(cont. from § 6) Family Law (cont. CU9)

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report CU9 Family Law, and I am stepping in for my colleague Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez, who is not here today.

I intend to raise two issues in particular, and one of them concerns the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In Sweden, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been law since 1 January 2020. What then is the Convention on the Rights of the Child? It is a legally binding international agreement which establishes that children are individuals with their own rights and not the property of parents or other adults.

Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that children have the right to express their views and be heard in all matters concerning the child. Due regard shall be given to the child's views, having regard to the child's age and maturity.

When parents dispute custody, residence, or access in court, they are usually represented by their respective counsel. Often, the legal process will revolve around justice being served between the parents, whereby the child, who is actually the main protagonist, becomes invisible. In order for the child's rights and the principle of the best interests of the child to truly be taken seriously, we believe that children should have the right to a legal representative who is decoupled from the parents and their potential assistants. A child's representative would have the individual child's interest in mind and be able to base its arguments before the court solely on the child's best interests and the child's views.

Mr. Speaker! That children should have their own representative to ensure their right to be heard is an opinion that the Left Party shares with several organizations, including the Children's Ombudsman, Save the Children, and Unizon. The Left Party believes that every child should have a clear and explicit right to express their opinions in connection with disputes regarding custody, housing, and visitation. An unconditional right for children to be heard in these matters is entirely in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We believe that even small children have opinions about their living situation that are worthy of being taken seriously.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants to point out that the reason why disputes regarding custody, residence, and visitation are brought before the court at all is that there is an underlying conflict between the parents. If the parents had been able to cooperate on matters concerning the child, there would have been no dispute. Furthermore, it is likely that it is the most difficult and most conflict-ridden cases that end up in court and lead to a main hearing.

The ambition must be that all children who are subject to a process regarding custody, residence, or access shall have the right to have their opinions expressed precisely to avoid being treated as objects during the legal proceedings. A right to their own legal counsel benefits all children whose parents dispute custody, residence, or access, and in particular those children who suffer. Furthermore, a children's advocate would lead to more well-considered decisions where the child's will is actually taken into account, which makes the decisions easier to enforce. According to the Left Party's view, a children's advocate should have documented competence in matters concerning children's development, trauma management, and risk assessment.

Against this background, we have chosen to join the Social Democrats, the Green Party and the Centre Party in a reservation regarding children's right to legal counsel.

The second question I will raise in this debate concerns the change of surname for the person who has been adopted.

The adoption scandal in Sweden has not been missed, and it was noticed in several countries. Let me give an example from it. Marianne Skoglund was born in July 1980 and came to her Swedish adoptive parents a short time thereafter. Her adoptive parents were told that her mother could not take care of her and had therefore given her away. Like many other adopted children, Marianne wondered about her origins, and a number of years ago she applied to the program Spårlöst on TV4, which succeeded in finding and reuniting Marianne with her biological mother Juanita Yáñez in Chile.

It was then that Marianne found out that nothing matched the information her adoptive parents had received when she was adopted. According to Marianne's biological mother, it was a social worker who sought her out at the hospital when Marianne was newborn and took Marianne. No one said where they had taken her. When Juanita then searched for her child, it was claimed that Juanita had signed and approved an adoption. But that was not true, it was fabricated.

Among Marianne's records from the time of the adoption, there is a letter written by the same social worker. There is a detailed explanation there that Juanita chose to adopt Marianne away because she did not have the financial means to take care of her further, but it was all a lie. These are facts that have never come from Juanita.

For several years, Juanita searched for Marianne, and she was constantly given different answers about where Marianne was located. Each time, different cities in Chile were mentioned. She was never told that Marianne had been adopted by a Swedish family. It turned out that Juanita Yáñez had been searching for Marianne ever since she disappeared after Juanita's signature had been forged.

How many more children have disappeared in this way? It could be thousands of children whose mothers still do not know where they are, and many of these children may be here in Sweden. Their identity, culture, history, and family have been stolen from them. It is important that these children receive redress and that we alleviate the damage that has occurred.

Vänsterpartiet has a reservation regarding the change of surname for the person who has been adopted. The Parentage Code states that the person who has been adopted is considered the adoptive parent's child and not the child of their previous parents. An adoption therefore means that the legal relationship to the previous parents ceases entirely.

In 2016, the Name Act in Sweden was amended. It then became easier to change surnames, and the possibility of having two surnames was introduced. According to the law, the person who is adopted has the right to reclaim the name they bore before the adoption. The Name Act has, however, not proven to meet the reality that those adopted to Sweden find themselves in. Many of those who were stolen and subsequently adopted away have, in fact, received fabricated names and identities before being adopted to Sweden. They therefore do not have the right, according to the law, to change to the name they would have had if they had not been stolen, because they had a different name when they were adopted.

Mr. Speaker! Given the scandal and the criminal proceedings that have characterized thousands of adoptions in Sweden, the Left Party considers that an adopted child should have the right to change their name regardless of whether the person has borne that name previously or not. It is the least one can ask for given the harm that these adopted children have been subjected to.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is therefore self-evident that the person who has been adopted shall have the right to their origin and thus the same right to change to the names that have existed in the family as if they had not been adopted.

Today, adopted children go to the Swedish Tax Agency to change their surnames. But they receive the answer that it is not possible to change the surname because they never bore this surname before they were adopted. If they had borne the surname, it would have been easier. It is required that there has been a serious event in order to be able to change to a name that one has not borne previously.

That these children have been kidnapped and stolen is so serious that Vänsterpartiet considers that Skatteverket should be able to say that it is such a serious situation that these children should be able to change their name to the name that the family has and which these children have never borne. That is why Vänsterpartiet has this reservation, where we write that we consider that this damage must be rectified. And the least that can be done for these children who have been deprived of their culture, their identity, their family's history, is to let them change their surname. Therefore, I move for approval of Vänsterpartiets reservation 10 in the report.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Becoming a parent is probably both the best and the hardest thing one will experience in their life. We become parents in slightly different ways and under slightly different circumstances. But I am convinced that we all share both the highs and the lows of parenthood.

To see the progress of one's child is an indescribable happiness. To see it have a hard time for various reasons can be the most difficult thing and 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 to ensure that they do not make the biggest mistakes that one has made oneself and try to show them the right way. All children have the right to safe parents.

Parents and guardians are, for me, adults who safeguard the children's best interests. It is not optional. Unfortunately, it does not always look like that. That is why we in politics need to create frameworks, support, and boundaries in parenting and also support the children who need it.

We have in this debate talked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is law in Sweden. Unfortunately, it is not always enough.

Many of us have been involved and discussed care, home, and housing with the department and Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer. There I see that we have quite a few similar starting points and, most of the time, common opinions on the solution. Strengthening the possibilities for children's voices in custody disputes is something that we feel quite in agreement on, I want to assert. And that children should have their own representative specifically so that the children's voices and opinions are taken into account, I also believe we can be quite in agreement on.

I am also convinced that all parties agree that we want the best for the children - that they should have a more secure life and feel safe throughout their entire upbringing. But even if children experience something, society must actually protect, strengthen, and support.

Some motions on the subject concern this, and we have handled some of them several times before. But given the discussions taking place with the department - the Tidö parties and all other parties - I think that work is actually being done well within the family law area in the Government Offices, and I think that the Government Offices should be given the time needed to submit proposals to the Riksdag.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for his speech. He mentions in the speech that someone must stand on the children's side in custody disputes and that we could be quite in agreement that children should have their own counsel in custody disputes.

In a motion during the previous parliamentary term, one can read that Kristdemokraterna propose that children should have the right to their own legal representative, and in a survey at the beginning of the year, Kristdemokraterna answered that they think we should investigate a legal representative for children.

In this motion report, motions are addressed, and there is also a reservation, where it is stated that the question of a legal representative for children shall be investigated. But the Christian Democrats reject this motion. My question to the Christian Democrats is: Why do you reject a motion that you actually stand behind?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret Martina Johansson's question as that we agree that children's voices need to be strengthened in somewhat different ways even in a courtroom. That is what the legal representative is actually about.

It is quite true that the Christian Democrats have pushed for and want a legal representative for children. But I believe that the best way to get it through is to work from within, that is to say that the ministry and the government work on the issue and come up with a proposal. I do not think that a motion from the Riksdag to the government will help. I actually believe that they are already working on the issue today and trying to find solutions that are best for the children. But the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats have the same view on the issue itself. It is only the solutions that are different.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Different solutions to the issue can be seen, and a comparison can be made. A year ago, we agreed on a notice regarding faster division processes. It would have been nice to do the same thing here. Or is it that the Christian Democrats this time cannot stand behind this because the Moderates do not want to investigate a legal representative for children? They are the only ones who in Save the Children's survey have answered that they do not want to investigate a legal representative for children. Is it a matter of the Christian Democrats choosing to step back on the issue in favor of the Moderates in the government, or has one changed one's mind and no longer thinks that a legal representative for children is needed?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If Martina Johansson thinks that I am a politician who backs down because I face opposition, she has misunderstood me.

I believe that this would be very good. Just as I said in my speech, we have the Convention on the Rights of the Child as law. But I do not think that is enough. I believe that we must have more incentives that ensure children's rights are met. Sometimes it is actually necessary for someone else to speak about what the children think, feel, and what is best for the children. In that case, I believe a legal representative is the best.

Nevertheless, I believe that the best way to achieve the policy that I desire - the policy that the Center Party also actually advocates - is by working to ensure that the department and the Government Offices produce the best proposals. Therefore, I think that we should not place more burdens on the government but let it work on this issue in the best possible way. I have full confidence that the Government Offices can work with this.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Larry Söder for his speech. I will highlight the same thing that Martina Johansson highlighted.

Recently, Save the Children presented a survey showing that seven out of eight parliamentary parties believe that an investigation should be commissioned regarding children's right to legal counsel also in these processes. KD was one of these parties. That pleased me. This very issue had a prominent place at the Christian Democrats' national convention before Christmas. In the motion response regarding this issue, the party leader, Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch, and her party board answered that KD already today advocates that children's rights should be strengthened and that children in custody disputes shall be entitled to a legal counsel. And in the core document of the convention itself, the family policy bill, it states that KD decided that children shall have the right to their own counsel in a custody dispute.

My question is: How are you running this already today? In the committee, where we together discussed and decided on these issues, member Larry Söder did not say a single word about this at all.

I want to give Member Larry Söder an opportunity to tell the voters, members, and delegates at the national convention how this is being done. I heard what the member said to colleague Martina Johansson, namely that this is being worked on from the inside. Is it then to be interpreted as a matter that is current in the Government Preparatory Committee in the coordination office? Is it a matter that is up at the party leadership level? The Liberals have not signed up for this debate, but the Liberals' party leader did raise the issue in a motion just before the election.

I wonder if Larry Söder can tell us a bit more about how the internal work is carried out, where you are already driving these issues today, because in the committee, KD's Larry Söder did not say a word.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not, of course, intend to disclose what is said in our conversations. That is something that stays where it is discussed. But the Christian Democrats have not changed their opinion. We still think that a legal representative is what is needed and believe that the children need that extra voice.

After today's committee meeting, where a professor gave us a presentation, we can conclude that children's voices do not reach all the way through. As a Christian Democrat, I think it is extremely important that children have their own voice, that children can actually speak about how they feel, what they think, and what they actually think is best for themselves.

Just as I said in the exchange with the member of the Center Party, I believe we have the same goal but different solutions for how we will get there. It is much simpler to work within the department and within the organization to produce the best possible proposals for the children's best interests. I do not believe that the motion route is the best way.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Larry Söder for the answer.

I proceed from, and I am sure that all Swedes in this country do, the fact that the parties put actions behind their words here in the chamber, at party congresses and national meetings, and what their party leaders say, that is to say, vote as they have expressed themselves.

KD has told Rädda Barnen that they want to see an investigation into this. A promise has been given regarding that. KD has stated that children should have the right to their own counsel in custody disputes and that they are already pursuing this today. On the Riksdag's table is now a proposal to appoint this investigation so that children shall be given the opportunity for counsel in these processes.

As was mentioned, we parties in the Committee on Civil Affairs agreed during the last parliamentary session, last year, that an investigation was needed to review the time limit in cases of domestic violence, as it is an instrument of violence that violent men primarily use. This happened, among other things, on the initiative of us Social Democrats, but many parties were involved. And we have truly appreciated the good dialogue in the committee regarding this. What then distinguishes this issue from that? Why can not all parties also in this issue, at least seven out of eight, jointly tell the government: Do this now, because we have a broad consensus in the Riksdag.

Until now, the government has not done anything in this area at all. On the contrary, we who stand outside the Government Offices get the impression that the issue is being blocked by the Moderaterna, who were the only party that said no to this in Rädda Barnens investigation.

What is it that prevents the Christian Democrats from joining us and ensuring that the investigation now becomes a reality?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It can be observed that the Social Democrats have one rhetoric in majority and another in opposition. They sat in the Government Offices for eight years and did not think of appointing a legal representative for children. But when they ended up in opposition, the light bulb went off.

Political organizations work in somewhat different ways and in different places. If you are in the majority, you work in one way, and in opposition in another way.

Right on time! The Social Democrats are welcome to make a rhetorical point about working in the Riksdag, but there are other ways to work on an issue than to write a motion. There are other ways to work on an issue than to stand and shout in a rostrum. There are many different ways. One does not need to disparage other people's commitment and diligent work in the Riksdag, for the Riksdag and for the Swedish people.

That a party says that one works for a cause means exactly that, namely that one works for a cause. I have been clear in this rostrum that the Christian Democrats are working for a legal representative for the children. I have not said anything else, and what that means must also be understood by a Social Democrat.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! It has now been over a year since the boy Tintin was murdered in Luleå by his father during a gathering. He was forced to attend the gathering, despite his fear, despite his mother's warnings, and despite several authorities being aware of the risks. Tintin was forced to attend the gathering and was murdered during the gathering.

Unfortunately, there are many more examples of violence against children during visitation. Often, social services and the district court have knowledge that a risk of violence exists, but the children have nevertheless been forced into the perpetrators' homes with abuse and violence as a result.

Children are also the only crime victims who are forced to meet their perpetrators. Society fails these children every day. It is not about isolated cases or exceptions. On the contrary, it is the case that children and mothers exposed to violence are systematically left alone by society's support systems and the justice system to be forced to defend themselves against the violence. There is plenty of research and reports, and this is well known.

Now it is up to us, the Swedish Riksdag, whether we will manage to achieve a practical change for these children. No child should be forced into contact with perpetrators, no child should have to experience violence, and no mother should have to be left alone with both protecting the child from the father's violence and from society's silence regarding and actual upholding of the violence.

Mr. Speaker! During the year that has passed since we last stood here in the chamber and debated family law, in March 2023, we Social Democrats have continued to highlight the issues of custody, residence, and visitation in cases of domestic violence.

I know that many are following this debate and want to take the opportunity to tell about the work that has been done in the Committee on Civil Affairs.

Firstly: Last year, the Social Democrats took the initiative for an open meeting in the Committee on Civil Affairs regarding exactly that family law legislation and violence against children. We appreciate that all parties took up our idea and that we could do this jointly. We invited experts to the meeting, and the meeting can still be viewed on the Riksdag's website.

What the experts spoke about, there was also great agreement among our parties on. The contact principle has gained greater traction in practice, and there is a risk that children may suffer harm. We agreed that it must be ensured that the assessment results in the child's best interests when a risk assessment regarding violence is actualized, and there was great consensus that the family law legislation needs to be changed to protect children from violence in the family.

Secondly: In the autumn, we invited all parties so that they had the opportunity to meet the Lex Tintin association, which was formed by Tintin's mother Sanam Gharaee. She told about what happened and how the legislation, instead of protecting her son, forced him into the social gathering where he was murdered by his father, even though society was aware of the risks associated with such gatherings. We appreciate that all parties participated in the follow-up meeting thereafter.

For the third: We Social Democrats have also taken the initiative that the Civil Affairs Committee's annual research seminar, which we held this morning and which was also mentioned by Member Larry Söder, focuses on the issues of children, visitation, and violence.

For the fourth: We have pressured the government for a statement on when proposals for actual legislative changes will be presented. It was we Social Democrats who, in a government position, tasked the Gender Equality Authority with mapping out to what extent and in what way information about violence is presented and considered in cases concerning custody, housing, and visitation.

Mr. Speaker! It was we Social Democrats who appointed the inquiry that led to the proposals in Safer Homes for Children. There is a lot to say about the investigator's independent product, but it was we who ensured that there is now actually a legislative proposal on the government's table for us to work on together, supplement, and make decisions on - so that the law can finally be changed soon.

It is we who have pressured the government to produce a timetable for when these proposals will reach the Riksdag. When it was delayed, we finally called the Minister for Justice to the committee, and he finally gave us the timetable. It is a timetable that the Moderate Party's Minister for Social Services subsequently denied even existed in the media, but which the Minister for Justice again, upon our question, had to confirm.

It is obvious that it has unfortunately been messy in the Government Offices, or at least with the Minister for Social Services, who does not seem to understand what civil law unfortunately means for children exposed to violence. But we have welcomed the announcements and meetings with the Minister for Justice, who is, after all, the one responsible. We will continue to closely monitor that the words become reality, and we appreciate the contact that has existed between us and the department.

Mr. Speaker! These are just a few examples of how we have tried to push for changes to the civil law regarding violence against children in the home. I would like to take this opportunity to thank other parties for good conversations regarding the issues of visitation and violence. It is obvious that there is a great consensus: Children shall not be forced into visitation, children shall be protected in the event of a risk of violence, and the law must be changed.

But, Mr. Speaker, beautiful words are not enough. We must move from words to action, now. We Social Democrats have in our committee motion presented a number of proposals in the area of family law that involve a continuation of the work we did in government position so that we as a country can realize the beautiful words: Children shall be protected from violence regardless of what, also when the risk concerns parental violence.

Firstly: We want, for example, to see an expansion of the legislation on the transfer of custody in cases of deadly and serious violence. We want to see if it is possible to expand this to more types of violence, and if so how, in order to prevent children from being forced to live with perpetrators.

It is appalling that it takes for a mother to be murdered for the child to practically automatically be spared having a violent father as a guardian, because he is then practically automatically deprived of custody. But other violence does not entail this change when it comes to custody, nor does it when it comes to visitation; children all around our country are repeatedly forced into visitation despite the risk of and occurrence of violence. This needs to change.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker: A mother who is afraid of the man who uses violence against her and the children and who has managed to escape a violent relationship to protect the children and herself, suddenly encounters a situation where the family law legislation, civil law, forces her into extensive contact with the man and readjustment to his violence. If she does not cooperate, she risks losing custody.

According to the Gender Equality Authority's review, there are several examples where a man's violence against a woman has been rewritten as cooperation problems between two people - as if the woman herself bears responsibility for the violence the man exerts against her and the children. There are even, Mr. Speaker, in the authority's mapping examples where the parents' and children's stay at a protected residence has been assessed as cooperation difficulties. This results in information about violence being diminished or rendered invisible, and that children and mothers are double-punished for violence they obviously are not responsible for.

This is unreasonable. It is not in the children's best interests, and therefore the law needs to be clarified and changed. If this is what we agree on.

For the third point: We Social Democrats want to see an investigation into children's right to legal representation even in civil law processes concerning their custody, housing, and visitation. It is time. The fact is, as has been mentioned here earlier, that seven out of eight parliamentary parties have told Rädda Barnen that they want an investigation. Still, we did not manage to get a majority in the Civil Affairs Committee for this; we did not get through. SD, KD, and L did not want to stand by their promises to the children's organizations in the committee.

Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, the issue is about representation for children's rights. Children have the right to representation, a special representative, in criminal proceedings. Children have the right to representation, a public counsel, in administrative proceedings. It does not seem logical that children should not have their own representation in civil proceedings that concern their entire lives – issues concerning custody, residence, and access.

Today's procedural setup means that when questions of violence are to be assessed within criminal cases and administrative cases, the child has the right to their own counsel. But when questions of violence within the family are to be assessed, the child has no one to speak on their behalf. I hope and believe that everyone here in the chamber agrees on the inconsistency in this and what it means for children in general and children exposed to violence in particular. This inconsistency, Mr. Speaker, is not in the children's best interests, and it is not worthy of a rule-of-law society.

Investigations, agency reports, the Children's Ombudsman, civil society - many have raised this demand. We have a majority in our beautiful chamber for this. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 5, which concerns this, in order to give all parties the opportunity to actually vote according to their conviction - yesterday we had a long debate about the importance of voting according to one's conviction - about whether an investigation should be commissioned. I find it difficult to see why this should be so complicated. I truly hope, therefore, that we will be able to get a majority for this reservation.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Since so much in this report and in what has been raised earlier here in the chamber revolves around the government's preparation of Safer Homes for Children, I would like to, on behalf of the Social Democrats, give some clear instructions to the government's work in preparing a referral to the Council on Legislation; much of the report is indeed about this. We have also put this forward in other contexts, but for the sake of transparency and for the record, we want to briefly address it also in this context.

Firstly, the principle of contact must be subordinated to the child's right to life and health. This needs to appear in the legislative text or in the preparatory works, or both. Within the framework of the overall assessment, the legislator's intention, that the child's right to life and health is superior to the principle of contact, must be clearly stated. This does not mean that the principle of contact is unimportant. Of course, children have a right to a good and close relationship with their parents. But the law must provide clear guidance to decision-makers that the child's right to life and health is always superior. Risk of violence must be considered, as violence affects children's lives and health. This obviously applies to all violence: physical, psychological and sexual violence, neglect, and so on.

Secondly, it is important to clarify that goals regarding custody, residence, and access are forward-looking and that the risk assessment is therefore central.

For the third, we argue that the provision in the Children and Parents Code, Chapter 6, Section 2, needs to be further sharpened, for example by presenting it as something that should be specifically emphasized regarding the risk of the child being harmed.

For the fourth, we want to see a control point in three years for an evaluation of how it has gone.

Mr. Speaker! We will, of course, return to this once we receive the government's proposal. But we wanted to take this opportunity as we believe the government is listening to this debate. We hope that this can mean that we gain time and effect.

For, Mr. Speaker, it is urgent to achieve a change. No child should be forced into contact where there is a risk of violence. The law needs to be changed. It is time to move from words to action.

In this speech, Denis Begic (S) agreed.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker, members and observers! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation number 4, but I want to emphasize that we stand behind all our reservations.

This debate addresses the important area of family law. Many important issues are included within family law, and everything cannot be highlighted in this speech. So, Mr. Speaker, I intended in my speech today to speak about the importance of family mediation and of it occurring at an early stage in separations.

The child's well-being and the child's best interests must always be in focus; it is something we can never compromise on.

Participation in family mediation shall be mandatory, and family mediation shall also take place as soon as it is clear that the parents are to go their separate ways. In connection with this, a special support person should also be appointed for the child. Through a special support person, the child's interests during a family mediation can be better accommodated than is the case today.

Today, voluntary cooperation talks are often offered between a couple who are going to separate, but it is the parents themselves who must take the initiative for these talks. Furthermore, one party or both can refuse a dialogue with the other parent without any direct consequences.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that if one waits too long to discuss solutions that are good for the child in a separation, the risk is high that the conflict will become even more inflamed, and the chance of reaching an agreement becomes smaller than if mediation had been held at an earlier stage.

According to the law, the focus should be on the child's best interests. Despite this, the parents' interests often overshadow the child's perspective when a solution for custody and residence is discussed.

The Sweden Democrats want to see a greater focus on the child's needs. It is the child who should be given the opportunity to have a relationship with their parents, their grandparents, and their cousins even after a separation. Here, we want to see that the municipality's family law unit, in cases of separation, convenes the involved parties for cooperation talks as soon as information is received that a couple is going to separate.

The conversations shall be mandatory, and the objective of these conversations shall be that the parents jointly take overall responsibility for what is best for the child, not for themselves. The municipality's family law unit shall, of course, be neutral and assist and provide information to both parties in an equal manner. No party shall be favored.

For the child, the best solution is that both parents are a part of the child's upbringing, and we want to see a more extensive family mediation than the one we see today in our municipalities. Sverigedemokraterna want to see a family mediation like the one that exists in our neighboring country Norway. There, they have early mediation, and the results have been good.

It is of great importance that we reach parents already at the beginning of a separation so that authorities can be given the best possible conditions to reach a solution between the parents which also, under the prevailing circumstances, is the best possible solution for the child.

To qualify for the role of family mediator, one shall be assessed through individual interviews and undergo in-depth training so that the person who is assigned the role of family mediator is suitable for the assignment and has sufficient knowledge for those types of conflicts.

The focus for the parents and the appointed family mediator shall be to find consensus solutions that primarily focus on the child's best interests. It is the child's perspective that shall be prioritized, not the parents' perspective.

Announcements were directed to the previous government that a review should be made of what knowledge-enhancing measures may be needed for those who work with family law issues. It is a task that we are now following up on within the Tidö cooperation.

For children who see their safe everyday life being torn apart, it can create [trauma] for life, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is so important that we do what we can early on to mitigate this experience for the child.

We can work to improve the situation for these children and avoid long legal processes, with both economic and emotional strain as a result. In the worst case, it can have far-reaching negative consequences for the child's development, for example when it comes to social competence.

A good dialogue at the beginning of a separation increases the possibilities for good long-term solutions. If both parents take responsibility for what is best for the child and do not use the shared children as a punching bag against each other, conditions are also created for the child, despite the circumstances, to have a secure and good upbringing where custody and residence can function well despite a separation.

Early cooperation agreements are the approach that we believe takes the child's perspective into account in separations and custody disputes between parents. At the same time, when it becomes a legal dispute, we want to see that the judge in the case meets the child personally and listens to the child's opinions and wishes. This increases the judge's understanding of the child's situation, and it can therefore contribute to the judge making decisions that take greater consideration of the child's interest.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Martin Westmont, for the speech!

We Social Democrats want to see an investigation into children's right to a representative even in civil law processes concerning their custody, residence, and visitation. Recently, we Social Democrats and the Center Party had an interpellation debate together with the Minister for Justice on this, where SD's member Martin Westmont also joined.

MP Martin Westmont then said: "I want to emphasize something of great importance, namely that children are given a representative who follows them throughout the entire process and is not replaced in the vulnerable situation the child is in." The MP also, on behalf of SD, posed the question to us whether we were prepared to cooperate in "this important issue of children should be given their own representative in these types of disputes".

In the committee, we have presented our proposal regarding representatives for children and the investigation. We have welcomed support from everyone on this issue, and last year in the Civil Affairs Committee, we were also able to agree on the announcement regarding a time limit for the division of property. But when we sat there at the committee meeting, SD and Martin Westmont did not say at all what was said here in the chamber in the interpellation debate that I mentioned, even though SD raises these issues in its own committee motion with a clear demand and even though they in Save the Children's survey clearly answered yes to whether they want to see an investigation on this.

My question to Member Martin Westmont and SD is: Will you live up to the promise to Rädda Barnen? Will you live up to what the Member said here in the chamber just recently? I believe it was the speaker's chair that I am standing in now that the Member stood in then. And will SD live up to the requirement in its own committee motion?

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for your question! Our assessment is this: When we looked at this question from the 2014 guardianship investigation, the question of legal counsel was also raised and proposed. A number of questions were also brought forward in the investigation, for example that, when a child receives a contact person at the social services, it can become a problem when the child receives an additional contact person when one enters into a legal dispute.

These are questions that we believe should be investigated further. Therefore, we are, just as the member mentioned, positive about investigating the issue. But with that said, we do not know which proposals the government will submit in the report Safer homes for children. We will find out during the month of May. After that, we will know more about how we should proceed with the issue of legal representation for children.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Martin Westmont, for the information and the revised words from the Sweden Democrats!

I still think it appears somewhat misleading on the part of the Sweden Democrats when one points out that the issue is handled in Tryggare hem för barn, because it is not handled in that way. The question of whether children should be given the opportunity to have a representative in all civil cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation has not been investigated in its entirety in that inquiry. It would be very interesting if the government and the governing parties would return to precisely this issue within the framework of this.

Previously, the question was raised as to why nothing has happened earlier. There have been several investigations in this area where the question has been raised, for example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child Inquiry and, most recently, the Inquiry on children's opportunities to demand their rights.

The investigation presented the following to the government: "The question of the right to speak and legal counsel for children in cases concerning custody, residence, and access is such a comprehensive and complex issue that it is not possible to submit concrete proposals within the framework of this investigation. The question should therefore be further investigated."

We consider that it is now time. The question could perhaps have been included in previous investigations where the opportunity to look at it existed, but the investigators themselves have said that a specific investigation into this was needed. Now we, all parties, have that message. Then it is this that must be done. We have addressed the issue previously, and now we continue with it.

I assume that all parties will put action behind their words here in the chamber, that is, vote according to how they have expressed themselves - according to the promises they have given to children's organizations, according to what they have stood and said here in the chamber and according to what they have written committee motions about. I listen and hear, and I hope that we will see more things ahead. But there is still a chance to vote on our reservation at the upcoming vote.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your contribution to the debate, Laila Naraghi!

I want to point out that we ourselves, in our committee motion, have proposed that children from day one in a separation shall be given an assistant who supports the child in the process. Our goal is that the conflict should not end up in court. This is a proposal that the Social Democrats have every possibility of supporting. It must still be the starting point, that is, that there should not be a dispute between the parents.

I therefore welcome the debate, and we await the government's decision in May. We will see what they deliver, and after that, we will simply see how we are to proceed with this issue.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

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

I will also base this on the interpellation debate that took place in the chamber on March 1, where we discussed precisely legal representation for children. Quote one from Member Martin Westmont: "Children often become a tool in a conflict and a struggle between a mother and a father, characterized by much hatred and problems." Quote two: "We are here to take responsibility."

Quote three is preceded by a question to me and the Social Democrats, who participated in the same debate, namely whether we were prepared to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats on individual issues where we share a common view. "This applies in particular to this important issue of whether children should be granted their own representative in these types of disputes."

Just like the Liberals, Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Centre Party, Liberals and Green Party, the Sweden Democrats have told Save the Children that they want to investigate a legal representative for children. For me, it is therefore quite clear that the Sweden Democrats want to investigate precisely a legal representative for children, yet they do not support the reservation that is in the report.

Then I can precede the member and say that children should not be in court. That is not where the dispute should be, but we need to do things in advance. But my question to the member is whether he thinks we should have a legal representative for children in those cases where the dispute goes as far as to court.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The question is very delicate given that there are positive parts and negative parts. It is also something that is addressed by the 2014 guardianship investigation, which I mentioned. Even the Minister for Justice has mentioned it in various contexts, including in the interpellation debate that the member refers to.

We therefore still maintain that we are positive towards investigating the issue, but at the same time we know that the report Safer homes for children will be released during May and that a government bill will likely also be submitted in September. At the current stage, it would be wrong of us to take a position because we do not quite know what the government will come up with based on the report, that is, what will be proposed as a referral to the Council on Legislation.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is clear that it is precisely for that reason we are to conduct an investigation - because there are always pros and cons, regardless of which proposal we want to implement. That is why we conduct investigations, whether it concerns this issue or something else. That is why we must investigate this. Yes, I know that Gunnar Strömmer has also said that there are pros and cons and that it is important to look at the issue. Well, then do it!

"Tryggare hem för barn" is a good investigation, but it contains no proposal regarding legal representation for children. If the issue is to be included in the bill that the government announces will come in September, it means that a proposal for legal representation for children will be included without any investigation basis. I therefore find it difficult to understand why we should wait for the bill, because I do not know where the government will obtain the potential proposal—unless there is an investigation ongoing at the Government Offices that we are unaware of.

As said: Every day that passes without someone taking the child's full perspective and standing entirely on the child's side in a custody dispute that is complex and properly infected – for that is what it is when one reaches the court, and it can involve both physical and psychological violence as well as neglect and so on – we will have children who are affected by having to continue to associate with a violent parent or a parent who exposes the child to psychological threats and neglect. We will also have children who lose contact with an adult they should have contact with.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the report Safer Homes for Children, it is discussed, among other things, that children should be provided with an assistant during a transfer of custody. That is one example. We do not know today how the government will handle that issue. We have proposed in one of our committee motions that children should have an assistant when it is known that a separation is imminent – preferably from day one. We believe that it is a very good measure to reduce the number of cases that end up in a dispute.

We have also, in one of our committee motions, proposed that the judge should have a dialogue with the child when a dispute does arise. We see that there are good results from that model from, among others, Canada and Australia. It is about the judge listening to the child in order to take in the child's wishes in a good way and take them into consideration before making their decision.

As it is today, there is already a lot on the table, and therefore we as a party have chosen to first see what the government comes up with from the report Safer homes for children. When we have that on the table, I welcome a continued debate on how we should proceed with these important issues.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I stand and look out over the chamber and note that the debate on a motion report on family law is not as well-attended as yesterday's major debate. I would, however, like to assert that these debates are at least as exciting as the debate we had yesterday.

These types of questions actually affect the lives of children and adults in a real way. The legislation we handle in the Committee on Civil Affairs, regarding family law issues, is incredibly important. It can be the difference for whether I can secure a new home or not after a separation, and it can be the difference for whether a child gets to continue growing up in safety or not. Issues that we deal with in this area, Mr. Speaker, are, for example: Who becomes a parent? Who is allowed to continue being a parent? Who inherits when someone dies? Who owns what in a divorce? And what does the child process look like in a dispute?

But despite the fact that this is real, it seems to be difficult to move from debate and words to promises and, ultimately, to action.

During one and a half parliamentary terms, that is to say during six years, I have had the privilege of working with family law issues. One of the first issues I came across was precisely the division of property. I met adults who had been in dispute for ten years without being able to finalize their divorce financially because they could not reach an agreement. One of the parties procrastinated and did not want to cooperate.

During these six years, at least something has happened in this chamber. We can discuss which government has done the one or the other. At least six years have passed, and a promise of an investigation has been made. It is quite nice to receive a confirmation after six years that someone has listened to what I and others have worked for.

The Moderates and I worked together during the previous parliamentary term to achieve this. Now I am waiting for the Moderates to move from debate, words and promises to action. I return once again to the same thing: It must be possible to say at least which quarter during 2024 one will start looking at the issue.

Six months have passed since the promise that there would be an investigation. It took three months to go from proposal to decision on visitation zones. Imagine if the government had the same tempo when it comes to family law issues as it does when it comes to the police's various work tools. I do not mean that it is not important to do things for the police, but I wish that one could have the same tempo when it comes to the rights of children and adults in family law.

I must turn to the Moderates on this issue. It is actually like this: Every day, women and men are waiting to move forward in their housing allocation. There are children who every day are waiting to get to two new and good accommodations after the parents have chosen to separate. When will the government prioritize the children?

Disputes between parents can involve two fully functioning parents who, for some reason, are unable to cooperate regarding their children. It requires an incredible amount of work to get this in order and to achieve a better focus early on.

Mr. Speaker! What I mean is that we must already in the investigations of family law provide the employees with better tools for risk assessment. We must also provide the parents with tools regarding how they should work to be able to cooperate further and counteract the disputes becoming so infected that they end up in court. The Center Party has proposed that there should be a mandatory mediation before one is even allowed to go to court. We must counteract what we can.

Not much is happening. I have not seen that the government has given expanded mandates to or set stricter requirements for MFoF to work with these types of issues. We have earlier today heard that the children affected by this can be the youths who in the future do completely different things in the city. Why then are we not working with this?

Mr. Speaker! If we do not succeed in preventing these disputes from ending up in court, it is a matter of protecting the children in the processes. We must let the child's perspective guide completely and entirely. Someone must stand on the child's side. Competence is required. It is required that one knows what one is doing when speaking with children to bring this up and hear what is actually happening. Is there physical violence? Is there psychological violence? Is there any neglect? Is there abuse? Children should not have to grow up and live in this.

I have been in there before: There is a majority in this chamber to investigate the issue of legal counsel for children. You may think I am persistent, but every day children are affected because no one stands on the child's side in a crazily intensified custody dispute.

Why can't Liberals, Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats, who want this, join the reservation that requests this from the government? I have heard members say that one works on the issue in a different way. I have also heard arguments that one does it in different ways depending on whether one is in the majority or in opposition, but for me, the work in this chamber is what is important when it comes to moving the issues forward. The motions we submit have as their purpose to tell the government what we want the government to do. If I had seen that the government had put a proposal on the table to launch an investigation on children's right to a legal representative in a custody dispute, I probably would not have been as persistent in this issue.

I am a bit afraid that it is about empty words, because this is not an issue that is prioritized by the government or in the Tidö agreement. Therefore, I am afraid that nothing will happen in the issue of legal counsel for children in custody disputes during this mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! During the Environment Party's time in government, two inquiries were commissioned that can be of great importance to ensure that all children have a right to their parents, regardless of what their families look like and regardless of how the children came to be. Today, I will focus on one of them, which was mentioned here earlier by the Member of Parliament from the Moderates, namely All-time Parenthood - a strengthened protection for children's family life.

The most important point with this investigation's proposal is to make the Children and Parents Code gender-neutral and less complex. This would lead to increased legal certainty and that all families are treated equally. The investigation was out for consultation until January 2023, and now it is high time to move the proposals forward.

The point of making the Parental Code gender-neutral is to avoid the various special regulations that exist today, for example for persons who have changed their legal gender. This has made the legislation very difficult to oversee. Ultimately, a consequence of the current order risks being that parenthood of children is established in an incorrect way without the affected parties being aware of this, and that it can then be revoked in the event of a conflict between the parents, so that the child loses a parent. It is very important that it is clear for everyone affected by the legislation what applies in a given situation.

Another proposal from the investigation is to introduce what the investigation calls parental proxy, which would facilitate matters for families with children where someone other than the parents takes on extensive parental responsibility. Miljöpartiet welcomes the proposal as a first step. In the long term, we also want more than two people to be able to be guardians for a child in situations where it is in the child's best interest, for example, when four people in practice have been the child's social parents since the child was born.

The proposal regarding parental power of attorney is not as far-reaching as introducing more than two guardians and should be something that more parties can get behind already. It would facilitate everyday life for many families.

Another proposal from the investigation that the Green Party particularly welcomes is expanded opportunities for adoption. It is not an issue that is addressed in today's report, but I still want to say something briefly about this.

The investigation proposes that former foster parents and persons who have previously been married or cohabiting should have the opportunity to adopt children jointly even after a separation. This is very positive from a child's perspective because it ensures that the child's best interests can be taken into account in the individual case. It is also positive for the possibilities to formalize relationships in families that previously have not had the opportunity to do this due to obstacles in the legislation. This is something that several different types of families may wish for.

An example of a type of family that would benefit from this new possibility is families that were formed before it became possible to be two parents of the same legal gender and who, because of this, did not have the opportunity to give both parents the same legal status. Those who were in that situation and have since separated can still have requests to give both parents the same status in relation to the children, even if these are now adults.

It should be a simple measure to implement in order to, for example, ensure inheritance rights. Miljöpartiet also wants, instead of introducing further exceptions, to completely abolish the requirement that adults must have a certain formal relationship status to be able to have a parental relationship to a child. The adoptive parents' relationship can instead be part of the general assessment of whether an adoption is appropriate and in the child's best interest in the individual case.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to review the regulation of who should be considered a parent in assisted reproduction in order to reduce the risk of parenthood being revoked. In the media, a case has been highlighted, among others, where a woman had her parenthood revoked after a separation because it had not been established in a correct way, which the woman was not aware of.

The woman and her female partner chose to have a child with the help of a private sperm donor. When the child was born, the woman who did not give birth to the child became a parent through the presumption of parenthood. This is something she should not have become. Instead, the couple would have needed to undergo a close relative adoption, something they were not aware of.

When the couple has now separated, the woman who gave birth to the child has chosen to take the opportunity to strip the other woman of her parenthood, which is therefore fully possible because it was not regulated in a correct way.

In the current situation, it is required that a couple fulfill four criteria for the person who does not give birth to the child to become a parent correctly through the presumption of parenthood:

They must be married, cohabiting, or registered partners at the time of the assisted fertilization.

The person who did not carry the child shall have consented to the treatment.

The assisted fertilization shall be performed at a qualified clinic, in Sweden or abroad, with permission to perform assisted fertilization with donated sperm.

The child shall, at an appropriate age, have the opportunity to access information about the donor.

If any of those criteria are not met, the parenthood shall be revoked if it has been established through a presumption of parenthood, and a close relative adoption shall be carried out.

The rules are so complicated that RFSL on its website has a several-page-long information text about what applies in different situations. It is obvious that there is a high risk that people do not know what applies in different situations and that parenthood is regulated incorrectly and then can be revoked. This regulation must be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say something about children's rights in situations where they have been subjected to violence or witnessed violence within the family. There are strong links between exposure to violence and mental ill-health and the risk of adverse development. Experiencing violence against a parent is also a serious form of child abuse with a strong link to ill-health and negative development.

Family Law

Today, society's interventions in cases of suspected violence against children or between parents are characterized by the fact that the adults have the greatest opportunity to influence society's measures. There are major deficiencies regarding children's right to be heard in legal processes. In several high-profile cases, including the very tragic so-called Tintin case, the need for more knowledge regarding children's rights and risk assessments in cases concerning custody and visitation has also become clear.

Miljöpartiet believes that children should not be forced into contact when they live in protected housing or with protected personal data. In addition to the obvious abuse of forcing a child to have contact with their perpetrator, it often involves great risks to the child's and usually the mother's safety.

Children should also not be forced into contact with a parent who has been convicted of violence against the child or the other parent. If the child wants contact, the adult world must ensure that it can take place safely.

We also want the use of interim sole custody to be reviewed. The possibility of awarding interim sole custody during an ongoing legal process or while the child lives with protected information already exists today, but it is used very rarely. We want to see a review of why that is and if changes need to be made in the legislation to facilitate it.

Miljöpartiet also wants, in like manner with many other parties here today obviously, that children shall have the right to their own legal counsel in matters concerning, among other things, custody and access. Children shall always have the right to their own legal counsel.

It is about the child's life and the child's rights. Therefore, the child shall always have the right to assistance to advocate for themselves. We mean that this should apply in all cases of custody and access. A more thorough investigation is needed on the issue of legal counsel for children in cases concerning custody, residence, and access.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

In this speech, Amanda Lind (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 April.)

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