Family Law

Jennie Wernäng (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the Committee on Civil Affairs' report CU7, Family Law. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposed decision.

I was given responsibility for these issues this year, and I am very proud of this. Children are very vulnerable in our world, and we must work together to ensure that children and young people are given a safe upbringing environment. Unfortunately, we know what can happen when children do not receive the environment they deserve. It can result in both crime and – a terrible thought – that life ends prematurely.

When I have delved a bit deeper into family law, I have been struck by how enormous the area is. Many of the issues span several departments. That makes the weight of the issues enormous.

Pleasantly enough, I have been able to read that we all want to go in the same direction. We only see different paths to where we want to go, and there everything is in order. All these subjects are connected. Family law spans all stages of life, from birth – even before birth, considering what is discussed in motions and announcements – up to the very last, inheritance law.

Mr. Speaker! On the subject of cousins, we are taking action regarding cousin marriage. The proposal is to ban them. For Sweden's part, it is about that we have seen an increase in honor-related violence. All too many in Sweden today have their living space and their freedom restricted. We can, of course, not tolerate that in the free Sweden, which we are constantly eager to protect. The proposal is suggested to enter into force in July next year.

In this area, we also improve the protection for women and children who risk being subjected to violence and other violations. The proposal is that restraining orders shall be able to be extended so that they apply in larger areas or, in some cases, in an entire municipality. One shall also, in more cases, be able to be sentenced to an ankle bracelet. This is one of several steps so that women exposed to violence shall be given a freer life. The legislative change is proposed to enter into force in July this year.

Mr. Speaker! When we in this committee talk about the best interests of the child, it sounds like a simple thing to agree on, but it is not. What constitutes the best interests of the child varies depending on the child's circumstances, its background, and sometimes on contingencies. One must start from each individual to ensure that the situation becomes what is best for that specific child. The parent's right to their children must be subordinated to the child's right to their parent, if it is for the child's best interests. This proposal, my friends, entered into force in January this year.

It will be very interesting to follow this to see that the development for these children becomes good and that the result for the children's best becomes as we have all wished.

Another assignment is underway, and it concerns knowledge-enhancing measures within the social committees' areas of custody, residence, and access. It is important that the children's rights perspective and the best interests of the child always prevail in every individual case. The Government therefore considers that there is a need for long-term knowledge-enhancing measures in the family law area in matters and cases concerning custody, residence, and access. The Government intends to allocate funds for the implementation of the assignment during 2025, 2026, and 2027, provided that the Riksdag approves the relevant appropriations.

Family law is a large area that touches on everything from a new Social Services Act, with early interventions for children and young people, to the homes, where unfortunately violence and threats exist. The Social Services Act shall protect the persons who need protection. Furthermore, the Convention on the Rights of the Child shall be woven into it to include children's right to express themselves and to have a place. Even the parents' obligation to provide children with a safe upbringing environment must be highlighted.

Furthermore, the EU Commission is working to achieve broad anchoring within the EU for children's right to exist but also for the right to love whoever one wants.

I want to emphasize with this that the area of family law is broad. It is we here who ensure that the legal system has as good a basis as it needs. We must help each other to create the best conditions we can for those we are here for. They are the most vulnerable in society, and they rely on the system functioning. It is we here who must ensure that is the case.

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) concurred.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for her speech and welcome her to one of the Riksdag's most exciting and important areas. I often say that we talk far too little about these issues, even though they are incredibly important. The best interests of the child are what we must keep in mind. I am very pleased that things are happening in this area. The Center Party has for many years pushed forward on issues such as these, including for knowledge-enhancing measures.

Even though the member is new to the area, I intended to bring up a subject that we had up for discussion during the previous parliamentary term. We sat together in opposition then and dealt with a report on regulating internationally established parenthood when it concerned same-sex marriages.

In the investigation that formed the basis for the report, there were also proposals on how we could regulate parenthood that has arisen via surrogacy in another country. The previous government, which was led by the Socialdemokraterna, chose not to include this proposal, and the Moderaterna, Centerpartiet, Liberalerna, and Miljöpartiet then decided to write a separate statement. We highlighted how important it is to take these issues further. Children born via surrogacy in another country must still have access to their parents, that is, those who are to be parents in Sweden.

Will the Moderates, who now lead part of the government's work, take the issues further so that the proposal that all children are ensured the right to their parents, regardless of how the child came to be, is raised?

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

Jennie Wernäng (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

In order to prevent problems arising when different countries have different rules, the EU Commission has submitted a proposal for a new regulation that shall apply to all children in the EU, regardless of how they came to be, in order to strengthen children's rights. That is the answer I have to the question, and that is how we view the matter.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it is not easy to jump straight into this large and broad area. However, there are children who come into being through surrogacy in countries outside the EU, and they are therefore not included in this. As far as I know, Sweden does not yet approve of parenthood where children, for example, have come into being through surrogacy. If I am wrong in the question, someone may correct me.

I really hope that the Moderaterna keep their word and continue to push these issues, and I also hope that the Moderaterna continue to work on other issues that are important for children. This includes, for example, that children should automatically be granted two guardians when they are born, regardless of whether the parents are married or not. That is not the case today. Children can have more than two guardians when they are born, due to a different family constellation. They do not have this right today either.

Having access to the right parents early in life is important for children. My hope is that the Moderaterna take action on these issues. They have not shown it so far, but I hope they do because it is important. If we talk about the child's best interests, we know it can be seen from many different perspectives. In that case, it is a matter of having the right parents at the right time.

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

Jennie Wernäng (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is very legal. What is in the best interest of the child varies depending on what the member says. From a legal perspective, co-parenting is the connection made in the law, even if it is only good for children to have as many adults around them as possible. The most important thing is that children must always have the right to their origin.

We simply have to work on the questions.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to warn that I may exceed my reported speaking time somewhat. You will be told the reason for that.

Today, my colleague Laila Naraghi would actually have participated in the debate on this important issue, but right now she is at home to take care of her sick child. It is a self-evident matter for us to be available for our children when they need us most.

But, Mr. Speaker, we know that unfortunately this is not a given in all families. There are parents who see their children as their property and believe they have the right to control, abuse, and in the worst cases, kill their own children. This is what this committee report is about: to put a stop to parents who are perpetrators and to protect children from honor-related violence and oppression.

With this said, I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 26. After that, I will continue the speech that Laila has prepared so well and which I was given to deliver. We stand behind all our motions, of course, but we are therefore moving for approval only of reservation 26.

We Social Democrats, Mr. Speaker, remember Fadime from her time in SSU Jämtland, where she was active. She was brave and strong – a true role model. We remember the news that she was murdered by her father because she wanted to live her life in freedom, in peace from her father's and family's oppression. She refused to be silenced – therefore she was killed. But her message spread – about parents who hunt their children to murder them and parents who abuse children and subject them to atrocities in what is claimed to be the name of honor, of the father, the man, and the patriarchy.

Since then, quite a lot has happened, especially within the criminal law area, that is to say the Committee on Justice's area, but also within the Social Affairs Committee's and even the Education Committee's area.

We Social Democrats have taken the initiative to have honor oppression made into a specific crime and for other measures to strengthen the protection against honor-related crimes. When we were in government in 2020, a new crime was introduced, child marriage crime. At the same time, a new specific basis for increased penalties for crimes against honor violence was introduced. Travel bans have been introduced to protect children from being taken abroad to be forced into child marriages or female genital mutilation.

The work of the National Board of Health and Welfare and the Swedish National Agency for Education regarding the social services' and schools' interventions against honor-related oppression, in defense of children, has improved. Much remains to be done, but progress has been made in these areas.

Mr. Speaker! That cannot be said about the civil law area. It has not kept up and lags far behind, also when it comes to honor-related violence and oppression. Large parts of the code are written and proceed from the assumption that a human acts wrongly, commits crimes and makes mistakes and how this shall be handled. It is an important reason why we have the Penal Code, the Environmental Code and the Administrative Procedure Act – yes, a code of law in principle. People steal, destroy the environment, murder, rape, fiddle with money and so on.

Civil law, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, is written as if the sun always shines everywhere in Sweden, as if everyone is kind to one another and no one uses violence, as if all parents are peaceful and kind to their children and no one practices honor-based oppression, as if no men subject women to violence or honor-based oppression, as if all administrators and trustees always do right and never exploit their principal – the human being they are tasked to help – and as if the public sector never makes mistakes. Civil law is more or less blind to what the rest of the law book knows: that adults commit crimes against one another and against children, that men's violence against women is widespread and that children and people with disabilities are particularly vulnerable, as well as that honor-related violence and oppression affects many.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, civil law has long offered an arena for violent men to continue the violence against women and children. Through civil law, they have been given tools and rights to continue the harassment. The perpetrator has been able to use civil law to exercise power and control. The law has not only turned a blind eye to the violence but has also made it possible.

The restrictions in civil law have entailed limitations on Swedes' freedoms and rights. There are several examples.

Firstly, it is about children who have been harmed, assaulted, and murdered during forced meetings. We all know the case of Tintin, the boy in Luleå who was murdered by his father recently – one of several cases where society knew about the risks but still, with legal support, forced children into meetings where they were subjected to violence and even murdered.

Secondly, men's violence against women is allowed to continue. Society forces women to meet and cooperate with men who have beaten and raped them. Otherwise, the women risk losing custody of the children. There are difficulties with getting divorced. Women's organizations have alerted about how men use the law to pressure women during property divisions and force them back into violent relationships, all while society watches. The law has facilitated the violence.

For the third, the rights of people with disabilities are violated. Administrators can take control over individuals' lives in a completely appalling way without anyone intervening and reviewing the measures.

Mr. Speaker! It is not just about individual cases but about systemic errors in civil law. It is the law that is failing. We Social Democrats have seen and acted, and we appreciate the consensus that has existed between parliamentary parties regarding many of these issues. A clear example is the legislative change we made last year through the report Safer homes for children. Our government started the work, and this government finished it. We have appreciated the good contacts with, for example, the Minister for Justice.

Another example is our joint announcement regarding the time limit in property divisions. We perceive that there is a great consensus regarding these issues. We work together against violence, and that makes the legislative changes stronger and more stable. It is incredibly good that we have this consensus.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a great disappointment for us Social Democrats that other parties do not by law want to protect children from guardians who practice honor oppression. We Social Democrats propose initiatives so that parents who subject children to honor-related violence and oppression shall not have custody. If there is suspicion that a child will be subjected to honor-related abduction, this constitutes a signal that siblings are also exposed to honor-related violence and oppression.

Given the government's high tone regarding honor-related violence and oppression, it is remarkable that they say no to our proposal. Why does the government not want children to be protected from guardians who engage in honor-related violence and oppression? The government boasts about acting against honor-related violence but does not even want to do this. Why do you not see the impact of civil law on girls and women who are exposed to honor-related oppression?

Mr. Speaker! As I said: We remember Fadime for her fight for freedom. Her murder in 2002 became a wake-up call for Sweden's work against honor violence. Much has happened since then, especially within the criminal and administrative law areas. Now changes must also occur in civil law. We took the initiative, and the Löfven government took the initiative. We have agreed on this initiative across block boundaries. It has now become law through Safer Homes for Children. Now the next step must be taken.

Now it is the right that is in government. Now it is you who need to appoint the inquiry and produce proposals. No girl should have to have a guardian who exposes her to honor-related violence and oppression. Here we should also be able to agree. You are welcome to vote for our reservation number 26.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Becoming a parent is the best and the hardest thing one experiences in their life. One gets to experience perhaps the happiest moments in life but also the most difficult. The feelings one has for one's children are like nothing else, and one feels everything that the children feel. To witness one's child's progress is an indescribable happiness. To see one's child having a hard time for various reasons can be the hardest, and it is not always something one can do anything about. However, one is always a parent.

The home and the family should be the safe haven for every child. But what is actually the parents' task? I think it is to create a sense of security for the children, to be a guide forward in life and perhaps see to it that the child does not make the biggest mistakes that one oneself has made and to try to show them the right way.

All children have a right to safe parents. Parents and guardians are, for me, adults who safeguard the children's best interests throughout their lives. It is not optional. But unfortunately, it does not always look like that. That is why we in politics need to create frameworks, support, and boundaries for parenthood and also support the children who need it.

I can state that some of the motions we are dealing with today show what I said as early as 2021. In the 2021 debate on the bill Modern rules for confirmation of parenthood and paternity investigation are to achieve gender-neutral parenthood presumption, I said:

"A number of investigations are ongoing, and an investigation called 'A parental rights legislation for all' is to be completed on June 21, 2022. I believe that it will result in us making new decisions and perhaps even changing the decisions we make with this proposition today. In my opinion, it would have been better to wait so that a complete picture could be obtained and then make decisions on all changes in one decision. Now we are patching and repairing a legislation that otherwise must be modernized."

What we Christian Democrats saw then was that we should limit the possibility of revoking certain presumed parentage based on the children's situation, because the children must feel secure in which adults are the closest and that they are not interchangeable in any way. What we see now is a desire to review the law from several parties – it is addressed under point 9 in the report – from Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet. We need the 2022 investigation as a basis and change the legislation so that it is more coherent. It is good that we are several parties who think alike and can argue for the way forward.

A motion that the opposition stands behind collectively concerns a legal assistant for children in custody cases. It is an issue that we have discussed on a number of occasions in all parties. It is an issue that we Christian Democrats take most seriously, and the discussion will continue for a long time, I believe. The government will appoint an inquiry during the spring in which this issue may be a part. We hope that we can get an insight into both the advantages and disadvantages and also into how one can move forward.

The goal is clear: We want to strengthen the children in the situation at hand. I am convinced that all parties want the best for the children, that they should have a safer existence and feel secure throughout their entire upbringing. And if children happen to experience something, society must actually be able to protect, strengthen, and support them, even if it is against the parents.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the speech! We have many times agreed on many different issues when it comes to the best interests of the child within family law. I am pleased that the member says that we are currently patching and repairing legislation that is old. The basis of the law is, after all, that a man and a woman are married and have children together. That is what the Children and Parents Code is based on.

I have asked the government whether they do not want to review the law. I have received an answer that they are not quite there, but that they are working very hard to modernize the legislation. I therefore hope that Larry Söder gets a hearing with the government. I experience that he has not received it so far.

But let me come to the question of legal representation for children. It was quite a long way off for the government to still appoint that investigation, and it was not the Kristdemokraterna who were most opposed. I will give Larry Söder that. But before the debate we had in the autumn, a debate contribution was submitted with a promise to appoint this investigation during the spring. Now, the spring is not over yet. But the promise was also that there would be a dialogue with, among other things, all parties before the investigation.

My question to the member is: Will there be a dialogue? If the investigation is to be appointed during the spring, the dialogue should have started now, if it is to be a real dialogue.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! These questions are very central for many parties. I believe that we have a lot of heart in such questions. I believe that we can find common ground in many different ways in the Center Party and in the Christian Democrats.

When it comes to legal representation, we have the same starting point, that is to say, we think it would be good to strengthen the children's situation in the court proceedings. How it is then to be done can be a matter of discussion. What I think the government has done well in this is that a dialogue has actually been conducted. All parties have been invited to a dialogue on this. Whether such a dialogue will be held before the investigation is appointed, I do not dare to answer, but in the dialogue that was conducted, it was both political parties and non-governmental organizations that were involved and discussed how this can be done in the best way – whether it should take place through legal counsel or in some other way. Representatives for both the court sections and non-governmental organizations were present there. I actually think that this has been fulfilled.

Then, of course, one can improve and perhaps have more dialogue. The Government can respond to what you think there. The Government has received a basis to proceed with an investigation. Then, when the investigation is finished, there is an opportunity to have a renewed discussion about what the investigation says.

The investigation should be able to provide answers on what advantages and disadvantages there are to having a legal assistant and whether there are other ways to proceed. Then we can have a dialogue between the parties.

I believe that what is best for the children is actually to have a broad and wide consensus on this when we make the decision in the end. But I think the government has invited and that one is trying as best as possible to conduct a dialogue with all parties in the Riksdag.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also sincerely hope that we can reach a broad consensus and that at some point during the mandate period we can sit down and truly reflect on how we can achieve what is best for the child.

Last week, I took part in a debate on social services, where the Center Party presented a proposal for a children's rights committee to specifically have the child's perspective and move the issue forward together. It is a question that extends over several parliamentary terms and across several parties if we are truly to put the child's best interests at the center, regardless of what issues we are talking about. I also hope that we can reach a broad consensus.

I remember the meeting that Larry Söder refers to. I don't think perhaps that we have quite the same view of what a dialogue is, because I would probably argue that the meeting was more of a monologue from each respective representative – I presented mine, a representative from the Socialdemokraterna presented theirs, and a representative from the Advokatsamfundet was involved and so on – and the government's representatives in the form of the justitieministern and the socialtjänstministern received.

For me, a dialogue means that the government can, in hindsight, after having received the views, also provide feedback and report on what they have perceived and what they have decided on, and ask if they have understood correctly and if there is anything they have missed. Then we can get an investigation that answers the questions we jointly want answers to in order to achieve a broad consensus.

We have received an investigation on division processes, which previous members have touched upon. I am also very happy that it is finished. But even there, I would have wished for a different, clearer dialogue, so that we can be sure that we have really included all parts. There are certain things that we could have included in such an investigation to get the whole, so that we can avoid patching and repairing.

I believe, therefore, that the member and I need to calibrate ourselves regarding what we mean by a dialogue. I want to assert that it was a monologue that was held earlier – it was not the government that held the monologue, but it was we others who held a monologue that was directed at the government.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In my speech, I tried to explain that we have actually had quite a few discussions about exactly legal counsel – in different ways, not only at the meeting that the Center Party refers to but also in other ways. The Minister for Justice has been in the committee and discussed issues, and then this question has also been touched upon. I mean, therefore, that a dialogue has been had in different ways.

Since then, it is clear that one must obtain every organization's viewpoint and perspective on the issue, and that was done at that meeting. We probably do not have different pictures of how the meeting functioned, but I mean that as a whole, the government has engaged in a dialogue. One knows roughly where the different parties stand, and then one must find a way forward that is as broad as possible to include as much as possible. Martina Johansson knows just as well as I do that what is not included in the investigation can never be legislated. One must make the investigation as broad as possible to include as many aspects as possible so that one can then narrow down what one actually wants to move forward with.

I think the government has received a picture of what might be needed. Now it is a question of getting the directives to the investigation so that it can deliver as soon as possible. Martina Johansson and I agree that this needs to get some speed and power so that we can move forward with it as soon as possible.

Investigations take time, unfortunately. That is the problem. It concerns children, and they do not always have time. They grow up, and the years pass, so we need to do as much as possible together so that it goes as fast as possible and becomes as effective as possible.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating family law in the Committee on Civil Affairs here in the chamber of the Riksdag.

I will primarily focus on the legislation and the regulatory framework that determines who becomes a parent and who becomes a guardian when a child is born.

It is obvious to me that our legislation in this area is outdated. It is probably obvious to most that society has developed significantly since 1949, when the Parentage Act was written, but even though updates have occurred over the years, certain fundamental things remain.

The Children and Parents Code (Föräldrabalken) assumes that the parents are married, and in that case, it works well. It makes both the married parents both parents and joint legal guardians when a child is born.

These rules were written in a time when an overwhelming majority of births occurred within marriage. Even though the statistics are somewhat uncertain, they indicate that fewer than one in ten children were born out of wedlock at the end of the 1940s. That barely one in ten children born needed to be investigated a bit extra before paternity was established and potential joint custody could be granted was no major problem.

The Children and Parents Code is, however, not adapted to our society, where more than one in two children or around 60 percent are born into unclear, unmarried circumstances. In today's Sweden, this concerns over 60,000 children every year who are born outside of marriage.

The legislation needs to be adapted to how we actually live today, as the majority choose not to marry at the same time as children are more of a shared commitment today than when the legislation was first written.

The Sweden Democrats believe that it is high time to modernize our family law so that it truly takes the child's best interests into account, both in words and in actions.

Something that should be self-evident and which the Convention on the Rights of the Child also highlights is that children have a right to their parents. Our legislation needs to be changed so that it actually becomes so.

Today, children of unmarried parents are dependent on having parents who get along or having a father who is truly prepared to fight for his child so that the child's right to both parents becomes a reality.

Children have a right to both of their parents. It cannot be conditioned on one parent having to fight for the children's rights.

It is a fundamental truth that children fare best by having a close and meaningful relationship with both of their parents. Yet today we see that many fathers, even well-known fathers, are systematically excluded from their children's lives from birth solely due to the mother's unwillingness. This is not only unfair to the parents; it is directly harmful to the child.

In a modern legislation, we see that the investigation into who is the father is completed already before the child is born and preferably early, in connection with the pregnancy being confirmed.

In the vast majority of cases, no deeper investigation is needed, and just as one can confirm paternity digitally today after the child is born, one should be able to perform a confirmation before birth that also takes effect immediately.

Also, if there is uncertainty, paternity can in the vast majority of cases be determined early through a simple blood test from the expectant mother. Given all the other tests that are taken in connection with the pregnancy, there should be no problem in also performing the investigation of paternity.

What is primarily gained by investigating paternity early is that joint custody can then become the norm from day one. This would provide a long series of advantages. The child would receive their self-evident right to both parents. If the worst imaginable happens and the mother passes away in connection with the birth, there will be no question marks about who actually has custody, and if the father passes away before the child is born, it is still clear regarding both paternity and inheritance order.

I can only see advantages in joint custody becoming the standard already at the child's birth. If both parents are known and there are no heavily weighted reasons such as violence or abuse, joint custody can apply automatically. No parent then needs to fight in court to be a part of their child's life.

We see alarming cases where children lose contact with a parent, often the father, not because this parent would be unsuitable but solely due to the other parent's unfounded opposition. This is a societal problem that affects the children's mental health and damages family ties. Research clearly shows that children with two engaged parents fare better, perform better in school, and have fewer mental health problems.

Last week, I met yet another father who has been shut out from the first years of his child's upbringing. The mother had taken it upon herself to prevent the father from meeting their joint child and dragged out the process so that the parenting days were completely exhausted by the time a decision on joint custody for their child was eventually made.

This cannot be in accordance with the best interests of the child. It is time to put the child first – for real.

Mr. Speaker! It is not reasonable that in a modern society like Sweden, there is still legislation that makes it possible for one parent to exclude the other without a substantial basis. Let us create a family law that truly puts the child's best interests at the center – a law where both parents, if they are suitable, are given an equal role in the child's life from the beginning!

The Sweden Democrats' proposal for a childhood guarantee is based on putting the child's needs first and preventing child misery. Zero tolerance towards children suffering and a starting point in what is best for the child is the basis for our childhood guarantee, and this is a part of our childhood guarantee.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few more general words about the work on the legislation regarding family policy.

We have today a very active government that acts and has acted in a long series of the issues we usually discuss here. During previous mandate periods, it was the opposition that pushed the government forward with countless motions and demands for action. Now, after eight lost years, we see that things are actually happening that change things for real.

The proposal Safer home for children, which was decided at the end of November last year and came into effect on January 1, was a major step forward. It resolved most issues regarding violence and also the issue of a guardian who murders the other parent being stripped of custody.

This is completely in line with our childhood guarantee.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have investigated a ban on cousin marriage, and my hope is that a clear law will soon be in place that prohibits cousin marriage and prevents honor oppression.

Other parts where we largely agree with the government on measures are changes to the division of property procedure and the rules regarding legal guardians, trustees, and inheritance. All of this is in progress. During the spring, a broader investigation concerning legal representatives for children in custody disputes will also be appointed. Our starting point is that the child shall be strengthened throughout the process and not just in the courtroom.

I want to assert that we have the clearly most active government in the family area since I entered the Riksdag in 2014. Much has now improved in the everyday lives of ordinary people.

In conclusion, I would like to move for the approval of reservation 16. I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but in order to gain time in the chamber, I therefore move for the approval of only that one.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have a very short and simple question for Member Eskilandersson. The question is whether the Sweden Democrats now treat men's violence against women as the societal problem it is, or if the Sweden Democrats still consider it to be a practiced one-liner.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Märta Stenevi, for the question!

I have expressed that men's violence against women is unfortunately often a practiced one-liner. This applies especially when we, for example, debate Safer Homes for Children. Then we debate, above all, the violence that very small children are exposed to.

If you go in and look at how it looks in the statistics, you see that it is quite similar between men and women when it comes to who subjects small children to violence. The number of small children who are killed is very low, but the perpetrators are approximately half women and half men. It is even to the extent that women are slightly overrepresented when it comes to killing these small children and being convicted of murder of small children. For example, it was in the case of Lilla hjärtat – which was very moving – so that the mother was eventually actually convicted of having killed her own child.

One simplifies reality by merely saying that it is men's violence against women that must cease. I think that is directly incorrect. Then one has not understood the issue fundamentally. One has not understood what the problem is, especially not when we talk about the violence that these very small children are subjected to. That was exactly what we discussed in Tryggare hem för barn, that is, the small children in our society who are subjected to violence.

One must be able to look up and understand that there are other factors that can be much more important to look at than whether it is the mother or the father who subjects the child to violence – especially since there are approximately as many mothers as fathers who subject these small children to violence.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by reminding both the members, the House, and any potential listeners that Safer homes for children does not have any kind of age limit. Children are individuals under 18 years of age, and the legislation covers all of them.

I want to be sure that I understand the Sweden Democrats' position on this. The Sweden Democrats are saying, then, that it is not relevant to talk about men's violence against women in society. The perception is that this is a gender-neutral issue and that there is no reason to look at the gendered violence that affects women every day in society. This violence is to be dismissed as a rehearsed one-liner and not to be seen as an actual existential societal problem. Have I understood the Sweden Democrats' position correctly?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Märta Stenevi for the follow-up question. The answer to that will, of course, be no. As usual, when Miljöpartiet is to debate here in the chamber, one simplifies and distorts to one's own advantage. One wants to portray others as ignorant or as if they do not see the problems that exist in society in the right way.

The problem with violence in society is that all violence should cease – not just the violence that men subject women to. All forms of violence in relationships should be countered. It is the case that violence also occurs in homosexual relationships between women. That violence cannot be downplayed and seen as something that can be ignored because it is not men who are responsible for the violence. That is what the Miljöpartiet does in practice. They ignore all violence that women subject women to or that women subject children to. One cannot simply turn a blind eye to men's violence against women. Of course, men's violence against women must also cease, but it is part of a larger work.

Together with the government, we are now truly taking this seriously and tightening a long series of laws to address the violence in society. In that case, it is actually of no interest whether the person who committed the violence is a woman or a man. What is interesting is that the violence must cease, and it is my starting point that all violence must cease.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Mr. Speaker! What is a family? There are many answers to that question, but most would probably say that a family is a sense of belonging and a place where we feel safe, loved and supported. It is a place where we can grow, develop and be ourselves without feeling either fear or anxiety.

For many people, the family is probably just such a place. But for some – not infrequently women – the family and the home are not a safe point in life but a place characterized by violence and fear.

Men's violence against women is one of our time's greatest societal problems. It is not just about physical violence but also about psychological, economic, and sexual violence. Far too many women live today in an environment of constant fear, trapped in destructive relationships. They do not do it because they do not want to get out, but because they see no possibility of leaving.

From a political standpoint, it is our duty to do what we can to facilitate for these women to leave such relationships. Among other things, the mandatory reflection period in divorce needs to disappear. We must ensure that there are enough protected shelters for those in need and that the women's shelters have the resources they need.

Mr. Speaker! When talking about violence against women and about violence in close relationships, it is unfortunately not uncommon that children are also involved. Vänsterpartiet considers that today's rules regarding joint custody are deficient. There is an overriding risk that the parent who has been subjected to violence by the other parent, and because of this has difficulty cooperating regarding the child, will be disadvantaged.

The risk that the child or someone else in the family is subjected to abuse or that the child is unlawfully taken away, detained, or harmed must be the most important thing to consider when the child's best interests are assessed. A court should not be able to decide on joint custody against a parent's will in cases where one parent has subjected the other parent or the child to violence or abuse. For the same reason, we also do not believe that a court should be able to decide on joint custody when both parents oppose it.

Mr. Speaker! When we discuss family law, it is also important to remind that a family composition can look in many different ways. It can consist of one child and two fathers, one child and one father, two children and two mothers, or for that matter, one child and one mother and one father. It is therefore reasonable that we also have legislation that reflects this. Today's Parental Code is unfortunately a patchwork. The law must be both understandable and work for all families. Regardless of what sexual orientation and what legal or biological gender the person who gives birth to the child has, that person is still the child's parent. We therefore consider it high time that the Parental Code becomes gender-neutral – in line with what the investigation on a parental rights legislation for all proposed.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time when the rights of LGBTQ+ persons and rainbow families are under attack by authoritarian right-wing forces all around the world. We see it in Meloni's Italy, in Trump's USA, and recently in Viktor Orbán's Hungary, where they have just banned the annual pride parade. The ban is a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU must act immediately and freeze the economic support to Hungary. These laws are completely unacceptable.

All people must have the right to shape their own lives and to love and form a family with the person they want without being subjected to discrimination or reprisals. We therefore believe that the government should work to ensure that same-sex marriages and partnerships are recognized throughout the EU.

With this said, I move for approval of reservation 39.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Children have a right to their parents. It is a self-evident fact for the vast majority and in the vast majority of cases.

There are exceptions, such as when parents subject their children to some form of violence, physical or psychological, or for neglect. In those cases, it is important that we intervene early with measures for the family and the child. When that is not enough, we shall give the child the opportunity to grow up in another family.

The Children and Parents Code is however not always where we want it to be when it comes to the children's right to their parents. The legislation is based on the premise that it is a man and a woman who are married and have common children born within the marriage. Everything else is something else in the legislation because we have made additions to that basis for the legislation. It creates legal difficulties, and it creates a difference between children when it comes to what right they have to their parents.

Mr. Speaker! What difference is there from a child's perspective if the parents are married or not? For the child, it makes no difference, but for the guardianship, it does. This is something that Centerpartiet has pushed forward for a number of years, and I hope that the government will at some point dare to lift the stone and see how outdated this part of the Parental Code is.

If children have a right to their parents, it should automatically become a joint custody when paternity is established. This is important for Centerpartiet. It should also take place before the child is born, because the worst – that the mother dies during childbirth – can happen.

Mothers and fathers must be equally valued for the child. Otherwise, we continue to confirm the image that partially exists, that is, that women should take a greater responsibility for family, home, and children. This is confirmed indirectly in the legislation. I want to assert, therefore, that for the work on gender equality, there is an important symbolic value in changing this legislation and giving the father an equally great security that he is an important part of the child's life.

Mr. Speaker! Another important area, which I touched upon in my previous exchange, is children's rights. When parents separate, there are sometimes very protracted disputes regarding custody, residence, and visitation for the child. I said earlier that there are exceptions where it is not in the best interest of the child to have contact with both parents, but what happens in those instances is that the parents have their own counsel – but not the children, even though it is actually the children it is about.

As long as we have not gotten this question in place – and I will continue to raise it until I see that the government has commissioned the investigation – there is a risk that there will be more focus on the parents' needs than on the children's needs. There is a risk that no one really takes on the child's perspective in this discussion. There is a great risk that the children do not get to be heard without putting the children on the sidelines. There is also a great risk that in the risk assessments that are made, one does not take into account different types of violence that a child can be exposed to.

Mr. Speaker! This is one of the reasons why the Center Party has pursued the issue. We will continue to pursue it. In my exchange with the Kristdemokraterna member earlier, I had hoped that he would come up with something new, for that is something he has previously been good at before debates. I had therefore hoped that something new would be delivered today, but that was not the case. I must continue to wait.

I am changing the subject again, Mr. Speaker – as we have touched upon, family law is a broad area. We have the birth of a child, and we have the separation of parents. The third area I intended to enter into is future powers of attorney.

Future powers of attorney are a good tool that allow me, in my healthy life, to state who I want to take care of my affairs if I cannot do it myself, either because I suffer an accident or because of old age or dementia. It is an important reform, but it is starting to be time to evaluate it. Does it work as we intended? Has the law become what we wanted? I do not think we have really succeeded.

Problems arise with the formal part: How does it stand – how is the power of attorney formulated? There is also no tool to handle it digitally, so it ends up lying on the desk at home. It can get lost there, but it is also the case that the banks do not always approve this type of power of attorney. The will I have written down, my children or someone else close to me cannot therefore use because the bank does not approve the power of attorney. I hope that the government can get moving and begin an evaluation here.

As said: Family law contains many different areas. There are many areas left to discuss and many more areas to act on. From the Center Party's side, we would like to see changes regarding altruistic surrogacy, internationally confirmed parenthood, and the possibility of more than two guardians. And maintenance between spouses during the period of consideration – should one really have it?

There are some relatively low-hanging fruits that I think the government should be able to tackle if one is still a bit liberal, and that is to modernize the 1949 Act on Custody and look at, for example, automatic custody and the possibility of more than two guardians.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 44. I naturally also support the other reservations.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is much that I believe we and the Center Party have in common, and then there are other things we do not have in common.

The only thing I remember the Center Party acting on and actually helping to push through when they sat as a support party to the government is the strange addition made in family law regarding that the man who fathers a child shall be counted as the father and that the woman who contributes her sperm shall be counted as the mother. That is roughly what I remember we changed during those eight years – and that change mostly led to confusion, I want to remember, because then you had to change a lot of other rules because problems arose in the next step.

The reason I requested a reply was, however, the previous exchange, which concerned surrogate arrangements. I would like to ask the Center Party about their view on precisely surrogate arrangements and this fact that women in other countries are being exploited.

I want to remember that a few years ago I sat and went through what it costs to exploit a woman in another country. It was a bit before the Ukraine crisis, and then it cost approximately 50,000 to rent a womb in Ukraine. I want to remember that it cost 150,000 in India, but now India has banned international surrogacy arrangements. In the USA, one had to pay up to 500,000.

What does the Center Party, which has acted to make it possible to exploit people in other countries, think is a reasonable price to pay for a woman's body when renting it in another country?

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! There are some areas where the Sweden Democrats and the Centre Party agree. We can count parts of the family law among those.

I received a question about surrogacy. Here, one must have a holistic perspective. The Center Party wants us to have an altruistic surrogacy in Sweden. In practice, this means that a woman should be able to carry a child for another woman or for a brother, aunt, sister, or whatever it may be in Sweden, within Swedish healthcare and with Swedish morals and ethics. Above all, it should occur without compensation; this is the meaning of the altruistic. It is against this background that the Center Party drives these types of issues.

I have met very many parents and surrogate mothers who do this of their own free will, but because we do not allow it in Sweden, one is forced to travel to another country to do it. This can be compared to when single women were not allowed to use insemination of donated male gametes in Sweden. Then, Swedish women traveled to Denmark. After we allowed it in Sweden, the procedure was instead carried out in Sweden.

For me, it is fundamentally about that we should allow this help to become a parent in Sweden. As long as we do not do that, people will turn to someone else in another country.

The child who has come into existence through surrogacy in another country still has the right to safety, security, and the right guardian. It is, after all, the parents – the mothers and fathers – who live in Sweden that this is about. The child cannot be left without parents and guardians because Swedish law does not allow an intervention in Sweden.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that we have very different views on surrogacy arrangements. As I see it, it is very problematic to allow any form of this. Even if it were to occur altruistically, it opens the door for the normalization of the purchase of women across national borders. We must remember that about fifty women's organizations have requested an international ban on surrogacy arrangements at the UN. I assume that the Center Party thinks they are completely wrong in this. The Sweden Democrats would like to proceed with an international ban. The only right way to address this is an international ban that prevents it from happening.

There are problems with surrogacy arrangements, regardless of whether it is altruistic or if one receives money for it. Does one have the right to have an abortion if one were to regret it? What does the right to one's own body look like? What happens if one causes harm to the child? One suddenly gets a form of delivery responsibility, which becomes very strange when it concerns small children.

There are things one can do but perhaps does not have to do just because it is possible. It is also the case that nine months is a very long time. A lot can happen. What happens if the parents who are to receive the child die during that time? Then the woman is left there with a child whom she actually never asked to have but who she is in some way forced to take care of.

Swedish legislation is completely clear: All forms of surrogacy are prohibited. Furthermore, it is such that the person who gives birth to the child becomes the mother, which I think is worth protecting. If one wants to depart from this in some way, one can use the adoption tool. I think it is completely correct – we should not facilitate surrogacy arrangements internationally.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson for the discussion. It is a very difficult discussion. We can talk about black and white when it comes to most things, and it can become very black and white in this type of discussion.

I do not think it is okay to buy another person's body against the person's will, regardless of what one would pay for it in that case.

The Chairman asked what should apply if the person carrying the child no longer wants to carry the child, if the person wants to keep the child, or if the child is harmed. We need to let it be investigated how this should be done in a good way so that it will work in Sweden, with Swedish ethics and Swedish morals.

We must know that there are Swedish, heterosexual women who today travel to another country and receive help with insemination, carry the child in Sweden and in Swedish health and medical care, and then give birth to the child for their brother or sister or whatever it may be. Since it is always the birthing mother who becomes the mother in Sweden, it is the surrogate mother who becomes the mother, even though it is not she who is supposed to be the mother – it is the person she is carrying the child for who is supposed to be that. We can talk about adoption rules, about needing to renounce parenthood and so on. This is legally tricky, and it takes a long time before the child receives the correct parenthood.

For me, it is about a child who is born having a right to the parents that the child should have a right to. I want to see this in Swedish health and medical care so that we can also make this intervention so that more children are born in a country where today fewer than two children are born per woman. I want it to happen in a good, ethical and sustainable way.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will devote the greater part of this speech to the issue of children's safety from violence. It may not come as a major surprise or shock to anyone. Children's safety is and will always be my primary priority, whether it concerns their right to flee from war, their right to clean water and clean air, or their absolute right to be free from violence.

In this report on family law, the Civil Affairs Committee has addressed a long series of issues that affect us as citizens in life situations where we are vulnerable and left alone. One such example from the report concerns when we grow old and need to ensure that our wishes for the future are taken care of through a functioning system for future powers of attorney, which the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet demand in reservation 43. Another example concerns that our rights are protected and cared for if we need a legal guardian through a sufficient and legally secure system. This is a demand that the Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet raise in reservation 42.

In reservation 39, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet jointly acknowledge the need for a modernized parental code which, among other things, recognizes parents in same-sex marriages as parents through a linguistic expression that includes star families.

I also want to specifically mention reservation 14. Despite the fact that surrogacy is not permitted in Sweden, and despite my deep conviction that it should not be permitted anywhere, children are born as a result of the trade in women's bodies in other countries. These children have the same needs and rights as all other children in Sweden, but today they are essentially without legal protection. Children are children. They can neither be nor should be held responsible for how they came to be. They must be protected and cared for, even legally.

Mr. Speaker! There is, therefore, much in today's report that is close to my heart, but today I will move for approval only to reservation 24. Despite the debate and decisions of recent years, forced visitation continues.

Sofia is four years old. She lives with protected personal data after her mother was subjected to psychological, physical, and sexual violence by Sofia's father. They have moved away from the father and now live in another municipality. The older sister Frida has testified in court about the violence that the father has directed primarily towards the mother, but also towards her and her little sister. She has also told about how worried she is when her little sister is to meet the father alone. Care staff at the new place of residence have described how strongly this teenager is affected by the fear that the little sister will meet with an accident with her father.

But the father has not been convicted of the violence, and therefore the court has chosen not to take the information about the violence into account. Instead, it is judged that it is in the child's best interest that the four-year-old is allowed to meet the father alone.

The consequence for the mother is that, on one hand, she is ordered by the court to take the four-year-old daughter to the father at agreed times, a man who has physically, mentally, and sexually abused her, and leave the daughter alone with him. On the other hand, she is responsible as the sole guardian for the daughter's safety and for ensuring that the protected information is not disclosed. A woman who has fled from violence with her children is ordered by the justice system to, at the risk of the information being disclosed, hand over the child to the perpetrator for unsupervised visitation.

Mr. Speaker! It is only a few months since we stood here and debated the long-awaited legislation that was intended to prevent just this, namely the law we call lex Tintin. I stood in this speaker's chair and thanked the government for having finalized the legislation after the investigation. But I also objected to the fact that they had not moved forward with the possibility of giving children their own legal representatives in cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation.

Yesterday, SVT published a review of the judgments rendered in cases regarding visitation during the two months that have passed since the Tintin Act came into force, and a terrifying result is reported. In the 300 reviewed judgments, information regarding violence appeared in 49 of the cases, but in 21 of these 49 cases, visitation was still granted. In other words: In nearly half of the custody disputes where there was information regarding violence, the perpetrator still received the right to visitation with the children who were subjected to or witnessed violence. This applies to judgments that have been rendered after the new legislation came into force.

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that I wanted to shout out loud when I read through the judges' review, because I have sat with these mothers. I have listened to the mother who was forced by the court to drive 40 miles every other week to hand over her child to a man who had beaten her black and blue and subjected her older child to abuse. I have listened to the mother who described the process at the handover, how she traveled to a foreign city, met a social worker at different locations every time and handed over the child, who was then taken to the father for visitation. She went through this entire process so that the child's father would not happen to see her, follow her, and find out where she lived.

I have sat with desperate mothers who tell of the terror that a receipt might remain in a pocket, or a note from the school in the bag, or that a plastic bag with the neighborhood store's name should happen to be included in the package. I have listened to the mother who lost custody of her children because she chose to protect them from violence and instead lost them. I have sat with the mother who coldly stated that her life would not begin again until the children's father was dead, and I have sat with Tintin's mother and received the most painful of all stories: the one where all fears were realized and the child was killed, despite all warnings.

Now I read that this continues because the stories of women and children are still not taken seriously. This must come to an end, and now. The legislation is in place. Now it must also take effect in the courts. A justice system consists, ultimately, of people who are to interpret the legislation, and every single person in our justice system who works with women and children who have been subjected to violence must know what it is they are facing. They must understand what violence is and how men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence manifest, and they must start believing the children.

Mr. Speaker! The Convention on the Rights of the Child is law in Sweden, and children shall be rights-holders. Therefore, children must be granted their own legal representatives in disputes concerning custody, residence, and visitation. The representative shall not represent the opposing interests of the parents but shall protect the child's interests, take the child's best interests into account, and help the child to pursue their claim.

Family Law

I want to emphatically demand approval of reservation 24 because at least 21 judgments involving children being continued to be forced into visitation have already been issued since lex Tintin came into force. There is no time to lose. This chamber has the opportunity to give the children a voice and let them know that society stands on their side. We have the opportunity to stop forced visitation now instead of later, so let us take that opportunity.

I move for a second approval of reservation 24.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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