Response to interpellation 2022/23:162 on a strengthened child rights perspective in legislation on visitation and custody
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns strengthening the child rights perspective in legislation regarding visitation and custody. M believes that the child's best interests should be prioritized and that children should be protected from violence 1. M wants courts to receive better training on vulnerability to violence and risk assessments 2. M is open to children having their own legal representatives but emphasizes that children should instead be heard via social services 2. M argues that the investigation should focus on individual cases rather than a rigid main rule 3. M believes there is broad support for the interests being raised 4. MP demands that children should be given their own legal representatives 5 6. MP wants that no visitation should occur if the parent lives in a protected residence 7 6. MP wants that courts receive training 5 6 and that the use of temporary custody be reviewed 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Ulrika Westerlund has asked the Minister for Social Services if the government will present a proposal for a "lex Tintin" and if the proposal will contain the measures that the Green Party is calling for.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
It is a self-evident matter for this government that children shall be protected against violence and other abusive treatment and that every child shall be given the opportunity to participate in matters concerning him or her.
The Government received the report Safer homes for children on 20 January. The investigation presents proposals for legislative changes to strengthen the protection for children when the question arises whether the child should have contact with a parent who has committed violence or committed some other serious violation. In the report, the investigation considers, among other things, how contact should be viewed in a situation where the child or a parent has protected personal data or is located in a protected residence.
The government's position on this issue is clear: The best interests of the child shall always be put first. It is the child's needs, not the parents', that shall be governing.
The investigation's proposal is a significant part of the government's work to achieve this. For the continued work, it will naturally be central to take part of the referral bodies' views. If it should turn out that the investigation's proposal is not sufficient, the government is prepared to consider further measures.
Ulrika Westerlund (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I do not doubt the good intentions. I believe we agree on the importance of ensuring that all children have a safe life without violence. I participated in the demonstration last week on what would have been Tintin's ninth birthday. It was said there, among other things, that we can no longer give Tintin presents, but we can give him a change in the law. He would have played Nintendo Switch with his friends on his ninth birthday, we were told, but that is not what happened.
Tintin's family and friends demand change. No more children shall be forced to interact with a violent parent, and no more children shall meet the same fearsome fate.
Tintin's family and friends are in good company. Over 73,000 people have signed Unizon's appeal to stop forced visitation. We are many here in the Riksdag who demand a lex Tintin.
I know, as I have said, that the Minister shares the Green Party's ambition in this matter. Therefore, I also believe that we can achieve a real change. But what does a "lex Tintin" mean concretely? It must be more than just beautiful words.
A fundamental part is that children should have their voices heard. This happens far too rarely today. Miljöpartiet, together with among others the Children's Ombudsman and a long line of children's rights organizations, has long demanded that children should have their own legal representatives in custody disputes. Children are independent rights-holders, and therefore they must have the right to a legal representative who only has their best interests in mind. That person shall not be able to be influenced by any parent. They shall not be the child's substitute but the child's spokesperson.
It is very clear that the courts all too rarely include children's information or consider information regarding violence in their judgments. When the Gender Equality Authority reviewed over 800 judgments regarding custody, residence, and visitation, it became clear that there is a lack of a systematic approach for risk assessments regarding violence and abuse, if any such assessment is made at all. We could read that the courts weigh in very little on children's stories and information about violence.
It also became very clear that there are deficiencies in the knowledge of how families are affected by violence and of the consequences of children being forced to spend time with a parent who has subjected the child to violence. This is, of course, unacceptable, and the courts must receive more knowledge about what it is like to live with violence and what risks exist.
If children are given their own legal representatives and the courts gain more knowledge about violence, we can take two significant steps towards preventing more tragic cases.
My questions are: Will the government propose that children should be granted the right to their own legal counsel? And will the courts receive training regarding violence exposure and risk assessments?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! First, I would like to say a big thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues through Ulrika Westerlund's interpellation.
I know that there is a large and, not least, cross-bloc commitment in the Riksdag for the work that Unizon does. I personally received the petition last week, which was impressive, with over 70,000 signatures. It is also a confirmation that there is broad support among the citizens for the issues and perspectives that we are now discussing. They were put to the test in a brutal and terrible way in the case that Ulrika Westerlund brings up.
It may sound like a self-evident matter to say that one shares the starting point, but it is nevertheless important to say that the interests to be taken into account are not something that there is any difference of opinion about. It is about the child's best interests concretized in a number of different respects. The question is rather how this interest should be taken into account in the best possible way.
Let me take the concrete questions that Ulrika Westerlund poses. When it comes to education to raise the knowledge of the courts and, for that part, also among others who in a concrete way are to take the child's interest into account, I really want to commit to contributing to ensuring that training takes place to a greater extent and with higher quality than today. It is absolutely essential that those who ultimately judge and decide these questions have a proper knowledge of the cases they are to take a stand on, and by that I do not mean only knowledge of the circumstances in the concrete case but also a background knowledge against which one can also test the individual case. There, I think it is easy to reach an agreement.
The second question, regarding the right for children to have a representative, has been discussed previously and has also been the subject of government inquiries. There, there has been a fairly broad majority of voices that have ultimately landed on choosing a different path to let children be heard in the courts. Simplified, one could say that instead of through a representative in the legal process, they shall be allowed to be heard through social services and others who normally have this relationship with the children. And the social services then have a role in the legal process to ensure that these perspectives are brought forward.
For my part, I am open in this matter, for I know myself, as a somewhat scarred representative in court, that the person who has their own rights and interests in a legal process generally wins by having their own representative when it comes to having a voice or getting their rights in the process. Then it is clear that this is complicated by the fact that we are talking about children and a very special type of legal processes. And I think that the experiences that have previously been laid to ground for the line that one should take care of the children's interests in other ways than through a representative are still worth considering.
As said: I am open to the question, and I look forward to discussing it further ahead. I am not prepared to give any decision here and now.
Ulrika Westerlund (MP)
Madam Speaker! I have also followed these issues, perhaps not as long as the Minister. But the Green Party has been engaged for a very long time, and we think the time has come to try a new path. Therefore, I am glad to hear that one is still considering the possibility of giving children their own representatives, even though I understand that it is not possible to give a decision right here today.
This investigation was commissioned by, among others, Miljöpartiet. We were very much looking forward to reviewing their proposals. Even though the proposals are interesting, we share the concerns of children's rights organizations and others that they may not be sufficient proposals. This applies, among other things, to this matter regarding children's right to a public counsel when the question of transfer of custody is to be examined. We think that it may be too late and that a representative should come in earlier. It is pleasing to hear that this is also being considered.
Another issue where our perception differs from the investigation's concerns this matter of visitation. We want as a starting point that no visitation should take place when the parent, usually the woman, and the child live in protected housing or have protected information due to fear of the perpetrator. The investigation does not suggest this, and it has led to disappointment among the organizations that work for all people's - it concerns both parents and children - right to a life without violence.
It is unreasonable that children who are hiding should be forced to interact with their perpetrator. It is equally unreasonable that the child should be forced to bear the heavy responsibility of keeping secret where the child and the other parent live. It is a responsibility that we simply cannot place on children.
The Gender Equality Authority's mapping, which I mentioned earlier, shows that in several judgments, the fact that a woman lives in a protected residence with her children was seen more as evidence of so-called cooperation difficulties than as evidence that violence had occurred. It is very remarkable, and it shows the importance of education for the courts. At the same time, we both know that it is difficult to educate courts. They are to be impartial and so on, and many have submitted requests for different types of education for the courts. This is still important, but it is also important to perhaps be even more concrete regarding what is to apply, for example by saying that visitation shall not occur in certain specified situations, and not rely entirely on education.
We consider that the fact that a parent with their child has been placed in a protected residence is a clear indication that visitation is risky. It is reasonable that it is therefore stated as a particularly important circumstance in the legislation.
We have also received indications that decisions on temporary custody are rarely made when information regarding violence is present, despite the possibility existing. We need to find out why. Therefore, a review was needed of how this important possibility is used. Children must be protected from contact with violent parents, quite simply.
Then we know that there are children who nevertheless express a desire to meet a violent parent. In that case, our society must help the child by ensuring a safe, supervised meeting on the child's terms. As a starting point, however, it is reasonable that meetings should not take place when a child has protected personal data or lives in a protected residence due to a violent parent. This should weigh very heavily in the overall assessment to be made for the child's best interests.
I naturally wonder: Will the government propose that the starting point should be that no socializing shall take place in such situations? And will the government appoint a review of how the possibility of making temporary decisions on custody is used?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! We can begin with the question of whether the starting point should be no socializing in the situations that Ulrika Westerlund mentions. It is very easy to understand and align with the grounds behind that position. I have no reason whatsoever to question the broad human experience that lies behind that position.
I have noted that the investigator's starting point - it is also the starting point that exists in the legislation - is that an assessment shall be made in the individual case, based on the circumstances that apply in the individual case. The aspects that Ulrika Westerlund is now raising are naturally completely central. If they occur in an individual case, it is clear that they shall have a major impact in the assessment that takes place.
What is, shall we say, a risk or questionable with writing in such a distinct main rule is that one provides such concrete legal guidance that one will not assess the conditions in the same way in the individual case. It will be interesting to see what the referral bodies write about this in connection with the investigation. The investigation does not go as far as Ulrika Westerlund and Miljöpartiet want.
There is an approach that the investigation takes which I think is fundamentally important and which addresses this issue. The best interests of the child is, so to speak, a fundamental chord in the legislation. Then it has been a starting point that it is in the child's interest to have contact with both parents. That principle has been strong and has perhaps at times gained a greater impact than what can possibly be considered compatible with the child's best interests. The starting point shall be that it is in the child's interest to have contact with both parents. It must, of course, never override to the extent that it is both parents' interest in having contact with the child that takes precedence.
One thing the investigation establishes is that too much weight is placed today on that aspect, i.e., the child's alleged need and interest in contact with both parents. This is a way of approaching the issue and downplaying that which perhaps causes one, in all too many cases, to disregard other interests that perhaps should take precedence when assessing this.
I have, as I have said, a very easy time understanding the experiences that lie behind a somewhat more distinct line in the issue. The opposing perspective is that we should not end up in a situation where rigid regulation causes us to move away from what must nevertheless be the foundation – to truly take into account the circumstances in the concrete case and let that be decisive.
But I assume, as I said, that this will be one of the issues that will be discussed properly in connection with the referral process that is now starting. We simply have to see where it leads.
Ulrika Westerlund (MP)
Madam Speaker! We also look forward to the responses from the referral bodies to this investigation. There are many organizations there that have worked for a long time and have seen much, which has resulted in them often having similar positions as Miljöpartiet regarding the issue of visitation when the woman, usually, lives in a protected residence together with the child.
Assessments must, of course, be made in the individual case, but experience shows that the assessments often go wrong. That is why it has been decided that one wants to go further and be clearer about what shall apply in order to minimize the risk of being subjected to violence.
It is our duty as legislators to do everything we can to prevent more children from being killed by their parents. We must send a crystal-clear signal to all the children who are subjected to violence by a parent and to all the children and parents who are hiding in protected housing: We see you, we hear you, and we will act so that no more children meet the same fate.
I repeat our four demands to the government:
Give children access to their own legal counsel.
Protect children from forced contact when they live in a protected residence or have protected personal data due to a violent parent.
Provide the judges with education on vulnerability to violence and risk assessments.
Review whether temporary custody is used sufficiently often in cases involving violence.
We started this debate about the discussion on the demonstration on what would have been Tintin's ninth birthday, when the family could not give him any presents. But we can give him a legislative amendment.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Once again, a big thank you to Ulrika Westerlund for raising this extremely important and pressing issue in her interpellation! I know, and she can be assured of it, that there is broad support behind all the interests that both today's interpellations and the debate on the underlying cases bring to the fore.
Of the four requirements that Ulrika Westerlund raises, it is easy to embrace at least the latter two outright. It is also easy to agree with the first two in light of the experience that forms the basis for these positions. I personally still want to wait and see what this referral process yields. I also have great respect for the background of experience that points in a slightly different direction when it comes to the concrete solutions.
Simply put, we will see where the discussion before us will lead us, but there is no doubt that it is important to maintain a continued dialogue regarding these issues. I am pleased that our two party leaders met as recently as last week to discuss these issues. It is also an expression of a strong mutual interest that the issues should be handled in the best way possible.
It will be an exciting and important spring when it comes to these issues. Let us return in the near future!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.