Family Law

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating my favorite subject, namely family policy.

I intend to begin this debate, which is held following a so-called motion report from the Committee on Civil Affairs, by trying to answer the question: What is the most important thing you have done so far in the family area? After that, I intend to describe what I and my party want to do moving forward in the area of family policy.

The mandate period and the Tidö agreement have been characterized by enormous needs in areas other than family policy, needs that the previous government left behind. I am referring to escalating crime, refugee chaos, and double-digit inflation. Despite this, we have not completely neglected family policy. I am the first to agree that more was needed, and I will return to that. Given the circumstances, however, we have done as much as investigation resources and staff have been able to manage.

What is then the most important thing we have done? The answer to that question always depends on who something is important to.

To young people in sheltered housing, I would say that the most important thing we have done is the new regulatory framework for the placement of children in sheltered housing, which was proposed in the bill Strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing.

A personal favorite, Mr. Speaker, is and remains Safer homes for children. It contained so many clear improvements and solved much of what we have pointed out for a long time. The proposal for safer homes was a clear improvement for children and truly reduces the risk of children being harmed.

Mr. Speaker! When my party had its large family conference, it was however not Safer homes for children that was most often mentioned as the big and important change in recent times. No, it was the new Social Services Act, which began to apply on July 1, 2025, that was the big one for our municipal representatives. It was that which had made a difference for our municipalities' work with children and families. Particularly positive was that the child perspective had been strengthened in a good way. It is easy to overlook this since the law is handled by a different committee than the Civil Affairs Committee.

However, there is much more that is important. Something that practically all parties in here have requested is finally being investigated in a good way, namely the question of a child's right to their own representative. From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we requested a broad investigation that will look at children's needs for support throughout the entire process, not just a lawyer in the courtroom. Therefore, I am very pleased with the appointment of the investigation "Barnets rätt att komma till tala i familjerättsliga frågor," which will submit its final report this summer.

Mr. Speaker! It is not only children who need help advocating for their cause. One can speak as long as one lives, but what happens then – when one no longer lives? How does one then defend their inheritance? After our death, a problem arises because there is no secure registry of wills where one can leave their will. No one knows for sure how common it is that wills disappear, but now the question of a registry of wills has finally been investigated and a proposal exists.

Since we are on the subject of inheritance, I also want to say that it is obvious to me that cousins should have inheritance rights if no closer relatives exist.

Mr. Speaker! The work to strengthen people who have difficulty advocating for themselves is something I want to safeguard extra much. It is therefore natural to mention the bill "A guardianship that can be trusted" as at least one of the most important legislative proposals during this parliamentary term. It strengthens those who have a legal guardian or a conservatorship in a very concrete and good way.

Others who need to be strengthened are those, mostly women, who want to divorce and who are stuck in a division of property that never seems to be completed. An investigation whose proposals will hopefully soon become law is the one on division of property and reflection period called Strengthened protection for those who want to separate.

It is completely unreasonable that people can be allowed to commit economic abuse against others by sabotaging division of property processes. What is happening is that someone who does not want to see their partner move on in life postpones the division of property so that it is not possible to settle accounts regarding assets and loans, and thus it becomes impossible for the former partner to move on. I hope that we can soon come to terms with this.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of oppression in our society. As if it were not enough with all the groups I have already listed, I will now conclude by speaking about the most important legislative change we have implemented in the field of family law.

The most important thing, I think, is to stop the violence and oppression that during my own school years was something exotic. One read that it occurred in other countries but not in Sweden. Then one read about forced marriages, about controlling dress, and about women being mutilated. All of this can today be studied in any area of exclusion in our country.

Stopping honor violence and honor-related oppression is the absolutely most important issue, as that type of violence and oppression must never gain a foothold in our country. Iran is a frightening example of how badly countries can develop over time. Therefore, the three parts regarding honor oppression are most important. I am thinking of the investigation Strengthened legislation against honor-related violence and oppression together with the previous legislative change for an expanded exit ban for children and the upcoming ban on cousin marriage. It is the most important thing we are doing in the field of family law. These three parts constitute a small part of the government's policy to prevent further radicalization and, in the long run, stop honor violence and honor-related oppression, but they are important pieces of the puzzle.

I have now highlighted the most important changes. There are many more, especially if one looks into practical and facilitating measures, for example, digital submission of estate inventories, but I also want to have time to mention something about what we want to do in the future. There are, in fact, several problems with how the regulatory framework surrounding families functions today, despite all the changes that have been made.

One such problem is how parenthood is established and who becomes the guardian. If one is married, there is a presumption of paternity that makes the child the parents' joint child, and thus the guardianship also becomes joint. Despite the fact that we and many others have pointed out the problem that arises when one is not married, no really good solution has still been introduced.

A reasonable arrangement would be that paternity is registered as early as possible. Paternity should, if possible, be established already during the first contact with the maternity clinic, and if it is uncertain, an investigation of the paternity should be initiated to ensure the child's right to both parents.

An investigation during the pregnancy would solve many of the problems that today all too often are allowed to arise. With two clearly defined parents from birth – even for children of unmarried parents – the risk of a later conflict would decrease. Joint custody would then apply, provided that there are no heavily weighted reasons for anything else, for example violence and harassment. This should obviously also apply when married parents have joint custody and the joint custody can be questioned.

Unfortunately, I far too often hear about parents who want to take responsibility for their children but are not allowed into the children's lives, and about parents who are forced to go to court to obtain custody or visitation rights with their own children, even though they in no way have been or are unsuitable as parents.

Approximately 65 percent of children in Sweden are born to an unmarried woman. In 2024, around 64,000 children were born without a presumption of paternity. Of these, 9,007 paternities became subject to the social services' intervention according to the Agency for Family Law and Parenthood Support. Over 55,000 were registered through the Swedish Tax Agency's service with digital BankID.

Imagine if we could move the investigation period to before the child is born! Despite everything, almost every tenth child who is born becomes the subject of an investigation by the social services, according to these figures. That children risk not having a good relationship with both of their parents is something that we should address immediately. It is not particularly difficult – in the extent that a medical assessment is needed, a simple blood test on the mother is sufficient to establish paternity. It works at least as long as it does not involve twins or triplets. Moving forward, I will work very hard to achieve a change so that both parents can become both parents and guardians in connection with the child's birth.

Mr. Speaker! I could mention a long line of other changes, for example those concerning the childhood guarantee and preventing parental alienation, but I would in that case exceed my speaking time much more than I already have. I apologize for exceeding the time.

It is said that it is difficult to learn something new by speaking, so I will now give floor to the next speaker in the debate. I look forward to listening to an interesting and educational debate.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson for the speech. It showed what commitment the Sverigedemokraterna have in this area.

My memory from the previous parliamentary term is that the tone in the debate was quite high and proud in this area. Now, Mikael Eskilandersson was in there investigating parenthood before the child's birth. On that, we are in complete agreement. We also had common reservations about this during the previous parliamentary term.

What surprises me, against the background of the pride that Eskilandersson displays here, is that in the next bill that we will handle in this area, the announcement that parenthood can be confirmed before the child's birth has been written off. Do the Sweden Democrats not influence the policy in this area? It does seem so when the member of parliament brings up other things that this government has done, and which we completely agree on, regarding for example protected housing and safer homes for children. However, it was not this government that commissioned these investigations, but that we must attribute to the previous government.

There is not much conflict here, but I miss what I perceive the Sweden Democrats have had a very high level of advocacy for. I am thinking partly of what I mentioned just now, namely investigating parenthood before the child's birth, and partly of joint custody from the very beginning for those who are to be parents. Even in this issue, I and the Sweden Democrats are in agreement. However, I miss the drive to prioritize this in this government. It is also a matter of equality.

Why this pride?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martina Johansson, for the question!

The Center Party and the Sweden Democrats have indeed agreed on much. I want to remember, for example, that the parties had a joint announcement regarding confirmation before birth. I have also noted that the Center Party has copied many of the proposals that our family conference has developed and laid the foundation for. We thank them for that – it is good to be able to influence each other and highlight such proposals. I look forward to the Center Party also copying the childhood guarantee, which we have put forward, and a bit more about parental alienation.

The reason why confirmation before birth has been waived is that it is already possible today to confirm parenthood before birth – practically, it is possible. From the Sweden Democrats' side, however, we want a different system. We want that one already at the midwife's goes in and finds out who is actually the father of the child and that everything is moved forward. Purely practically, the announcement is however fulfilled in that it has been made possible to confirm before birth. We can therefore not say that this is not completed. On the other hand, we want to go further than that.

As I mentioned in my speech, I will fight to ensure that this can be done going forward. We will try to bring this up in upcoming negotiations with the government.

What I think is a bit of a shame is that the Center Party has so clearly distanced itself from negotiating with the Sweden Democrats. We, after all, agree on very much, and I believe that the Center Party would have benefited from negotiating with the Sweden Democrats rather than sitting and negotiating with the Left Party. One obviously has no problems with negotiating with the Left Party, since one intends to govern with support from the Left Party. One has described it as that the Left Party shall not be part of the government, but one will still, after all, negotiate with them.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! There comes the question of who is taking whom. I think it is more interesting that we devote ourselves to the politics we pursue. We can discuss who has copied whose politics and who influences whom, and it is probably good that we do that. I do not dare, however, to swear as to who made which decision first in our party organizations regarding all parts of family law.

Parental status can be registered but cannot be approved until after the child is born. In the preparatory works, it states that the parents seem satisfied because so many do it in this way. Therefore, it is not necessary to proceed with a declaration regarding the establishment of parental status to be finalized so that the child is not left without a parent if the worst happens and the mother dies during childbirth. I hear what the member says, but it does not make me feel secure.

When it comes to who should take whom and who should negotiate with whom, the Center Party sees two prime ministerial candidates, not three. It is Magdalena Andersson and Ulf Kristersson, not Jimmie Åkesson. It is not primarily about family law issues but about the fundamental view of the human being. Is everyone equal before the law? Do people who are not born in Sweden have the same value as people who are born in Sweden? There is a big difference between us here.

We want neither Vänsterpartiet nor Sverigedemokraterna in a government, and it is about us not wanting them to have influence on foreign policy in a world where things are bubbling.

This is my answer to the question of who takes whom, but the most important thing for me, when we hopefully take our seats in a government after the election, is that we get Centerpartiet's policies through.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds like we are quite in agreement that we want a confirmation much earlier and a different system. I do not know if the Center Party has been as clear as we have regarding how they want the system for confirmation of paternity to look. We have been clear that we want it to be stated who the father is already at the first contact with the midwife. When my first child was born, I was not married, so there was no presumption of paternity. But I was there with the midwife at the first occasion, and then one should have already recorded me as the father of the child right there. Now, instead, the paternity is left out when the couple is not married, and then the paternity has to be investigated when the child is born. But one becomes more involved in the pregnancy if one is there from the beginning.

Who negotiates with whom is interesting, because it can determine which issues can be pushed through. I see that there is a lot that we, together with Centerpartiet, can push through in a joint government, but Centerpartiet considers that impossible. We have never stated who should become Prime Minister. We have stated what policy we pursue, and we have stuck to that the whole time. It has been natural to have the cooperation partners we have, because they have been prepared to discuss with us. We do, however, have no problems with discussing with other parties.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! The most dangerous place for women in Sweden today is the home. There, women, mothers, and girls are murdered, tortured, and abused every day, all year round. Many are also the children who see and hear how their father abuses their mother and who are threatened into silence. Often, the outside world suspects nothing or looks away.

Mr. Speaker! Children must be protected from violence. A parent who has subjected a child or other close relatives to violence does not put the child's best interests first and must be able to be deprived of custody. Not infrequently, violence occurs during pregnancy, and the violence can escalate after childbirth when the mother and child are vulnerable and exposed. The violence makes it difficult for the mother to breastfeed and care for the child, and the violence also makes it difficult for the child and mother long after breastfeeding has ended, if breastfeeding could even have started when the violence has been brutal.

To exercise violence against the child's primary caregiver is a danger to the child and its survival. It is not to put the child's best interests first. No father who exercises violence against the mother can be said to be acting in the child's best interests. After nearly ten years in the Swedish Riksdag, I feel certain that there is broad party-political consensus on this, so here we as legislators are in agreement.

Mr. Speaker! In 2021, when we Social Democrats were in power, the child peace crime was introduced. We made it a crime to let children witness violence. When a violent man exerts violence against the mother and the child hears or sees it, it is therefore both a crime against the mother and a crime against the child. That violence against the mother is criminal and dangerous for the child, we as legislators also agree on.

Mr. Speaker! Children are still relatively unprotected against guardians who subject them to violence and against crimes against children. Parental rights are still very strong, at the expense of children exposed to violence's right to a childhood free from violence.

Important steps have however been taken. At the same time as the crime of child murder was introduced, the Parental Code was also changed so that children who have a parent who has murdered the other parent can more easily be protected from the murderer and from the risks and the insecurity it entails to have the murderer of one's parent as a guardian and be left alone and isolated with the evil. These new rules also entered into force in 2021 when we Social Democrats held government power. For us Social Democrats, this was a very important change, and there was broad political consensus.

Mr. Speaker! In this legislative matter, the Committee on Civil Affairs wrote: "Regarding the issue of transfer of custody in cases of fatal violence within the family, the committee notes that the new system with temporary guardians creates conditions for a rapid transfer of custody in such situations. As the government also emphasizes, a guardian who intentionally kills or seriously injures the other guardian is almost always unsuitable as a guardian, and a change in custody shall then be made."

The Social Welfare Committee has a responsibility to apply for a transfer of custody when it becomes aware that some action needs to be taken regarding the custody, and the legislator has been clear that, among other things, lethal violence is the background to the legislative change that has been implemented and thus the expanded powers and the expanded responsibility that has been placed on the Social Welfare Committees in the municipalities.

It is good that non-lethal violence is also included in what constitutes a reason for a change of custody to be able to take place. That the public, i.e., municipalities and other responsible authorities, have been given a duty by the legislator to step in and help a child avoid having a violent parent as a guardian.

Unfortunately, we see repeatedly that the country's municipalities and other responsible authorities are not taking their responsibility fully. It is necessary that the state can guarantee that the law is followed here in the country. Following the law is not an optional task. The Government must ensure that Sweden's municipalities implement the legislation and initiate transfers of custody as the law prescribes. A knowledge lift is therefore required among the country's social services, including the family rights.

Mr. Speaker! It is important that this is not placed on the individual child affected by violence or on the mother affected by violence, who often live under constant threat. For them, it can be associated with great danger, many times with life at stake, to anger the violent father. Many are the women and children who have been murdered by the father when they have tried to leave him. When the outside world and the public then step in and help a mother affected by violence to protect the child and herself, that is often the help required to save the child and the mother from a very dangerous, manipulative, and violent man.

Mr. Speaker! The introduction of child peace crimes and the possibility of transferring custody in cases of deadly or other serious violence were important legislative changes in 2021. Now, five years have passed since these legislative changes were made, and it is positive that the broad parliamentary consensus regarding these changes has persisted even after the change of government. The legislator's intention is clear: Children shall be protected from violence.

Mr. Speaker! That is why it is now important to take the next step. It is not reasonable that it must be required that the mother is murdered or seriously injured for children to be spared having a violent father as a guardian. The crime of child endangerment provides some protection, but children are still often forced to have the perpetrator, the violent father, as a guardian, and he often has unrestricted power over the child and the mother.

Children must also be able to avoid having a violent parent as a guardian without it being required that the other parent, who is often the children's only protection, is murdered. The law does say that it is possible for a social welfare committee to initiate a transfer of custody even if one parent seriously injured the other parent.

We Social Democrats want to review this wording so that it also includes other types of violence. This applies, for example, to long-term latent violence where individual acts of violence are not defined as serious in themselves but collectively constitute the type of violence that a guardian should not be able to exercise against the other parent.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of reservation 29 on this matter. We Social Democrats want the law to be tightened. I hope and believe that we can reach an agreement on this between the parties in the Riksdag.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, M, recently wrote in a debate article: ”No issue is as important for this government as the country's security and the citizens' safety. This means that violence against women must be fought with precisely the same force and determination as we fight organized crime. Consistently, we have also changed laws and regulations to better protect women from perpetrators.”

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats assume that the Prime Minister means what he says about women, all women, and also mothers who have children with men who rape and who beat and abuse them and the children. Those men are often protected by today's civil law legislation.

We expect the government's work and announced efforts in these matters to also include the civil law legislation, which affects so many here in the country, so that the law can protect the country's mothers against violent men. These are men who use their fatherhood, custody of common children, and the laws regarding this as tools to continue to torment women and children. This must come to an end.

Madam Speaker! We therefore look forward to learning what initiatives the government will take to protect the country's mothers and children from these men. It is urgent. When we Social Democrats held government power, we took important steps in this area. I have mentioned the crime of violating a child's peace and that violent fathers can lose custody when they commit deadly or other serious violence.

It was the start of a paradigm shift. Now that there is a broad parliamentary consensus, it is important to move forward. We Social Democrats have several proposals and hope that the government takes on this directly. We are ready to tighten the law as soon as possible in several areas. Now the ball is in the government's court.

Madam Speaker! I want to highlight here the issue of the time limit in the division of property. When a woman dares to take the step to leave a violent partner, it is important that she receives support. It is equally important to ensure long-term stability so that she can begin a new life.

There are women who have left a violent relationship but felt forced to go back when they have been unable to secure a good housing situation for themselves and the children. This concerns, for example, women who cannot achieve a division of property and thus do not have the financial means for a sustainable housing situation.

The ex-partner has refused to participate in a division of property. It has ultimately forced the crime victims, the woman and the children, back to the perpetrator. It is part of the man's post-violence against the woman. It is a type of economic violence in order to continue to control and harm the woman and the children. The civil law legislation offers violent men both tools and arenas to continue the violence against women and children.

Madam Speaker! It is almost three years since the Riksdag issued a unanimous announcement to the government regarding time limits in division of property processes. We were united in the Committee on Civil Affairs. The law has flaws and must be changed.

When the Committee on Civil Affairs in 2023 processed the motions on family law, there were proposals for improved division of property processes in four committee motions. These were from us in the Socialdemokraterna as well as from Sverigedemokraterna, Centern, and Vänsterpartiet. The Socialdemokratiska motion was concrete and concerned introducing a time limit for when the division of property procedure should be completed.

During the preparation, the committee reached a consensus, and among other things, our motion was granted. A unanimous committee could move forward with the proposal to review the possibility of introducing a time limit in partition processes, and it became the announcement to the government.

It has now been nearly three years. Since then, we have closely followed what has and has not happened. Unfortunately, it took a very long time before the government followed up on the Riksdag's decision. It did not happen until the late autumn of 2024, that is, one and a half years, before even an investigation was initiated. That, in turn, was supposed to be reported last year, but that did not happen. It only arrived this year.

The question was also not included in the government's list of propositions that arrived this week, that is, the list of what the government intends to move forward with before the election. It is remarkable and tiresome that the government is dragging its feet in this matter where all of us parties are in complete agreement.

Madam Speaker! We want to see a prompt response from the Minister for Justice – we have said this before in the Chamber – so that the law can enter into force as soon as possible and the use of this part of civil law, of partition proceedings, by violent men can be stopped. Women and children who are victims of violence shall be helped by the law, not opposed by it.

We Social Democrats are following this closely. The most important thing for us in this is that we jointly achieve a legislative change.

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Laila Naraghi, for a very engaged speech!

I can certainly answer regarding the division of property. The government's ambition is for the legislation to be in place by July 1, 2027, which Laila Naraghi naturally knows. It was good that the member raised it in their speech, so that I could answer the member's question in front of the TV viewers.

I requested the floor because it is interesting what the member spoke about and just as interesting what the member did not speak about. In my speech, I will return to the question of forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and everything we do in that area.

What I am curious about is that the member directed criticism towards the government. That belongs to the role of the opposition. But we have seen tragic deaths where children have been torn apart, horrific deaths.

You held government power for eight years, and children have been robbed of their lives. The question must be asked of the Social Democrats: What could you have done differently during your time in government? What laws could you have tightened? What could you have done in this area?

I will have the Riksdag's investigation service compare our mandates. My impression is that the Ministry of Justice has worked an enormous amount and submitted an enormous number of propositions. That can be compared with what the Social Democrats did during their time. Someone said that the government is dragging its feet, or something similar.

Do you believe that some of the tragedies that have received mass media attention could have been avoided if you in the Social Democrats had taken the initiative during your eight years in power, when you had the opportunity to produce proposals that we could have made decisions on here in the Swedish Riksdag?

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that during this parliamentary term, we have been very much in agreement among the parties in the Riksdag regarding the legislative proposals that have been developed. One of the reasons for this is that it was our government that appointed the inquiries and tasked the authorities with producing the necessary underlying materials. I am certain that both Madam Speaker, the member in question, and the other members here in the chamber are well aware that legislative processes are a collective effort. It also takes time in a democracy.

The Minister of Justice beats his chest over Safer homes for children. It was we who commissioned the investigation. I am very proud that Sweden's current government has taken it further. I believe in that we are trying to reach a consensus and work together in these issues. I have praised the government several times, but I have also criticized it.

In the current government's work initially during the mandate period, there was no work on the civil law issues. There have been announcements, and the Committee on Justice has pushed on, and it has contributed to work having taken place. That is positive. It is good that the Minister for Justice, Gunnar Strömmer, has been responsive to this, invited to meetings, and worked in that manner. It is exactly as the previous government also did.

I shall mention something about what the previous government did. We ensured that the Gender Equality Authority was given the assignment which meant that we obtained concrete facts on how it looked in custody disputes in Sweden's courts, where violence, for example, was rewritten as cooperation problems. This later led to investigation directives for Safer Homes for Children.

We worked on the consent legislation. We ensured that another investigation was appointed, which the government has taken to heart. It concerns that women who are victims of violence should be able to keep their rental apartments. We have pressured the government and reached a consensus that rule changes corresponding to those that occurred in the rental housing regulations should also occur in the housing cooperative regulations.

There are many issues where we agree. I believe that Sweden's children and women who are victims of violence benefit from us trying to join forces and from us seeing the work as cumulative and moving forward.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me reply to Laila Naraghi: It is not in this area that we have the greatest conflicts. Then there are large differences in views on certain issues, which I will return to in my speech.

Laila Naraghi had a two-minute reply without answering my simple question: Could the Social Democratic-led government have done things during its eight years in power that could have prevented the tragic events – the murders? Then perhaps these children would have lived today; we do not know. These are very medially highlighted cases, but there are also many others.

Did you let the Social Democrats prioritize the family right during their eight years? Or did you have parties that you cooperated with that prevented you from putting forward proposals? A government must, as the member knows, be united.

Just as Mikael Eskilandersson said, the Tidö parties get things done. We negotiate together, we work together, and we have two engaged cabinet ministers whom we in the Tidö parties here in the Riksdag meet regularly. We present issues, we discuss issues, and we sometimes cooperate with the opposition. It is not actually necessary, as the Tidö parties have a majority, but I think it is good if we find a broad consensus.

Was Miljöpartiet slowed down? Was this the reason? You had ambitions, and you perhaps wanted to do things, but you could not present them because you did not have the government's support in these important policy issues. Was it this that prevented you from making progress, or was it due to other things?

It is admirable how much this government has done in such a short time in this important area, especially considering that the Ministry of Justice has been fully occupied with shootings, gang crime, and everything else. I believe Mikael Eskilandersson also said this. Despite this, much has been managed to make a big difference in the area, for which I am grateful.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for Madam Speaker pronouncing my surname correctly!

(LARS BECKMAN (M): Sorry!)

After many years in Swedish politics, I am used to men, like Member Lars Beckman, repeatedly using opportunities to mispronounce members' surnames in this chamber. It is clear that it can happen sometimes, but when it happens as a matter of routine, it is nothing other than a power technique. My name stands right here in front of you, Lars Beckman. One can also inform the TV viewers of that.

I thought I answered the question. I thought I spoke about this in the rostrum; that is what I want to inform the Speaker and the member about. The previous, Social Democratic-led government initiated and started a paradigm shift. We ensured that we got a child peace crime, which means that children who witness violence also become crime victims. We and the state created a paradigm shift when we said that men who murder or seriously injure the mother shall be deprived of custody. A civil law change must occur.

It is precisely this that we are urging for today. Now it is time to move forward, and the ball is in this government's court. Of course, one can always look backward. I previously sat in the Committee on the Constitution, and there one works very much retrospectively. But in this committee, it is our task to work forward.

I spoke about what the previous government did, and I spoke about what we want to continue to do. It is about an expansion of custody transfers. There, the question to the current government is: Are you prepared to join forces with us and tighten the legislation? A mother should not have to be murdered to be able to protect the children from a violent father.

We want to review the wording so that it also includes other types of violence, for example latent violence. There, individual acts of violence may not be counted as serious in themselves, but in the large, they constitute such violence that one guardian should not be able to subject the other guardian to.

We want to expand this legislation, and we hope to be able to join forces regarding this. Perhaps the member will return to it in the speech he will soon deliver.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for your incredibly committed speech! There is no doubt that the member is strongly engaged in the issue of violence against children, and I am completely convinced that everyone in this chamber has the same commitment to children who are subjected to violence, regardless of who subjects the child to this.

The reason I requested a reply, however, concerns how the member thinks regarding those children who are not subjected to violence. They constitute, as far as I know, a majority of children so far, and they are important to protect when it comes to family law.

It is about what I usually describe as the child's right to both of its parents, i.e., that when a child is born, it should automatically have both its mother and its father as guardians. That is not the case today. As we have heard previously, that is the case if one is married, but if one is unmarried, it is not. Then the mother must approve that the father is a guardian from the very beginning.

I think this is an outdated view; that was how we lived about a hundred years ago. Back then, it was always about married parents, but the majority of children today are born out of wedlock.

My question to the member is therefore: Would she and her party dare to take this step and move forward? I also had this discussion with the previous government. It also concerns what relates to being able to establish parenthood and custody before the child is born. Is the member also prepared to protect those children who are not affected by violence so that they receive their right to their parents?

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Martina Johansson, for the question! I would like to acknowledge and thank you in return, as I know the Member has a great commitment to children and for the rights of children exposed to violence.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for the good cooperation between our parties during the mandate period in order to achieve changes.

I noted the exchange between the member and the committee's deputy chairman from the Sverigedemokraterna. I also note that the government, in the bill we will soon be dealing with in the committee regarding electronic submission of estate inventories, chooses to finally report a notice, i.e., a majority decision, from the previous Riksdag and the previous Civil Affairs Committee regarding this.

As the member, and surely also other members of the committee, know, the Social Democrats were not behind the announcement. We thought that the current order was sufficient, and we thought that one should wait with the changes that had been made to facilitate the questions. Now we note and welcome, Madam Speaker, that the current government also says this. The Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals stand behind what is stated in the bill, and we proceeded until this debate from the assumption that the Sweden Democrats also did. But the coordination in the government is perhaps not quite as the government and the governing parties portray it.

We agree, briefly, with what the government says about this not being necessary. It is also difficult to implement. But we naturally look forward to the treatment that will take place in the committee regarding the issue, and we will certainly have reason to discuss the announcement also when communication 75 is to be handled.

Madam Speaker! Out of pure curiosity, I can direct a question back to the member: How does the Centre Party envision the determination shall take place? How is it to be implemented in a purely practical sense?

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! The question for me is this: What difference does it make for the child which legal agreement the parents have? That is what it is about.

If I enter into marriage with another person, I enter into a legal agreement. When my children are born, they are treated differently depending on which legal agreement we adults have. This is what is so incredibly difficult for me to understand. In one case it is obvious and in the other it is not.

I was married when I had my children, and it was obvious that my husband would become the guardian. He became it automatically; there was no discussion. But if we had not been married, it would have been different. I would have had to choose whether he should be granted custody of the child. One could also not approve the parenthood until the child was born. What is the difference for the child? It is the child's perspective I have.

I am not capable of stating exactly how the legal paragraph should look. But I have requested investigations into the issue that can help us describe exactly how it should proceed. Should it be done when one registers at BVC, should it be done when one is pregnant in the sixth month, or when should it take place? That is what I want an investigation to look at. It is not quite my role to state exactly how it should take place.

For me, it is important to take the political perspective. Yes, it may be harder to do this if there is no legal agreement between the parents. But isn't that what politics is? That is our role: to demand changes even when something is difficult.

All children have the same value. All children have a right to parents who are sufficiently good, regardless of the legal agreement between the parents. The question may be: What is the difference between children born within marriage and children born outside of marriage?

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that there is a broad party-political consensus regarding this between the major parties, at least some of them, here in the chamber. We believe that the current order is good enough for Sweden's children. There are also good reasons for that.

I did not quite feel that I received an answer to my question. Now I know that this is the final reply of the exchange, but I also know that Member Martina Johansson has her main speech remaining. I therefore take the liberty of repeating the question: How is this to be implemented practically? I do not mean in the legal paragraph, but laws must be enforceable. How is it to be implemented to establish this in the way that the members here spoke about earlier?

Should a woman be forced to take an amniocentesis? Should a woman be forced to take blood samples? Should one be able to take a pregnant woman to court by claiming to be the father of her child? What happens if it then turns out, when the child is born, that the court was wrong?

These are the types of considerations that we as legislators nevertheless must imagine can arise. Laws must be capable of being enforceable for the authorities who are to work with this.

We Social Democrats do not want to see a Sweden where the state imposes serious and extensive bodily interventions on pregnant women. That is not the country we want.

Those who are presenting these proposals will be held accountable here. How can this be implemented?

I think the current government seems to have landed correctly when it chooses not to proceed with the announcement that the Riksdag, at the initiative of the government base and the Center Party, submitted during the previous mandate period. It honors Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report on family law. Naturally, I move for approval of the committee's proposed decision and rejection of the motions.

Madam Speaker! This is an area where the Tidö parties have done very much in a short time – very large improvements.

In a previous exchange, I asked the question: Could some of the tragic deaths involving children that have occurred have been avoided if previous Social Democratic governments had acted more and earlier? Unfortunately, one cannot rule that out.

The Moderates' family law policy is based on the principle that the child's best interests must always take precedence over the parents' right to custody. This is a difference from how it has been previously. The family is a fundamental community that society should support and strengthen, but when parents are unable to manage their responsibilities, society's safety net must be strong. The Moderates stand for a policy where committed parents are supported, but where society does not hesitate to intervene when children are harmed.

In a debate like this, one would want to tell about everything that the government has done, but Mikael Eskilandersson has already told very clearly about all the propositions that have been submitted. Then, of course, one could have done more.

One thing that has not yet come up enough is the children who suffer. I am thinking of forced marriages – girls, as it primarily concerns them, who before the summer have a lump in their stomach and risk being married off or subjected to female genital mutilation.

Before last summer, the police issued a major press release stating: Keep an eye on the children! They addressed very clearly everyone who meets children – school staff, coaches, friends, and other young people.

Naturally, not a single child in Sweden should risk being married off. That is why, for example, we will ban cousin marriages. We know that in certain groups it is the norm for parents to decide who should marry whom. Therefore, we will submit a proposal to simply ban cousin marriages. It should have been done much earlier, but now we are doing it.

It will be interesting to see how the different parties will position themselves on this question. Will all eight parties vote in favor? Is there a consensus in the Riksdag, or is it as one might fear, that the red-green opposition is divided? I do not rule that out.

We must protect every girl in Sweden, regardless of where she lives or which family she lives in. Here, our authorities have simply been too lax. We must protect the children.

We received a question from the Social Democrats regarding economic violence against women. There is a broad consensus on that. Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer has held round-table discussions, and there have been interpellation debates where there has actually been no difference between the parties. The government appointed an inquiry and concluded that economic violence in connection with divorces is a serious problem. On this, we also have a broad consensus in the Committee on Civil Affairs.

Why has nothing been done about this before? Yes, one might wonder. Now, however, the investigation exists, and the goal is for the legislative changes to enter into force on July 1, 2027. It is a welcome announcement.

I want to be very clear: If you are considering forcibly marrying off your daughter, you will end up in prison. We are planning for increased penalties in this area. In Sweden, one marries for love and nothing else. If you have even the slightest thought of taking your daughter out of the country, you will be sent to prison. We will implement heavy increases in penalties here, and the justice system will prioritize these crimes.

In Sweden, people marry for love.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson recently wrote, as I stated in my speech: "No task is as important for this government as the country's security and the citizens' safety. This means that violence against women shall be combated with precisely the same force and determination as we combat organized crime with."

Madam Speaker! As I also said in my speech, we assume that the Prime Minister means business with his words about women – all women, including mothers who have children with men who rape, beat, and torture them and the children. We therefore expect that the government's work and announced efforts in these issues will also include the civil law legislation, which affects so many here in the country, so that the law can protect the country's mothers from violent men – those men who use their fatherhood, the custody of joint children, and the civil laws surrounding this as a tool and arena to continue to torture women and children.

My question, Madam Speaker, to Member Lars Beckman is therefore whether he can say anything more about the Prime Minister's council against men's violence against women and how the government and the council will approach issues regarding the civil law legislation's impact on the ability of women subjected to violence to obtain protection from violent men.

We know that increased penalties are important but are not sufficient. There are examples of men who are in prison, behind bars, but who can still continue to torment victims of violence through civil law processes.

I also want, Madam Speaker, to take the opportunity to raise an issue that we Social Democrats have raised in the Committee on Civil Affairs and here in the Chamber earlier, namely that parents who subject children to honor-related violence and oppression should not be guardians. We have demanded this previously, but unfortunately, the Moderates have voted against it. Is this something you can be prepared to take up in the new ministerial council? I truly believe that we can join forces.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is probably best that I say "the member," so that I do not pronounce any name incorrectly. Otherwise, it leads to such agitated emotions here in the chamber.

Here I have a document called Free and safe without violence and oppression: Action program to prevent and combat men's violence against women, violence in close relationships and honor-related violence and oppression as well as prostitution and human trafficking. I am sure that the member knows about it. It is 100 pages of strategies, with many different ministers involved. I would probably like to assert that we, unlike previous governments, have both a social services minister who is passionate about these issues and a justice minister with personal experience and knowledge from the judicial system who is now working to organize these issues.

I refer to this hundred-page action program, where there is good reading about everything the government is doing.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! I am very well aware of the action program. It was our government that initiated that Sweden should have that type of work. Much in the action program is also such things that the current government continues to work with. This has also been noted by women's organizations and others. A very large amount of what is in the program is such things that remain from the Löfven government and the Andersson government. It is therefore not that much new.

I believe the member would have understood that it was not much of an answer if he himself had read the action program. There is not particularly much new in the action program regarding civil law. The civil law that is there is such as the previous government started. It is about victims of violence being able to take over rental apartments and about safer homes for children. But there is not much new. Yes, it would be this with property divisions then, which we here in the Riksdag made a unanimous announcement about. The government is now proceeding with it, and that is good, even if it is moving a bit slowly.

My question is whether there is anything more. How can we ensure that men who commit violence lose custody so that children who are subjected to crimes against children do not have their perpetrator as a guardian? Is this something we can agree to at least look into?

Must a mother really be murdered or seriously injured for the violent father to lose custody? We Social Democrats mean that a review needs to be made of the legislation we proposed during the last parliamentary term. Now we want to tighten it together, as we have this cross-bloc consensus. Much has happened in recent years – how can we do this together?

We Social Democrats have had many positive exchanges with the government on these issues. We do not doubt the commitment that exists. Now the question is: Can we repeat the fine thing that we succeeded with when it came to property divisions, namely that we in the Riksdag came up with the idea, and then we do it jointly so that the government can implement it?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! The Moderates, the government and, I believe, all the Tidö parties rule out no measures. Then the Ministry of Justice, which works hard on very many issues, will certainly also work on this issue.

I am more concerned about the Social Democrats' government base. Just as the member has said on several occasions here today, the large parties are fairly in agreement. But as everyone knows, in a government – if by chance you were to end up in a governing position again – one must be in agreement when submitting a proposition. There, I am deeply concerned that the Left Party would have influence over these issues.

All the increased penalties that we here in the Riksdag have implemented, the Left Party has voted against. Most of the increased penalties we have implemented here in the Riksdag, the Green Party has voted against. The Centre Party has voted against many.

I do not understand how a red government could at all be able to submit proposals to a Riksdag. Thank goodness we have the Tidö parties, who prioritize these issues!

In an exchange with the member, as well as in my speech, I asked the question: Could some of these tragic childhood deaths have been avoided if the S-led government had taken measures earlier? I do not, unfortunately, rule out that is the case.

Now we have to get things done. Then we can always do more, naturally. As said: No measures are excluded. Every woman, man and child – regardless of which family one lives in or where in the country one lives – shall be able to feel safety and be able to live life like everyone else.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! For many people, the family is a central place in life. Not infrequently, it is a place associated with security, love, and community. But the family is not a static phenomenon. It does not look the same for everyone, and it never has. Therefore, family law must also be based on how people actually live their lives.

We live today in a reality where families look many different ways. We have children who grow up with bonus parents, with two mothers or two fathers. We have children in rainbow families with more than two adults who take responsibility, but also children with grandparents who constitute the social parents.

That is why it is also important that we have legislation that reflects this reality. That is why we need to review the possibility of having more guardians and also a parental code that is gender-neutral and uniform. Today's patchwork of legislation is insufficient.

Madam Speaker! We know at the same time that the family is not always a safe place. For far too many women, the relationship does not constitute a sanctuary but a prison where violence, control, and psychological abuse are part of everyday life. It is one of our time's greatest social problems.

Therefore, we must make it easier for women to leave destructive relationships. In that light, the reflection period for divorce is deeply problematic. For those living in fear, every day is a risk. The state should not force people to think it over once they have made the decision to leave a relationship. The reflection period for divorce must therefore be abolished. Freedom from violence cannot be conditioned on waiting.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about safety and how central the family is in people's lives, it is also impossible to turn a blind eye to the fact that the government is conducting a migration policy that actively tears families apart. This week we could read about four-year-old Raif. He has autism and a speech disorder. He cannot speak and still wears a diaper. Now he is being deported alone to Bosnia and separated from his mother and his brothers in Sweden.

This is not a mistake in the system. It is a result of the government's policy – a policy that is deeply unworthy and goes directly against everything we know about children's needs for security, continuity, and proximity to their parents. That is not how you treat children.

Madam Speaker! Right now we are seeing a frightening development all around the world. Freedoms and rights that we thought were self-evident are being questioned. Same-sex marriages are threatened or prohibited, and the rights of LGBTQ+ persons are being rolled back. In both Europe and America, we can see how the lives of LGBTQ+ persons are being used as whipping boys in the radical right's destructive culture war.

Then it is important to remind ourselves of the most fundamental thing – that love is never a problem. As Jörn Svensson so accurately expressed it: "Human love can have many forms of expression. It can be violent and passionate. It can be calm and unassuming. It can be jubilant and tragic. It can be agony and suffering. It can be pathetic and even a bit ridiculous. But one thing it can never be. It can never be shameful."

A society that recognizes the diversity of families, that makes it possible to leave violence and that defends the right to love – that is a stronger, more humane and freer society. And that, Madam Speaker, is a society that we Social Democrats will always fight for. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 40, that the government shall work to ensure that the ECJ's decision is followed and that same-sex marriages entered into in an EU country shall be valid in all EU countries.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats want to strengthen the family's role in society. The family is the most important community and the foundation upon which society stands. Children who grow up in secure families are given good conditions to manage life and all of life's challenges. Politics should therefore support families, not rule them. The Christian Democrats want to re-evaluate parenthood, enable more time for children, increase families' room for maneuver, enable different forms of childcare, and strengthen the finances of families with children.

Children have a right to their parents. But it is not as obvious that parents have a right to their children. In custody disputes, family counseling, social services, and courts must always work for the child's best interests and try to get the parents to reach an agreement. The authorities also have a duty to protect the child from obviously unsuitable parents. That is also what I say, as someone who thinks the family is important.

Custody disputes can be complicated and conflict-ridden and can sometimes seem completely impossible to resolve. It is probably completely impossible for the authorities to always do the right thing. Therefore, a clear child perspective must always be the starting point, and special attention must be paid to detecting if children are being harmed. Is the child at risk of being abducted, subjected to abuse, prevented from contact with either parent or close relatives, or being used as an object in custody disputes? Is the child forced to live in an unhealthy home environment, for example, in the case of alcohol and drug problems or mental illness?

To ensure that the child's interests are taken into account as much as possible, we Christian Democrats still want children to have their own representative who can advocate for them in a custody dispute.

Violence in close relationships affects both adults and children in a family. Both children and adults are protected from violence in the legislation, and the ban on child abuse has actually been effective in reducing children's exposure to physical violence since it was introduced. In today's society, we now see it as a given that everyone should live without fear of violence and oppression. Unfortunately, that is not enough, because violence in close relationships seems to be increasing. Every year, thousands of women and children seek protection at the country's women's shelters.

The Christian Democrats want a political zero vision against violence in close relationships. A consequence of such a zero vision could be that the demands on the authorities – from preschool and school to healthcare and social services – increase to actively ask questions about violence, harassment, and sexual abuse in order to identify those in need of help as early as possible.

Children who witness violence in the home are themselves crime victims and, in addition, run a greater risk than other children of being subjected to it themselves. Today, it is possible for a guardian who has used violence in a close relationship to obtain both custody and visitation rights with their children. Also in cases where a restraining order has been imposed, it occurs that the convicted person has the right to visitation with their children.

We Christian Democrats believe that the legislation must have a greater focus on the child's rights and protection. The general rule should be that the person who has been convicted of violence and abuse in a close relationship shall not have the right to custody and visitation with their children. By turning the perspective so that the child's interests are the starting point, it can hopefully lead to more children being spared from continued abuse.

As the child gets older, the decision can be reassessed. At that point, the child also has the opportunity to decide for themselves to what extent and degree they want to have contact with that parent. We Christian Democrats believe that soft issues require humility and that one has many and long discussions in order to do right in such matters.

Many of the proposals in the committee report go in a direction that we Christian Democrats consider to be good. We also see that the government is working on the issues and that the parliament and government are jointly trying to solve the knots that exist. We believe that what is best for the children is that one tries to work together to jointly find solutions that hold over time. Of course it takes longer, but it is better in the long run.

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

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Larry Söder, for the speech!

I want to ask two questions. But first, I want to acknowledge what the member raised; I believe we agree on very much.

My question concerns how the Christian Democrats and Member of Parliament Larry Söder view our proposal to expand the rules for transfer of custody, that is, the reservation that we highlight. Today, the legislator considers that a parent who murders or commits serious violence against the other parent loses custody of joint children. We want to expand it to also include other types of violence.

When I hear the member speak, I perceive it as that the Christian Democrats also want to do it under certain conditions. Is that something we can work on together in the committee? That is my first question.

Madam Speaker! The second question concerns that we Social Democrats say no to so-called surrogate arrangements. We do not want them to be promoted, and we have worked for that in the Committee on Civil Affairs. We believe that surrogate arrangements involve risks for both the children and the women and testify to a dangerous view of humanity, including a dangerous view of women.

Madam Speaker! I know that we Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats agree on large parts of this issue. I would therefore like to ask Larry Söder, and if so, how the Christian Democrats are working for this in a government position. In the government, the Christian Democrats, as is known, hold both the position of Minister for Social Affairs, which Jakob Forssmed holds, and the position of Minister for Health and Social Affairs, which the Christian Democrat Lann holds. The Minister for Social Affairs is also the head of the entire department, and often civil law issues are also handled at the Ministry of Social Affairs. Finally, Madam Speaker, the leader of the Christian Democrats is also Deputy Prime Minister and has good opportunities for influence.

I am curious about whether there is anything we can do together here and how the work is progressing with these issues in the government.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The member is raising two rather important issues based on the fact that we actually need to be able to reach an agreement.

When it comes to guardians – that is what it is really about – and who actually is responsible for the child, it is not a strange thought in my world that someone who hits, belittles, or violates a child is not the right guardian. Then one must find other solutions.

There is a possibility today to have temporary guardians for a period. It is not utilized to a sufficient extent, I believe. One could use it significantly more. But I agree with the member that one can certainly reach an agreement and find solutions for how one can make the transfer of custody easier in more cases than today, if we are serious about ensuring that we always have the child's perspective.

However, I am also humble and want to say that what we adults think is best for the child is not always what the child thinks is best. Some children actually want to have contact with both of their parents, even if one of them is offensive or violent from their perspective. In that case, we adults must resolve it in the best way, so that they are not exposed to violence and offensive treatment. It is a difficult question, but I believe we can find some solutions to it.

When it comes to surrogacy, we have the same view. We must try to work together on those issues moving forward. I believe it is a question that is actually two-fold. We do not want it to happen. But when the children do come to Sweden, we must take care of them like all other children. We must somehow find solutions to that dilemma, so that the children are not affected. It is not their fault that they were brought into being in that way, but it is we adults who have created that situation. I believe we must work on both sides there.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member of Parliament Larry Söder, for this exchange! From the Social Democrats' side, we truly appreciate when we can have this type of exchange in the committee, in the chamber, and in meetings in general. I also welcome the messages given about looking at the question of whether this can be used in several cases. I raised that earlier.

We have noted – and I believe it may also have been said at the Committee on Civil Affairs' research seminar or in other contexts here in the Riksdag – that it is not uncommon for children to say they also want contact with a violent parent because they want to protect the parent who is a victim of violence and keep watch. This is testified to by both children's rights organizations and women's organizations.

It is truly a matter of being humble, just as the member says, towards knowledge and information from professionals regarding what is best. We were very much in agreement in Safer Homes for Children and the work we did jointly there that children should be protected from all violence. The adult world has a responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Let me also raise the issue of surrogacy arrangements. We Social Democrats in the committee have reserved ourselves against the government's position on the surrogacy issue in an EU context. We have pushed that Sweden's position in the EU should be that surrogacy arrangements shall not be promoted and that children shall have the right to seek information about their background. It is not the children who have chosen this situation, just as the member says. Surrogacy arrangements shall, however, not be promoted.

How can we work on this together? There is a majority in the committee for this. It also became the government's line. It was not the government's line when the government came to the committee, but we pushed through a majority decision. How can we together, our parties, work against the exploitation of women and children in the surrogacy industry? What is the government doing in this area?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The strongest weapon is surely the government's position when meeting other leaders in Europe. It cannot be stronger than that, and then one must, of course, use it at somewhat different levels. On the other hand, it is difficult for us in the Swedish Riksdag to influence other nations. We must do that in the European Parliament. Both of our parties are there, and they can work together to handle this.

I believe that this is an issue that unites many Swedish politicians. I also believe that one must work together all the time. I am quite tired of the discussion about who started which investigation and who did what. Swedish parents don't care about that, I want to assert. They are interested in what we do together and what we do moving forward.

Our line must be that we do not want to promote surrogacy. That is not what Sweden's government wants either. We may tread on parents' tender toes sometimes because of that stance, but we want to ensure that children fare as well as possible in Sweden. It is important that children who grow up here can have trust in Swedish society.

Even when it is very difficult, we must stand on the children's side. I mean that the question of how one treats children in all types of families in Sweden must be addressed and worked on all the time. It is a question of values that one must work on. Everyone must be included when it comes to the best interests of children in Swedish society. I believe that both our parties can help each other with this. We have the same view and the same attitude. But we cannot believe that we solve this without talking and discussing and then coming up with new ideas. We are not there yet. We are on our way somewhere. We do this together, not alone.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to say that I move for approval of reservation number 4, but I naturally stand behind all reservations from the Center Party in this report.

This year is 2026. It is approximately 100 years since the first part of today's Family Law was written. Back then, it was a matter of course that mothers and fathers were married to each other. They had children together and nothing else. One was dependent on the family farm and joint income. Few could afford to get divorced. Furthermore, it was very shameful to get divorced. It was shameful to have children outside of marriage. It was shameful to live in a different way than a man with a woman, for example, to live with someone of the same sex.

It is 2026, and one might think that we have come very far in a hundred years in a modern society. We have absolutely taken some steps forward, at least when it comes to how we view different ways of living. It is not as much of a shame to have children outside of marriage or to get divorced. It is even to the point that we occasionally encourage people to separate. On the other hand, the legislation has not been updated so that it actually works in 2026.

There are forces both in political parties and in the debate that want to influence, for example, hbtqi persons' opportunities to live as they want. There I see something that is about to deteriorate. There are those who think that these people should crawl back into the closet again. I will never accept that. For me, all people have exactly the same, equal value. We must take the steps forward.

Madam Speaker! What does it have to do with this debate that there are people who think that some should crawl back into the wardrobe? Yes, it is about how we shift norms. How can we show from the side of society, from the side of Sweden's Riksdag, that we think it is completely okay to live in ways other than in a family with a man, a woman, and their common children? One way is to enact laws that show that we stand up for all people.

I can take the example of corporal punishment, which was addressed a number of years ago. We decided that one is not allowed to hit their children for the purpose of upbringing. It was very good legislation. But when we enacted that law, not everyone thought it should be so. There were those who thought that corporal punishment was good. But by enacting that law, we gradually shifted the norms in Sweden. Today, very few think that corporal punishment is sensible to engage in. That is why I think it is now time to update the Parental Code.

We need to modernize the language in the Children and Parents Code. There are investigations about this. We need to start from the child when we determine who should have custody, not from the agreement between the parents. The persons who are to be parents must be guardians from the very beginning, before the child is born.

We also would like it to be permitted to have more than two guardians in connection with a child's birth, because the child's right to guardians and parents must be strengthened. In cases of separation, it is also about strengthening the child's right to their bonus parents. I have previously in this debate, Madam Speaker, been asked how this is to be done. Are we to force women to undergo blood tests and amniotic fluid tests? But we do not do that with a woman who is married. When a married woman has a child, it is considered self-evident that the person she is married to is the father of the child. But what if she had been unfaithful? We therefore distinguish in how we view parenthood depending on whether the parents are married or not.

I want us to start from the child, not from the way it has come to be. We can have children in many more ways today than a hundred years ago. We must start from that and trust that the parents, just as when one enters into a marriage of free will, also state that they have a common child, have created it together and will jointly take responsibility for it. I am completely convinced that if one wants, it is possible to resolve this before the child is born, regardless of whether the parents are married or not.

Again: Update the laws to 2026, where we actually are, and do not let it remain as it was 100 years ago!

Madam Speaker! In this chamber, we can sometimes work very well together forward. The Centre Party, together with several others, has been involved in driving the issue of division processes. There is an investigation. We will continue to have a dialogue there, which I am very pleased about.

We have also jointly in the Riksdag had the government appoint the inquiry into legal representatives for children. It was nothing that I believe the government had planned from the beginning, but it is thanks to the work that we have jointly done in the chamber that we also have that inquiry to take part in when it arrives in the summer, which I look forward to.

This is not a day too early. We must ensure that all children get to be heard, be involved and have rights in the future. I give a big thank you to the government for having listened to the Riksdag.

But – I like to contribute but – I am rarely satisfied with everything that happens. That is probably why one has this assignment; a will to go further.

When it comes to children's opportunities and rights, I want to see that work is done to reduce disputes in court. One thing is that the child receives support and help. A few years ago, we introduced what we call a mandatory information meeting before one can sue the other parent in court. I would like to see if these meetings have had the effect that was the intention of the majority at that time, that is, to reduce the number of disputes. That was one of the main purposes.

If these conversations have not had the effect we all wanted – no one wants to end up in court and sue each other – the question is whether there is anything else we can do. Here, the Centerpartiet has proposed that instead we focus on mandatory mediation, where one sits down together and jointly tries to work forward before going to court. It can certainly be the case that if one wants to sue the other party again, one must pass back through the mediation before being allowed to go to court. One should not end up in the conflict-ridden situation that a court automatically entails. But for this, it is required that we know that the information talks have given us what we wanted.

I believe that the vast majority of parents, with the right support and help, can find ways to cooperate that work for the children, so that the children have a good relationship with their parents. Simply going to court counteracts that effect. I would therefore like to see the government do something about that issue as well.

I finally intended to mention a few words about the division inquiry we have recently received on the table. It has emerged here that we have jointly moved the issue forward. I already debated during the previous mandate period with the then Minister of Justice, who was not super interested in driving the issue forward. If it was those debates that taught me how to drive the issue forward, I shall leave that unsaid, but in my first interpellation debate with Gunnar Strömmer in the autumn of 2022, when he had just taken office, he happened to promise that he would look at the issue. I am glad that he has taken the issue all the way forward. But it is not only I who has driven the government forward, but I have received good help from Eva Lindh from the Socialdemokraterna and Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson from the Moderaterna.

Now the question is here, and now it is a matter of us moving the work forward together. I know that we will get to meet the minister and talk about the investigation and the future. I hope that meeting results in the government starting the work of drafting the law already now. The government that takes office after the election can then take the bill and put it on the table. Then, during 2027, we can make decisions on how we can make the division processes faster and more legally secure, so that no more children are affected by the fact that the parents cannot conclude the financial matters.

I thank you for a refreshing debate today.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker, members and observers! We are debating family law, and it is a policy area that reaches deep into people's lives. I have been made aware of many examples of how children suffer and how children are subjected to violence.

There is a tradition in the Committee on Civil Affairs to cooperate on these issues, and in the work on the question of safer homes for children, there has been a broad consensus between the parties. It is a tradition that it is important to continue working with.

I would like to give the children a voice in the Riksdag today, because it is a problem that still exists. Even though much work has been done, there is much left to do. I will read out one of the examples I have received, and after that, I will move on to the Green Party's policy.

The mother moves out from the father when the child is five months old due to violence. He immediately files a petition and demands sole custody. He claims that the mother is mentally ill, among other things. He has visitation with visitation support. The child shows fear, but it is allowed to continue. The mother retains the residence, the father gets visitation. This continues for a couple of years until the child tells about the violence and sexual abuse; the mother stops on the advice of the social services. She applies for sole custody. The father gets visitation with visitation support. No visitation can be carried out because the child shows fear. The family court finds no acceptable reason for the withdrawal. Child and adolescent psychiatry testifies that the child is credible. The District Court grants the father sole custody. The mother gets no visitation because she is judged to have influenced the child – this without any signs being seen other than the child's reactions to the father. The child refuses to go. He stops eating. The mother and the child are placed in a home for care or housing, so that he can be weaned from her and become accustomed to the father. The mother is separated from the child. The boy stops eating and drinking and is driven to the hospital. He is allowed to come home to his mother, where he stays for a couple of months. The father applies for enforcement with the police. The day before the boy is to be picked up, he tries to throw himself in front of a car. The mother drives with him to the child and adolescent psychiatry emergency clinic. He is discharged the next day. In the taxi home from the hospital, the taxi is intercepted by the police and the child is torn from the mother's arms and driven to the father. He is then seven years old. At the father's, he lies in a room. They put in a tray with food for him until he gives up and starts eating. The mother must apply for visitation, which is granted after nine months. It becomes visitation with visitation support. From the reports, it appears that the mother and the child have a fine relationship and that the mother does nothing that suggests she is trying to influence the child or fails in care in any other way. When he is ten years old, he wants to move to his mother. She initiates a dispute. In the conversations, the child tells that he wants to live with his mother and why. The caseworker applies parental alienation and writes that the child is alienated to a moderate degree. The District Court rejects the application for the residence, and the child is forced to stay with the father. When the judgment arrives, he escapes 20 miles to the mother and does not want to return. The mother gets him to go back. After every visitation when he is to return to the father, he vomits and has severe panic attacks. A couple of months later, he can't take it anymore and stays with the mother. He is then about to turn twelve. The father applies for enforcement. It is rejected. He gets a review in the Court of Appeal, but there it is also rejected. The father refuses to approve the move, and the mother applies again for custody. The dispute is ongoing.

Madam Speaker! We are not going to take up any matters here, and that is not the intention. That I am bringing up this matter is to show that we have done a lot and that we have come a long way, but there is much that remains. We need to continue the cooperation across party lines to constantly ensure the best interests of the child. It is extremely important.

It has been three years since eight-year-old Tintin was murdered by his father during a supervised visit. It was the starting point for the laws being changed that time. The legislative changes within the area of safer homes for children entered into force on January 1, 2025 – that is, one year ago. The purpose of the laws is precisely to protect children from violence and to give the child greater rights to decide for themselves whether a visit should take place.

SVT has reviewed 300 custody disputes where they were decided in January and February 2025 – i.e., after the law had been introduced. In 49 of the disputes, there was information that violence had occurred against one of the parents or the children. Despite this, the district court ruled on visitation for both parents in 21 of the cases. The review thus shows that there are flaws in the legislation or in its application.

We consider that a review needs to be conducted of all judgments that have been rendered since the law based on the report Safer homes for children was introduced, and it needs to be evaluated whether it is a question of flaws in the legislation or flaws in the application of the legislation. If flaws are found, one really needs to make tightenings and work on this again. It is very serious and unacceptable that children, according to SVT's review, continue to be forced into contact with violent parents despite the legislators being in agreement that it should not happen.

We wanted to go further when the law was changed and establish that no contact should take place when the parent, usually the woman, and the child live in a protected residence or have protected information due to fear of the perpetrator. It is unreasonable that children who are hiding should be forced to have contact with their perpetrator. Equally unreasonable is that the child should be forced to bear the heavy responsibility of keeping secret where the child and the other parent live.

A mapping from the Gender Equality Authority shows that in several judgments, the fact that a woman lives in a protected residence with her children was seen more as evidence of difficulties in cooperation than as evidence that violence had occurred. It is very remarkable.

We want to see a further emphasis on the fact that all reports of violence and fear by the child or the child's safe parent shall carry great weight in assessments of the child's best interests. False reports of violence and sexual abuse are, according to research, very, very rare. All reports of violence must be taken seriously and carry great weight in a risk assessment – for the child's best interests.

It is often about well-documented information regarding violence from one party, which is met with counter-accusations from the other party. Here, an understanding of violence patterns is crucial. There must be specialist competence when it concerns children and a specialist competence when it concerns violence patterns. We believe that no child should be forced into visitation against their expressed will.

Grevio is the Council of Europe's expert group that reviews how well countries comply with the Istanbul Convention. It is, therefore, a convention to combat violence against women and domestic violence. The year before last, Grevio directed specific criticism towards Sweden for the use of a pseudoscience called parental alienation. Pseudoscience is something that is claimed to be scientific but where scientific methods are not followed and empirical support is lacking. Grevio recommended that Sweden ban the use of parental alienation in courts and ensure that all professionals within healthcare, social services, and courts are warned about the concept's lack of scientific validity. Several countries have introduced such a ban, and in Ireland and Canada, such work is ongoing.

Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer received a question regarding what measures the government intends to take in light of this. He then answered that the principle of free evidence is fundamental in Swedish procedural law and remains firm. It should, of course, remain so. But we believe that one can map out how things look today. We must map out all these judgments. What has actually happened? We must get a grip on the current situation. What consequences does this have when it concerns violence against children and women?

It should be obvious that one uses facts and science in investigations that are subsequently used as a basis for courts. Guidance is needed here. Competence is needed here. Resources are needed here.

Custody disputes reach deep into people's lives. There are many examples of how children suffer. That was what I began my speech with. Specialist expertise is truly needed when it comes to how children function and how violence functions. Science must be foundational. Otherwise, one simply cannot obtain a legally secure trial.

In Socialstyrelsen's latest report on investigations of injuries and deaths, recommendations are given on what is needed moving forward. The agency believes that supporting structures and an organization that promotes cooperation are needed. Resources and the right competence are needed to provide specialized interventions. Socialstyrelsen also believes that children must be allowed to speak out based on their own circumstances and needs – and over time.

The law was changed a year ago, but the violence continues. The shortcomings of the National Board of Health and Welfare have been known for a long time, but the violence continues. We in Miljöpartiet believe that we must once again unite across party lines to put a stop to the violence.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 23.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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