a child peace crime within the framework of the January cooperation. I am glad that Morgan Johansson, who was then Minister, and I held that press conference together, because the Liberals were truly behind this happening.

Before that happened, the Liberals were clear that when we now introduce a child peace crime which means that children in a legal sense become crime victims, it is extremely important that, in parallel with that, an investigation is immediately initiated so that it does not end up in the situation that the member raised here, namely that children are forced into contact with a violent parent and that mothers are desperate and afraid to leave a relationship.

After four years of struggle to dare to take a firm stand on centrally important issues, it still did not receive the reception I had hoped for, even though we succeeded in implementing many important reforms. I also perceived that the member from Vänsterpartiet said that in the investigation that is now before us, it is not quite clear regarding measures concerning forced visitation.

This was also about the question of the child's best interests, where the Social Democrats did not want to participate and did not want to push forward, so when we then have both the Minister for Education Camilla Waltersson Grönvall who is super clear, and also the Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer who is also clear about this, I feel that it seems foolish to go across the river for water. In that case, it is better to actively work with those who clearly express that they want to do what I wished to do during the entire previous mandate period.

But I am glad that you too have changed your tune now.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Juno Blom, for participating in this debate! It is very much appreciated. I had intended to quote you regardless, as you have so clearly, on behalf of the Liberals, given your position on this issue.

We Social Democrats are clear. We have given a clear message, and we consider this to be extremely important.

If that is what is being said and if I understand the member correctly, I would like to say that I share the view that there is a great deal to be done with the proposal that has come from the investigator. Just as the member from the Left Party pointed out, there has indeed been serious criticism of the investigator's proposal, so there is certainly a great deal to be done. But I really appreciate the Moderates' clear message regarding forced visitation.

Then I think it is a bit important that we watch our words. I had intended that we might save this for the preparation in the committee, but since I see that I have time I still want to take the opportunity to say that yes - everyone talks about the best interests of the child. But the concern is that the legislation, as part of the best interests of the child, describes this necessity as trumping everything else, as trumping the right to a life free from violence, which in principle trumps the right to life. We have seen that in these cases. It is about having this contact under all circumstances, even if there is a risk of violence, just as the Moderaterna have described.

Here, it is necessary to look closely at the referral responses and at what comes from the government, and also to realize that this concerns many more children than those where there are persons convicted of these crimes. It concerns very many children.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the concepts should be kept separate. The Social Services Act is a framework law, so there are children who are not forced into contact with a violent father, and there are also children who are forced into such contact. It is therefore also a question of attitude.

We have a very strong parental right, and a shift in perspective must occur. That is exactly what the government is signaling. I missed it during the last parliamentary term, even though I here in the chamber, just as the member pointed out, was clear that it must happen.

When it concerned specifically forced co-parenting but also, as the member pointed out, the child's best interests, it was a discussion concerning children who are placed and where care is to cease. At that time, the Social Democrats and initially also the Green Party—when they later left the government, they took the side of the other parties—did not consider that one must have the child's best interests as a separate requirement in the legislation in order to be able to listen to the child. What distinguishes our legislation from the Convention on the Rights of the Child when it became law is the child's right to be heard.

It is therefore extremely important that this goes through all parts. That is why it seems strange to me that the Social Democrats, in this situation, say that they are grateful that we are taking their side, when what has actually happened is that the Social Democrats have not dared to make these decisive decisions. That the investigation is unclear is due to the fact that the directives have not had the clarity required for one to fully and truly take the side of the small, vulnerable child.

However, I believe that the seriousness of the conflicts that exist for vulnerable children is so much greater and more important than our party-political conflicts. Therefore, I think it is very important that we are honest with each other, that you can say that you have realized that it is in this way and have tabled a motion, and that we can now, together with a government that wants to, make a change.

(Applause)

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that those who are possibly following the debate this hour are interested in knowing what the Riksdag and the government are going to do here and now. I agree with that. We have had a clear presentation. We have two clear committee motions raised both in the Committee on Justice and here, where we are clear in these issues.

It is wonderful if we can achieve this consensus, regardless of where it comes from. I believe that the children who have been victims of violence, the mothers, relatives, and everyone who struggles with these issues—since I quoted Juno, I understand that she too has encountered them—most of all want this to be put in place. I think, therefore, that we can hold onto that consensus.

We also heard how our Moderate colleague spoke about how it will go faster this way, without an announcement. It is a promise to us here in the Riksdag that the government will be fast. We will have to keep an eye on the list of government bills and see that we get good proposals that make a real difference.

I appreciate the consensus, then. We can certainly have a specific exercise where we discuss looking back in time. But the important thing is what happens moving forward.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In this report, the Committee on Civil Affairs proposes that the Riksdag issue a notice to the Government in connection with motions regarding the division of property. The Committee considers that the Government should take the initiatives required to ensure a well-functioning, efficient, and legally secure order for the division of property. In that context, the Government should, among other things, review the possibility of introducing a reasonable upper time limit for when a property division proceeding should be completed. We Kristdemokrater support the entire report and thus also this notice.

If a married couple cannot agree on a division of property, a court shall, upon application by the parties, appoint someone as a division of property administrator. For the one of the two in the worst economic situation, the determination of the division of property usually has very great financial significance. It is therefore of great importance that there is a well-functioning and fair system.

In the department's memorandum, some division issues are highlighted to be considered for the future. Among others, it is noted that several practicing lawyers have witnessed major processing problems due to passivity or absence from meetings by the party who benefits from the case dragging on. To address this, the investigator highlighted several proposals for measures to consider or to be further investigated, for example, a right for a division executor to impose a fine if one of the parties does not show up to a convened meeting.

Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer has stated that an invitation to a round-table discussion will soon be issued to initiate a mapping of the causes of protracted division processes and how frequent these are, which is very positive. When the government takes initiative in accordance with this, it should also consider what was mentioned before regarding a reasonable upper time limit for when a division proceeding should be completed.

Questions regarding the transfer of custody and adoption in cases of foster care placement are also discussed in the report, and in this area, announcements have been directed to the previous government. Among others, these have concerned that the government shall return with legislative proposals that can ensure that the child's best interests always take precedence over all other interests when it comes to the transfer of custody and adoption in cases of foster care placement. Furthermore, the assessment of a question regarding the transfer of custody to foster parents shall be conducted in the most expedient manner.

As a result of this, an inquiry was appointed, which was named the Inquiry on the importance of safety and continuity for children in vulnerable situations, which was to conduct a review of the rules in the Children and Parents Code. The inquiry presented its proposal in January this year in the report Safer Homes for Children. The inquiry has reviewed the rules in the Children and Parents Code regarding, among other things, transfer of custody and adoption in order to create better conditions for continuity, stability, and safety for children placed in family homes. This report is now on consultation, and the consultation period is approaching its end - which means that the issues will soon return for preparation in the Government Offices.

Furthermore, the report also addresses issues regarding forced marriage, polygamy, and cousin marriage. In recent years, the Riksdag has decided on a number of legislative changes and other measures aimed at, among other things, forced marriage, polygamy, and consanguineous marriage. During the spring of 2021, the Riksdag also issued a notice to the government regarding a safety valve in the matter of polygamy. In the Tidö Agreement between the three government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna, there is also mention of further measures against forced marriage, polygamy, and cousin marriage, which are entirely in line with several of the motion requests.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in report CU6.

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Approximately half of all marriages in Sweden end in divorce.

When couples who are cohabiting or married decide to go their separate ways, they must also separate financially. It can be a simple process if they are in agreement, but it can also be very protracted and difficult if they are not in agreement.

If the separation was unwanted by one of the spouses, or if there is violence in a close relationship, there is a risk that one party prevents the division of property and delays the process. The District Court can appoint a division officer to assist with the division, but it is paid for by the parties half each and can be very costly. The fee is approximately 2,000 kronor, and the division officer often wants to be paid in advance. The longer the division takes, the more the lawyer earns on it. There are thus no incentives for a quick process. The legal aid that previously existed for property divisions was very unfortunately removed by the Social Democrats in the late 90s, which means that the person who cannot afford to pay is not given the opportunity for a fair division if the other party does not cooperate.

Today, there are no rules for how long a division of property may take, nor are there sufficiently powerful consequences for the person who deliberately submits incorrect documents, refuses to appear at meetings, or in other ways causes the process to drag on unnecessarily long. There is a provision for a five-hour division of property that the district court can decide on in special cases, but it is not at all certain that five hours is enough.

When a couple who have lived together are to divide their assets, it is only the residence and the household goods that are to be divided. Despite this, the division of assets can continue for a very long time and cost enormous sums. In one case that I am aware of, it took the partition officer a year to conclude that the parties owned half of the residence each, which they of course already knew. The process must now continue through the law on co-ownership. This has so far cost them 138,000 kronor.

If the couple has been married, the process is even more complicated. There are examples of property divisions that have been ongoing for twelve years. Twelve years! It is completely insane. "Karin", as she was called in the TV4 report about property divisions, divided property for six years at a cost of half a million kronor. The examples and articles are unfortunately many, and many of them are completely horrible.

Mr. Speaker! Division processes that drag on can cause major problems, especially for the economically weaker party. In relationships where violence occurs, it is extra important that it is possible to leave the relationship quickly once one has decided to do so. But the fact is that the division process can instead become a part of the post-violence.

Economic violence is usually an extension of other forms of violence and is most often perpetrated by a man against a woman through manipulation, physical violence, psychological violence, or threats. The purpose is to gain power over the woman through her finances. It can involve, for example, taking control of someone's bank-id, moving money from the woman's account to his own account, obtaining new credit cards in her name that only he has access to, or simply transferring vehicles or other assets into his own name. It can also involve making it difficult for the woman to get or keep a job by, for example, turning off the alarm clock in the morning so that she oversleeps, slashing the tires on the car so that she cannot get to work or visit the workplace, and acting threateningly.

The abuses result in the victim becoming financially locked to her partner and dependent on him, which complicates a separation. This situation naturally limits the woman's opportunity for a new start once she has managed to leave the destructive relationship.

Unfortunately, today's regulations for division of property can be used as a tool of violence. Someone stuck in a protracted division of property has significantly more difficulty moving on from such an abuse, and the perpetrator keeps the victim in their grip for much longer.

The reflection period in the case of divorce must also be investigated so that more situations can be exempted from the reflection period, for example when violence or similar crimes against a person have occurred within the marriage. I therefore wish to move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation number 5.

Mr. Speaker! Pleasantly enough, the Riksdag will stand behind the Sweden Democrats' proposal to, based on the memorandum *Några bodelningsfrågor* from 2005, investigate the possibilities for a more efficient division of property process with a reasonable upper time limit. The Government has also noted the problems and expressed a desire to review the legislation. That is good. But because the issue is so incredibly important, the Committee on Civil Affairs submits this proposal for announcement to clarify how urgent we consider a change to be and to put women's safety higher up on the agenda.

It must become easier for someone who wants to get out of a destructive relationship to separate, and today's shortcomings in the division process must be fixed. In the same way that no one should be forced into a marriage they have not chosen, no one should also be forced to stay in a marriage against their will.

This announcement is a small step towards preventing anyone from being subjected to delay when it comes to separation or divorce, but above all, it is to improve the situation for vulnerable women.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Angelica Lundberg, for the speech!

It is very few times that the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats agree with each other. But I was very pleased with the seminar that the member here has organized on the issue of economic violence, which is very important. I see that the member is taking up that work. Sometimes I even wonder if the member is in the right party. The member has very interesting and important views, for which I thank them.

And with the fact that the Sweden Democrats are part of the government base and have the strong position of being the largest party in the government base, the Sweden Democrats have succeeded in pressing the government parties to address the important issue of time limits in property division. We reached a common starting point on that issue, which I am very happy about.

But then it is actually as the member took up here that the Sweden Democrats only have a reservation regarding the question of abolishing the reflection period in the case of divorce or separation. My question to the member is therefore what will be the Sweden Democrats' role in the government support to, over the coming four years, try to promote the issue and push the government to take a stand on the issue of economic violence, including by driving the issue of abolishing the reflection period in the case of divorce or separation. It is indeed a very large issue and an extension of the violence that occurs against women in today's society.

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Nadja Awad for the questions and for the consensus that we can find in these questions!

I know that the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party also have common ground in certain consumer rights issues and so on. It is important and has always been important for the Sweden Democrats that when common ground is found in an issue, it is not so important what the other party is for a party, but then the most important thing is the policy and to move the issue forward.

I am very happy that we share the view regarding economic violence. I am so happy that we are talking about this issue. We have talked about it in the Committee on Civil Affairs quite a bit this spring, and just that makes the issue raised higher on the agenda.

This has been something that people hardly know what it is. What, economic violence? Isn't that just fraud? No, it is not fraud or identity theft. A fraud or an identity theft usually aims to acquire funds for oneself in some way, while economic violence is about suppressing the other party. It is about taking control over her and denying her the right to her own finances.

What will the Sweden Democrats do? Just as we have heard here earlier today from the government parties, this is an issue that they also take seriously. There is quite a lot on the government's table that is important, and we will ensure that we push this issue forward as much as we possibly can. This can happen through announcements as in the division issue, but it can also happen through the conversations we have with the government where we together try to find a way forward.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

Then I can truly clarify my joy that the issue of economic violence will continue to be pushed. It has obviously not been highlighted in any way in the Tidö Agreement or in the government's basis, which the Left Party truly regrets.

I would still like to know if these conversations will actually be realized during the coming four years. Sometimes one might think that a conversation or a coffee break might be important, but we want to move from words to action here. This actually concerns violence against women, which to a large extent limits their space to assert themselves in society professionally, socially, emotionally, and in relationships. It is something that we must prioritize higher on the agenda, and as I mentioned, the Tidö Agreement does not in any way highlight the issue of economic violence.

Is there any specific plan? We can continue to arrange for co-writings and highlight our own reservations regarding the issue of, for example, the period of reflection. Now we managed to get this done with the division of property, which I am very happy about. We can then let that go or at least follow up so that we ensure it turns out well and is realized in a good way. But is there any plan when it comes to abolishing the period of reflection? This is legislation that is very outdated. The Marriage Code is ancient legislation, and it needs to be reformed.

I wonder if the member could clarify something about these talks and whether we will see anything concrete in the near future.

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks again to Nadja Awad for the question!

I want to emphasize once again how important it is that I and the member stand here and have this debate right now, because it causes the issue to be raised again.

I can only say that when I have talked about this with economic violence with people, with people in my vicinity and with party comrades and so on, it has turned out to be an incredibly large problem. Everyone I have talked to has either been subjected to it themselves or knows someone who has been subjected to it. It is not in all cases that one knows that it is specifically economic violence. One cannot put words on it in that way. But this is a super important issue.

It is the case that the Tidö Agreement is a process. What is in the Tidö Agreement now, we shall take care of, and then there is room for more joint proposals from the Tidö parties.

Regarding the issue of the division, I want to say that it is very important that we do not let it go now. We have submitted a motion from the Riksdag, but it is up to the government to act on that motion.

Regarding the division process, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer has called for a round-table discussion with all parties and also interest organizations, which will take place in early May. Steps have therefore already been taken to push through measures for real here.

I share the member's view that we will not get very far with beautiful words but need to put them into action. I hope that the member and I will have the opportunity to talk more about these issues and try to reach an agreement on how we can best help all vulnerable women.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposed decision in the report.

For those of us who have the privilege of being officiants, it is a joy and a happiness to see two people decide to live a life together. But what we are debating today is when life did not quite turn out as we had imagined. It is about the division of property after a divorce.

Sometimes things do not turn out as we imagined, dreamed of, or hoped for, and when they do not, it must work. Every second marriage unfortunately ends in divorce, and the figure is even higher for cohabitation.

Swedish law is based on the principle that divorce is a fundamental right for the individual. No one should ever be forced to remain in a marriage they do not wish to live in.

Here, the division of property becomes a problem, which my colleagues in the Committee on Civil Affairs have touched upon before me. Personal belongings must be distributed, and this must be documented. The divorce itself proceeds relatively quickly if compared to the division of property. When two lives have been intertwined, it takes time to unravel them. But it must not take too long.

Who shall take over the shared residence, or shall it be sold, and how shall this proceed? Actually, even this can be resolved relatively quickly if one is in agreement or with the help of a good lawyer.

Now it does not end happily for everyone. In that case, a division officer is needed. Every year, approximately 1,000 division officers are engaged in divorces, both to resolve the conflict and to create economic justice. But one party can, out of pure malice, I would like to assert, obstruct and drag out the division for several years. They can refuse to disclose what assets they have or refuse to sign the agreement or to open letters with information, and thereby force the other to remain in a destructive marriage.

The second in this case is women. And as several now understand, the vulnerability that women find themselves in in this situation is a yoke and a prison. The situation, which concerns being subjected to what we term economic violence and which we are debating here today, is a gender equality issue, because it primarily affects women.

Here the law is backward, Mr. Speaker, because the current system is flawed. There are tools today, such as coercive fines, but those tools are rarely used in practice, and even if they are used, they are not sufficient. Therefore, it is now welcome to have an announcement from the Committee on Civil Affairs regarding an end date for this economic imprisonment, which also most often involves physical violence.

Earlier this year, the Minister for Equality invited her EU colleagues to a conference on precisely the links between physical violence and economic violence. This shows that this is a priority issue for this government. As we have heard here before, Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer also highlights this as a priority issue. That we here from the Riksdag also prioritize this together shows that it is a powerful united front regarding economic violence.

Delaying a division of property must have consequences for every violent man who uses a division of property as a tool in violence against a woman. I would like to address, as a man, to you, as a man, who does this: It is so wrong! It is evil.

The Riksdag will now stand behind investigating the possibilities for a more efficient housing allocation process with a more reasonable outer time limit. Unfortunately, politics is waking up late to this fact. But with the new government, we can see this as a starting shot for more measures in this important equality issue regarding violence in close relationships.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Jakob Olofsgård, for your speech which dealt a great deal with issues of division of property, which I find incredibly exciting! I will return to the division of property in my speech.

But the question I now have for the member concerns automatic joint custody at birth, for children born to parents who are not married. Is the question of whether both parents are equally important for the child no longer important for the Liberals? Why, then, do the Liberals move for the rejection of the Center Party's motion on precisely joint custody even for the unmarried? During the previous parliamentary term, the Liberals, in fact, moved for the approval of a corresponding proposal.

The legislation we have in the Children and Parents Code is from 1949. The responsible ministers who made decisions on this were born between 1881 and 1906! For me, it is a sign that we really have legislation in the area of family law that is based on how we viewed society quite a long time ago.

So, in this legislation, it states that the child is under the custody of both parents from birth, if these are married to each other, and in other cases by the mother alone. What is then the difference for the child if the parents' legal relationship is that they are married, cohabiting, or separated? And is this not an important issue for the Liberals anymore?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Martina Johansson, for the question which raises an important issue regarding our children and their best interests!

But at the same time, I do not understand the question. The reason why we do not support the Center Party's motion, Mr. Speaker, is that we are in government and that this is being prepared on the government's table. The question is being looked at and work is being done on this, and we do not want to preempt the work that is to come.

Then it becomes a bit strange to say that it is not a prioritized issue, when the member knows that we have pushed this before and that it is a prioritized issue for the Liberals to look at. Just because we do not support the Center Party's motion in this case does not mean at all that we do not prioritize the issue.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer! It was news that just this question regarding automatic custody even when the parents are not married is on the government's table and being prepared, as there has been no announcement regarding it until now. But it is appreciated if the government has taken up the issue, for it is a very important assessment in how we view the parents' role: that both parents are actually equally important for the child, for the child's best interests.

Even when it concerns social parents, the Liberals and the Center Party were in agreement during the previous parliamentary term on strengthening and clarifying the social parents' role from a child's perspective. Now, there are motions to approve even in this area. Here, I shall then inform that there is an investigation, if the member does not have a handle on it, but he surely does.

My question is in what way the Liberals will push to ensure that this comes to fruition, so that the liberal flag can continue to be present, since the Liberals claim to be the liberal safety in the government. The question then becomes: If this is now being prepared, when will a proposal for automatic joint custody for children who do not have married parents arrive? Good parental relationships provide secure children, adolescents, and young adults.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the member for once again raising issues that are important. I suppose I must repeat, so that it is not misinterpreted, that I did not say in what way it is being prepared. I said that it is being prepared. We spoke about a Parental Code that is outdated, and I agree with the member in that.

We are now looking closer at this, and it is something we will have to return to. We therefore do not want to anticipate the comprehensive work that is ongoing regarding this. When it comes to the investigations that exist, it is the same thing there. I look forward to returning when we have a sharp proposition to discuss further with Member Martina Johansson.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Olofsgård, for your commitment to these issues and the consensus that prevails! I was inspired to request a reply when you mentioned the initiative that the government took at the EU conference hosted by the Minister for Equality. We have noted it, and we appreciate that the chairmanship is also used for this.

I am unsure if the member said it in their speech, but in the headline, it is precisely the preventive work regarding economic violence that is highlighted. Therefore, I would like to take the liberty of raising an issue that women's organizations have alerted us to: how the absence of formal requirements for powers of attorney is used by violent men to exert power and control over women.

We have here in the Riksdag been reached by information regarding this absence of formal requirements. For example, for banking matters, powers of attorney do not need to contain dates or be witnessed, which has simplified and enabled perpetrators of violence to incur debt in the names of women subjected to violence. Despite powers of attorney having contained incorrect personal identity numbers, they have been able to be used to take out large loans in the names of women subjected to violence. It limits the woman's scope of action, both economically, socially, physically and mentally, naturally.

Sometimes it is argued that it is an advantage that there are no formal requirements. But we mean that it could never have been the legislator's intention to make it easy for some and in that way make it possible for others to abuse this.

Given that it is the prevention of economic violence that we want to work with, I wonder how the member's and the Minister for Equality's party views these issues, which one says they are championing in the EU. But what is one prepared to do here at home so that the absence of formal requirements cannot be used as an instrument in economic violence against already very pressured victims of violence? We should be able to do more within politics.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for raising the important powers of attorney. At the seminar we had in the Riksdag, it was clearly highlighted that there is a problem with the abuse of powers of attorney.

The EU conference was about prevention but also about starting a conversation, using the position of being chair of the EU and raising the issue at the EU level. It shows that this is a priority issue for the government to continue working on.

I had a conversation about precisely these issues with Equality Minister Paulina Brandberg before this debate. I was told that I could emphatically express that it is a priority issue to work with the whole of this because it, as we were touching upon earlier, is an equality issue to raise it in different ways.

As I mentioned in my speech, the division of assets can become a starting point, which becomes an announcement, which becomes something that we from the Riksdag shall follow up on and so on. I see that there are good opportunities that this can also become a workshop, but we absolutely must not stop there, as the member pointed out. There are more things. Powers of attorney are one such thing, but also that which was raised at the seminar, how to handle that Swish is the perpetrator's best ATM.

There are, therefore, many things to address, but powers of attorney is something that we in the Liberals see positively in highlighting.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I really want to emphasize how important it is that Sweden as a country takes the lead and that we try to get the EU on board in these matters. But we can set this aside. We must also clarify what is happening here at home.

Last week, I asked a question to the Minister for Equality regarding formal requirements for powers of attorney. I do not know if the Minister for Equality has said anything else to party colleague Olofsgård than the answer I received. She said that it is not relevant to introduce any additional legal requirements on the design of powers of attorney or that these should be witnessed. The Government is therefore not prepared to do anything on this front.

Do I understand Member Olofsgård correctly? This may be a question that is being prepared and discussed within the Government Offices, and there may actually be a discussion within the Tidö parties. When can we then expect something, that is, when should I submit a parliamentary question in order to be able to receive the information that Olofsgård may have received from his party colleague?

I truly understand the point that there can be advantages to not having formal requirements for powers of attorney, but the state's good intentions to simplify transactions cannot occur at the expense of women exposed to violence, who can end up in such situations as have been reported to us in the Riksdag.

Therefore, I would still like to have a bit more information for our voters: Is one prepared not only to speak about preventive work at the EU level but actually move from words to action also here in Sweden, at home?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for further demonstrated commitment to this issue, which is clearly highlighted.

I want to clarify that the minister told me that it is a priority issue, but she did not mention anything about powers of attorney. The member may continue to contact and ask the Minister for Equality, who sits in the government. The minister must answer those questions. I can answer for the Liberals as a member here that we see this is an important issue to continue working on.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are to make decisions on a number of different feminist proposals to establish equality between men and women but also to ensure that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is complied with.

We politicians must put a stop to men's violence against women and children. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for the approval of reservation 23 and reservation 27 regarding that judges who rule in family law cases shall have a special competence in children's matters and to clarify that no child shall have contact with a violent parent.

We succeeded in reaching an agreement in the Committee on Civil Affairs regarding strengthening the conditions for fair division of property in the event of divorce or separation and countering the fact that divisions of property are prolonged and dragged out.

In that context, we shall make a decision that the government shall, among other things, review the possibility of introducing a reasonable time limit for when a division of property proceedings shall be completed. It is an important feminist issue, because when the district court appoints a property divider when the couple cannot reach an agreement, the legal process today can drag on because there are no time limits on how long it may take. The person who does not want to cooperate in a division of property can therefore delay the process.

Unlike in an ordinary dispute in court, the parties must also pay for the division administrator themselves, which can become very expensive. The person who has a poorer economy risks losing assets that they are entitled to because they cannot afford to initiate a division process.

The same applies if the division of property drags on and for that reason becomes very expensive due to the cost of the division officer's many working hours. Delaying the division process can therefore be part of the post-violence that women are subjected to by a former partner after the relationship has ended, where the purpose is to make life as difficult as possible for the woman.

Vänsterpartiet argues that today's rules for division of property take into account or protect the weaker party, often the woman, to an all too small extent. Today's rules for division of property therefore need to be reviewed, and it will become an opportunity. It is an important step in the right direction to tackle economic violence.

Mr. Speaker! I would have very much liked to stand here and highlight more positions that we agree on in our committee, but unfortunately, we do not agree on another feminist issue, to remove the requirement for a reflection period in the case of divorce, or to ensure that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is complied with in disputes regarding custody, residence, and access, to introduce a legal representative for children, that the judges who rule in cases concerning custody, residence, and access shall have acquired special competence in children's matters, or that it shall become obligatory for courts to establish special children's protocols in cases concerning custody, residence, and access.

In light of the "Lex Tintin" movement, we in the Vänsterpartiet were particularly prepared for the fact that a review of how the custody rules are applied in practice could finally be made, and above all, that no child should have to have contact with a violent parent.

Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer recently spoke in an interpellation response regarding the report *Tryggare hem för barn* (Safer homes for children). In it, several proposals and assessments are presented on the issue of whether constitutional amendments are required to strengthen the protection of the child when a question arises regarding visitation with a parent who has committed violence or committed a serious violation. The proposals also have implications for issues regarding custody and residence.

The report is currently undergoing the referral process, and the referral period expires on May 8 this year. The Minister for Justice said that the commission's proposal is a significant part of the government's work and that it will be central to the continued work to take part of the referral bodies' views. If it should turn out, said the Minister for Justice, that the commission's proposal is not sufficient, the government is prepared to consider further measures.

Of course I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the government is awaiting the referral responses from legitimate referral bodies in order to be able to make well-founded decisions on whether clarifications are needed in the legal text regarding situations where the violence and the violations that a parent has committed mean that the starting point should be that no visitation shall take place, even though it is clear, at least for the Left Party, that the custody rules must be changed when a father can murder a mother in front of his children and still retain custody, according to reports in Dagens Nyheter today.

However, the government can make decisions in other equally important parts of family law, as the Minister for Justice stated in the same interpellation response regarding a strengthened child rights perspective in legislation.

He pointed out that it is a self-evident matter for this government that children shall be protected against violence and other abusive treatment and that every child shall be given the opportunity to participate in matters concerning him or her.

The Minister for Justice requested that he wants to commit to contributing to ensuring that training is carried out to a greater extent and with higher quality than today. This concerns training to increase the knowledge of courts and also others, such as social services, which in a concrete way shall take into account the child's interests. According to the Minister for Justice, it is completely inevitable that those who ultimately judge and decide these issues have proper knowledge of the cases they are to take a stand on.

Here, we in the committee could have reached a consensus to realize this by introducing a legal assistant for children and by ensuring that the judges who rule in cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation have acquired special competence in children's matters. This would have been enormous steps, Mr. Speaker, if we look at all the facts behind the disputes over custody, residence, and visitation.

The national organization for women's shelters and girls' shelters in Sweden has released a report where they, among other things, state that in the custody judgments they have reviewed, the courts generally tend to ignore the violence that the father subjected the child or the mother to. They do not make their own analysis of what is in the child's best interest, but instead stick to the principle that children need both of their parents.

Nine out of ten children who have contact with their or a relative's perpetrator experience anxiety, fear, sadness, and frustration over the contact, shows Unizon's report Contact - for the child's best?

This, Mr. Speaker, underlines the need to let children's conditions and the best interests of the child come first. Children shall have the same human value as adults with their own rights and be granted influence. In that case, it is important that children are met competently and, based on age and maturity, are given the opportunity to have their say in the processes that concern them.

But it is also important that the judges who rule in family law cases have a special competence regarding children. By this, knowledge is meant regarding, among other things, children's development and children's reactions to violence and abuse that have occurred within the family. This should be a minimum requirement to be allowed to rule in cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation because these disputes are often very complex. A requirement for such a special competence regarding children for judges would, in the opinion of the Left Party, lead to more uniform interpretations of the principle of the best interests of the child. A lack of competence in courts in matters concerning children's development can, in fact, have devastating consequences for the children who are the subject of the parents' dispute over custody, residence, or visitation. It can be a matter of life or death.

Therefore, it is important that the government takes necessary initiatives to ensure that judges who handle matters concerning custody have sufficient knowledge and competence so that the children's rights perspective is fully realized in practice. This cannot be emphasized enough.

Finally: Unfortunately, this government did not take the chance. It is a great disappointment, in light of lex Tintin, and I fear that children in the future will be sentenced to forced contact with a violent parent and that the state does not take its responsibility to take all appropriate measures to protect the child against all forms of physical or mental violence, harm, or abuse that can result in the worst imaginable scenario. A passivity in implementing legal changes in the custody rules here and now is, in my opinion, an acceptance that children today are exposed to violence and violations by a violent parent. I hold Ulf Kristersson's government responsible for this.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is my second term, and I have discussed family law quite many times before, and the reports are growing in scope every year. I see it as a good sign that more and more of us are noticing the need to change very much legislation within family law. I hope, as I have touched upon previously, that the interest in continuing to work with the issues persists, so that it is not just right now and that the interest then declines because other issues take over.

The current government has a great responsibility to address these issues. And since I have agreed with many of the parties in the government earlier during the previous mandate period, I expect that there will be many different proposals during this mandate period.

My starting point in family law is always about the best interests of the child. It is about the children's right to their parents, regardless of whether we are talking about the child's biological parents, the child's legal parents, or the child's social parents.

We have, as said, legislation based on the fact that it is a man and a woman who are married and have children. Everything else is something else. All the legislation we have creates very many exceptions. We have changed a little bit recently. There is a large patchwork. We have now approved that two women who have entered into a partnership automatically become, just like a man and a woman who are married, guardians and parents of the child in connection with its birth.

But if one is a cohabitant or a separate-living partner, the same does not apply. This actually means in practice that if something happens to the woman during childbirth and she dies, and the parents are not married or have not entered into a registered partnership, this child actually has no guardians. In Sweden, we do not allow one to confirm parenthood before the child's birth, and joint custody is not granted automatically either. The person giving birth must check a box that it shall be joint custody, but this occurs after the child has been born.

This does not give the child a right to its parents, and both parents are not valued equally in Swedish legislation. I think that is a problem. It sets norms in society regarding how we view mothers and fathers in the family. This affects the equality debate. In the legislation, it appears that a woman has a greater value as a parent than a man. That is a problem. It is actually the case today that there are fathers who do not get the opportunity to be fathers, that is to say that children do not get the opportunity to have access to their father even if he is a sufficiently good parent. If something happens in the relationship between a man and a woman during the pregnancy, she can choose not to check that it shall be joint custody. It does not have to be about a violent relationship, but it can be about completely other things.

JK has quite recently tested this and says that it is not a problem because Swedish law says that it is like this. If one has not fought in court for custody of one's child, JK cannot do anything.

Mr. Speaker! There are, of course, also other problem areas that the Center Party highlights in our 13 reservations in this report.

Now I have pleaded for parents who are good enough parents. And there, of course, both parents shall have custody and take joint responsibility for their child.

But when parents are not good enough, society must intervene early and ensure that support and advice are provided to these families. That requires many different things. It requires competence enhancement within social services. It requires competence enhancement within the justice system. We need to get more research, and we need more follow-up research regarding whether the things we do within family law and social services yield results and that we have good methods when we assess risk and protection for these children.

Then there is actually also another problem in this regard. When it comes to the Act on Care of Young People, which is not handled by the Committee on Civil Affairs, one can make a decision on how to assess the parents' adequacy and then make another decision regarding custody, residence, and visitation. And they can contradict each other. In one case, you do not get custody, but the child is not taken into care. Or the child is taken into care, but the custody remains. We need to ensure that we achieve a holistic view in these issues; we cannot continue to work in silos.

When it comes to this matter of a parent committing the horrific crime of killing the other parent, it simply cannot be reasonable that this person is allowed to retain custody of the child. But that is how it looks today. It is in Dagens Nyheter today regarding a case – there are more, but that is what is current today – where the other parent had been murdered and it took over four years before the parent was deprived of custody of their children. Here, custody should automatically be lost.

There is a reservation that has number 28 and which it is possible to vote on next week. According to it, we demand that the government does exactly this. There are eight parties here, and all of them safeguard the best interests of the children. Why can we not agree on this reservation, so that we actually get an announcement to the government that it should return on this issue?

We have, however, heard earlier this evening from our Moderate colleague that an announcement is unnecessary because it takes so long. If the government is holding onto this issue, I therefore expect that this autumn there will be a government bill which, among other things, contains that custody is automatically lost for the parent who murders the other parent. This simply must not happen again.

It has been very exciting to listen to today's debate and the contributions in it. Everyone is very much in agreement that the child's best interests shall prevail. No child shall be forced to spend time with a parent that the child does not want to spend time with, and no children shall be exposed to violence and threats. No children shall also become witnesses to it. I have previously heard even the Prime Minister raise these issues and how important they are.

Therefore, I ask: Is it not time that we actually unite on these issues? Is it not time that we dare to see the question much more broadly than we do today? Today, we handle these issues in silos, committee by committee, instead of seeing that this needs to permeate everything. Children's rights are extremely important.

We handle the legislation in the Committee on Civil Affairs – we have looked into legislation from 1949 and other legislation that is ancient – but it doesn't really fit. We are focusing on gang crime and on reactive measures once the crimes have already been committed. However, we have forgotten the fundamental: How do we view the family moving forward? How can we work with the best interests of the children so that we get safe children and young people, which in turn gives safe young adults?

Now I shall ask the Speaker for an apology, as I have already exceeded my speaking time but will speak for a little while longer. I do so for the reason that I waited until the end of my speech to speak about the division of property.

I do not intend to describe all the problems surrounding division of property and what could be done, for the previous speaker has done that with distinction. But what I want to say is that today I am so happy and incredibly proud, because finally everyone is talking about this issue. During the previous parliamentary term, it is probably quite easy to count how many times someone other than I raised the issue of division of property in this chamber. It was not many times.

I am, therefore, super happy that the work which the Center Party started during the last parliamentary term, and which very many people outside this chamber have pushed forward by contacting me and other members, has now actually made a difference in Sweden's Riksdag. It is possible to make a difference if we work persistently.

I said initially that I am proceeding from the best interests of the children, and that is precisely what this is about when it comes to the division of property as well. There are, in fact, many children out there who cannot start a new home with both their parents after a divorce. It is not okay for children to be moved around on sofas with one parent because the other parent does not participate in the division of property. It is a shame for Sweden that this is happening in 2023.

Gunnar Strömmer has been mentioned a number of times here today, as our Minister of Justice who has promised a meeting in early May. Yesterday afternoon, the invitation arrived. I have been waiting for it since I actually forced him to invite us to this meeting before Christmas. I do not believe the meeting would have happened if I had not done so. He had no choice, however, and now the meeting is going to take place. Now I hope that he sticks to his promise to actually raise the issue and ensure that we can rectify this.

This is not the only issue that needs to be changed within family law, and I will likely return with more interpellations and see if one can move Gunnar Strömmer on more issues.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am replacing Katarina Luhr in today's debate.

During the period of the Green Party's time in government, two inquiries were commissioned that I believe can be of great importance in the work to ensure that all children have a right to their parents, regardless of what their families look like and regardless of how the children came to be. The inquiries have several proposals aimed at ensuring that all families are treated equally. It is of the utmost importance that proposals from these inquiries are addressed and moved forward as soon as possible. I want to highlight some of them.

It is primarily about SOU 2022:38, which has been mentioned earlier in the debate. It is titled All types of parenting - a strengthened protection for children's family life, and the subtitle well captures the type of proposal the investigation puts forward. We want to particularly emphasize the importance of making the Parentage Code gender-neutral in order to avoid the various special regulations that exist today and which have made the legislation difficult to oversee.

One proposal is to introduce what the investigation calls parental proxy, which will facilitate matters for families where someone other than the legal parents takes on extensive parental responsibility. There are many such families in Sweden today. Miljöpartiet welcomes this proposal, and in the next step, we also want to review the possibility of having more than two guardians.

Another proposal from the investigation that the Green Party particularly welcomes is expanded opportunities for adoption. The investigation proposes that former foster parents and persons who have previously been married or cohabiting should have the opportunity to adopt children jointly even after a separation. This is very positive from a child's perspective because it makes it possible for the child's best interests to be taken into account in the individual case.

Miljöpartiet wants, in the long run, to completely abolish the requirement that adults must have a certain form of relationship status in order to be able to have a parental relationship to a child. The relationship to the child has nothing to do with the adults' mutual relationship.

Another proposal from the same investigation that we want to draw attention to is the proposal to limit the possibilities for the revocation of parenthood. The investigation proposes that an action must be initiated before the child has turned three years old for a parenthood to be able to be revoked. It is a reasonable limitation from a child's perspective as it concerns protecting the child from an existing family life being broken up.

The investigation has been out for consultation, and the responses from the consulting bodies have been received. Now it is time to get down to business and present these proposals.

Madam Speaker! In another investigation, New rules on foreign parenthood and adoption in certain cases, proposals were given, among others, regarding parenthood after surrogacy arrangements abroad. We are aware that surrogacy is an issue that divides the Swedish Riksdag and that there are many different opinions even in the general debate. These proposals, however, focus on the child's situation.

It is important that the government takes the proposals further. The investigation was submitted a couple of years ago, and parts of it have already been taken further by the previous government. However, there are still parts that have not been taken further. Swedish legislation needs to be adapted so that children in Sweden who have come into existence following a surrogacy arrangement abroad can be granted legal representatives when required to ensure the child's right to private and family life and the best interests of the child.

The proposals submitted by the investigation do not allow for circumventions of Swedish legislation or an increased scope of surrogate arrangements abroad. The investigation's proposals mean that legal recognition in Sweden should occur within the framework of the existing adoption legislation and that certain provisions on adoption shall not apply in exceptional cases.

The investigation's proposal in this matter was largely based on two rulings in the Supreme Court which stated that it was necessary to recognize a foreign judgment on motherhood despite a lack of legal basis in Sweden for it, because there was no other way to satisfy the child's right to private and family life and the child's best interests.

The court stated in this context that the negative attitude towards surrogacy in Sweden cannot, in an individual case, outweigh the principle of the best interests of the child and the child's right to privacy. Miljöpartiet agrees with that analysis. The child has no possibility whatsoever to influence how it came to be.

In the discussion and debate we have had today, it has been clear that there are very many who are passionate about the same issues, namely for the children's best interests. Many have highlighted different aspects of what is sometimes lumped together and called lex Tintin.

A few months ago, I had an interpellation debate with the Minister for Justice on this theme and looked, among other things, at the investigation that the Green Party was involved in appointing when the Green Party sat in government with the Social Democrats, which resulted in the report Safer homes for children. We noted then that this investigation did not go as far as, among others, the women's movement and the children's rights organizations had desired, including when it concerns that it cannot be a question of visitation or custody when one has subjected the child or the other parent to violence, which has been raised several times today. This is something that we hope will be taken further as soon as possible.

There are many reservations in this report. Now I have sat here during the entire debate and wondered which one I should vote for. There are several who have voted for reservations that concern exactly the "lex Tintin", so I choose instead to vote for reservation 19, which concerns adoption from a child's perspective.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! I had absolutely not planned to reply to Member Westerlund, but I forgot to move for the approval of a reservation when I gave my speech because I became so engaged. I would therefore like to say that Centerpartiet moves for the approval of reservation 28.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the member for raising a subject where we have a common reservation, which concerns host motherhood, or surrogacy. This is an important issue. This needs to be regulated so that it works well - for the best interests of the children.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It never hurts to have exchanges of courtesy in the chamber here at the end of the day!

It is sometimes frustrating to participate in discussions when we see that we are extremely close to each other in different reservations but still have not managed to reach an agreement. This applies to several of the reservations that I have seen in this report and which I have been part of while I have since last night tried to prepare myself for this debate.

I hope that this means it will be easy to reach an agreement and move forward with issues concerning, for example, the best interests of the child when it comes to custody, visitation, or other family law matters. One must take the child's perspective into account even when it concerns phenomena that one might not appreciate, such as surrogacy. The time has come to review the Children and Parents Code in its entirety, in accordance with the proposal from the inquiry that I just mentioned.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! I agree with what Member Westerlund said about sitting and listening to this. There is a great deal being said and important matters are being highlighted. These are changes that are necessary so that children - especially children exposed to violence - shall receive the help and the support that they have a right to and need. This also applies to women exposed to violence.

I always used to say that I am new to politics, but I can no longer say that - I have, after all, sat for a full parliamentary term. Something I have seen is that we are quite good at trying to find conflicts even when there are no conflicts.

Today, there is nevertheless a consensus that we cannot have such an order. Right now, there are amounts of children who are at home or on their way home with a huge lump in their stomachs. They feel anxiety and fear. They may feel anxiety about a visit during the weekend. This is something that none of us can defend ourselves against.

When people talk about politics, it often happens that one talks about how this government is responsible for something, that something should be addressed immediately, or that the previous government did nothing. If we are to be truly honest with each other, however, no party has done enough when it comes to children exposed to violence. No party has either done enough when it comes to women exposed to violence.

I once listened to a researcher; it was when I had my previous job. I sat and talked with her and asked what it is that makes neither politicians nor authority figures do what they know they should do when it comes to vulnerable children. Then she said that adults' fear and discomfort of questioning other adults many times weighs much more heavily than children's right to support and protection.

I imagine that this has in some way lain like a gray wool blanket over what should have been obvious to all of us. Research shows that children who grow up with violence will be affected in both the short and long term.

When it comes to children being forced into contact – we have touched upon the fact that children are the only crime victims who are forced into contact with their perpetrator – we can state that this is not news. If one looks at Aftonbladet's review of children who have experienced perhaps the most traumatic thing in their lives, namely that their mother was killed by the father and that the father is convicted of murder, one sees that it concerns hundreds of children during the 2000s. There is reporting, so we cannot blame that we have not had facts in the case or that we have not been able to take part in the children's stories or in analyses surrounding where psychologists and child rights experts have commented on what these children are in need of.

When I had entered the Riksdag and for the first time was involved in and got a motion passed, I became so happy. I went to Peppes and sat there and thought: "Wonderful - now it's going to be like this!" Then I realized that a motion largely means nothing. It is a statement against the government. It is placed on a pile, and in the best case, something is done about it.

For me, therefore, the most important thing during the last parliamentary term was to try to influence responsible ministers to conduct a dialogue and to try to demonstrate what children are in need of - most especially the most vulnerable children.

In the same way, I do not believe right now that it makes much of a difference which reservations we follow up on if we do not succeed in getting the government to actually do these things. During the last parliamentary term, I sat in several committees concerning children's rights issues, and I must say that the Social Affairs Committee, with a committee initiative, succeeded in coming a long way in terms of strengthening the best interests of the child. I believe that it is possible to do things. It is above all necessary to do things.

In Aftonbladet's investigation, Jonathan, 11 years old, whose father killed his mother, participates. He says: I just want to go back in life and fix it so that it never happened. I am still very angry and will never forget my mother or what my father has done to my mother. I pray for her every day. Imagine if there had been a staircase up to heaven and I could have met her.

This is incredibly painful, and there are countless quotes where children in a simple way describe why we politicians have failed them. All of us politicians and all parties have failed these children.

I believe, as I said initially, that it is about the fact that there is an extreme fear of challenging the absurdly strong parental rights that exist today. If we do not dare to do so, it doesn't matter much either. In Aftonbladet's review of children whose mothers had been killed by the father, it turned out that a third of these children were forced into contact with the father who was convicted of murder, but two-thirds did not have contact. It is still the case that there is a culture and a legal insecurity for children.

Of course, we must plug the gaps that exist in the legislation, but above all, we must start talking about how we strengthen the children's rights perspective and how we become braver so that we dare to challenge parental rights. For my part, this is obvious.

Just as naturally as I fought with the previous government, I intend to fight with this government so that children are not forced into contact with a violent father and so that children do not have to have that lump in their stomach. A father who has been convicted of murdering the child's mother has forfeited his right to be a parent and has made a choice that has left the child in total powerlessness. If we cannot even agree that that parent has totally abused the most beautiful thing there is—having a child—then I do not know what we stand for. It is about something much greater than one reservation or the other. We must take a collective decisive action.

Family Law

Madam Speaker! I thought I would conclude by saying something about cousin marriage. It is also an issue that the Liberals struggled with during the previous parliamentary term, and I am glad that we now dare to review whether it can be prohibited. I have met so many girls and boys who live in total lack of freedom and powerlessness and who have had no other option than to say yes to the marriage the family has decided on. It is also about all the difficulties that exist when it comes to ending a marriage. We have been poor at seeing the connection that exists between cousin marriage and the culture of honor.

There are those who argue that it is a freedom and that no one should rule over whom one should marry. In that case, it is interesting to see in the statistics how extremely few people who of their own free will want to marry their cousin and how many unfree young people are forced into marriages. I will always stand on the side of the unfree, and I am convinced that we can do better for the children. Until now, we have failed them.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 April.)

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