Response to interpellation 2023/24:246 on every child's right to a secure family life

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Ulrika Westerlund has asked me whether I and the government will move forward with a proposition and make changes to, among other things, the Parental Code in order to ensure that all families in Sweden have an equal protection in the law.

Let me begin by saying that we have a parental legislation in Sweden that is repeatedly adapted in step with the development of society and the view on family life. Last year, new equal rules on parenthood in international relations entered into force. A few years earlier, a review of the rules on adoption was conducted. Recently, the rules on parenthood were also changed when, among other things, a presumption of parenthood for same-sex married couples was introduced.

It is true that the regulatory framework has become complicated. It is a consequence of all the changes that have been made. Last year, the report *Alla tiders föräldraskap - ett stärkt skydd för barns familjeliv* was submitted. The investigator was tasked, among other things, with proposing a more coherent and gender-neutral regulation of parenthood as well as rules on parental responsibility adapted to different family constellations. As Ulrika Westerlund mentions, proposals were also submitted regarding a time limit for the revocation of parenthood and expanded possibilities for adoption.

The question of parenthood after surrogacy arrangements contains several complicated issues and balancing of interests, including in relation to the birth mother and the child. Internationally, there is also no consensus on the question of whether it should be permitted to become a parent through such arrangements.

In Sweden, it is not permitted to carry out surrogacy arrangements. However, it occurs that children who have come into being through surrogacy arrangements abroad grow up in Sweden, and as I have previously emphasized, it is important that all children in Sweden have legal representatives. It is important to ensure that we have a regulatory framework based on the best interests of the child and that is compatible with both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention.

A year ago, the EU Commission presented its proposal for an EU regulation with private international law rules on parenthood. The proposal applies to all children in the EU, regardless of how the child was created or what the child's family looks like. This means that the proposal currently covers parenthood for children who have come into being through surrogacy arrangements. Regarding the Swedish report from 2021 that Ulrika Westerlund mentions, it is correct that there are a number of open questions there that it remains for the government to take a position on. It appears appropriate to await the outcome of the EU negotiations before we do so.

Even though I do not want to anticipate the ongoing preparation of any of the proposals I have now mentioned, it is important for me and the government that rules on parenthood guarantee children's right to a family life.

In the area of family law, my primary focus right now is on preparing measures that can strengthen children's right to a safe upbringing, free from violence, based on the proposals submitted in the report Safer homes for children.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Justice for the answer. I interpret the answer in part as that the proposals from the investigation *Alla tiders föräldraskap* are not currently prioritized by the government, which is somewhat unfortunate. I would, of course, like to argue why they should be.

The regulatory framework is complex as a result of all the changes that have been made over the years. They have been made to better include different types of families because society's view on who can live in a family has changed. The law has been patched and repaired, and a number of special regulations have been introduced.

With this order, the ultimate consequence is unfortunately that parenthood of children can be established in an incorrect manner without the parties involved even being aware of this, and it can be revoked in the event of a conflict between the parents. In that case, the child can lose a parent. It is very important that this is clear for everyone affected by the legislation and that it is transparent what applies in a given situation.

I am quite sure that the Minister for Justice and I agree that children deserve the same protection and access to their parents regardless of what the family looks like and how the children came to be. But that is not quite the case, and it was one of the reasons why the investigation was initiated. I think it is important that the proposals are moved forward.

There may also be other changes that are necessary to implement, in addition to those that this specific investigation proposes. Let me give an example. For the introduced presumption of parenthood for same-sex couples, which the Minister for Justice mentions in his response, to apply, there are a number of criteria that must be met:

Answers to interpellations

The parties must be married 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 competent 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 not all these criteria are met, the person who has not given birth to the child must be aware that she needs to adopt the child as a close relative in the same way as before the presumption was introduced. But in order to be able to do so, she first needs to revoke her, according to the law, incorrectly registered parenthood. Otherwise, there is a risk that the parenthood may be revoked later against her will if a conflict has arisen.

That the individual must know the regulatory framework in this way is because the Swedish Tax Agency, when they receive information that a child has been born, by whom, and whether the person is married or not, does not perform any further checks on whether the four other criteria are met or not. Parentage can therefore be established in an incorrect way without the persons concerned being aware of it.

Therefore, the commission's proposal to at least limit the possibility of rescinding a parentage so that an action must be initiated before the child has turned three years old is very positive from a children's rights perspective. As mentioned, there may also be reason to review the regulatory framework further to minimize the risk of incorrectly established parentage, which may have occurred without the parties themselves being aware of it.

I look forward to hearing more about how the Minister for Justice views the possibilities of taking measures in this area.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Westerlund, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues. They are important both in principle and in practice, both for children and for parents.

I want to emphasize that the issues are a priority for the government. On the other hand, they must also be handled in a way so that we put the whole together in the end and achieve at least one important purpose with it. In addition to the developed legal certainty that Ulrika Westerlund addresses when it comes to, for example, time limits for the revocation of parental rights, it is also a matter of creating an understandable regulatory framework that is not tangled and impenetrable for the individual.

It concerns, in part, cases with an international connection. The EU law processes that are ongoing will affect our legislation. They will do so in such a way that we believe we must keep together the whole of further changes in the Swedish legislation in light of what we will agree upon at the EU level.

There is no doubt that the issues being raised here – the time limit for the termination of parental rights, expanded opportunities for adoption, and other issues – are prioritized in substance. Now it is just a matter of finding a process that allows us to put the whole together in a good way. This should, according to the assessment made at the Ministry of Justice, take place in light of the discussions that are also being held at the EU level.

I want to conclude by saying that it of course should be transparent regulatory frameworks that are simple and understandable for individual people and that are also simple and clear to apply and use in practice for authorities and other actors. It is clear that the underlying purpose of all this is to ensure a safe and secure upbringing for children, safe family conditions and safe conditions for families, so that more children can grow up under safe circumstances and with families who, so to speak, are secure about what applies.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the continued answers! As I understand it, it is probably only the question, which I have also raised in my interpellation, regarding surrogacy regulation that is directly affected by this EU regulation. I will return to that a bit later. But there are a lot of questions that we in Sweden can solve on our own without it interfering with any upcoming EU legislation.

For example, people still have children on their own through private arrangements without involving clinics. In those cases, this situation also arises, with potential complications and uncertainties regarding how parenthood is to be established, without the involved parties perhaps understanding it themselves. Most people do not sit and look at the law book before deciding how the family formation shall proceed; rather, it is something one makes decisions about based on completely different values or ideas about how one wants to live their life.

I would like to say something about expanded opportunities for adoption, which is also touched upon in the investigation *Alla tiders föräldraskap*, and why they are very important. The investigation proposes, among other things, that former foster parents and persons who have previously been married or cohabitants should have the opportunity to adopt children jointly even after a separation.

It is very positive from a child's perspective, because 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 so due to obstacles in the legislation. This is something that several different types of families may want.

An example of a family that would benefit from the new possibility is a family formed before it became possible to be two parents of the same legal gender. It was not possible then to give both parents the same legal status. For those who were in that situation, for example in the 90s, and who have since separated, there may still be a wish that both parents should have the same status in relation to the children, even if the children are now adults.

There are families who perhaps do not have time to establish parenthood in a correct way before they separate, which many manage to do already when the children are small in all types of family formations. Expanding the possibilities for adoption would enable these families to ensure the children's right to their parents and also ensure the right of inheritance.

Other families who would benefit are families who have functioned as foster homes and had children who could not grow up with their original parents. They have in practice functioned as parents for those children throughout their entire upbringing. The original parents may have opposed an adoption while both the child and the foster parents have wished to carry out such an adoption. When the child is of age, the child can themselves make decisions regarding an adoption, but the adoption is currently not possible to carry out if the parents have managed to separate.

All these different situations may appear to be special and as if they affect few individuals, but taken together, it is a non-negligible part of the population that would benefit from the rules being changed.

In this context, I would like to mention that Miljöpartiet would, in the long run, like to abolish the requirement that adults must have a certain formal relationship status in order 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.

I would like to hear more about how the Minister views the possibility of improving the situation for those affected by these issues.

I would also like to mention the investigation's proposal on parental power of attorney, which Miljöpartiet views positively. This would facilitate things for families with children where someone other than the parents takes on extensive parental responsibility. It could, for example, be four people who have all functioned as the child's parents since the child was born. Is the proposal on parental power of attorney something that the minister will take further?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! It is, of course, correct as Ulrika Westerlund says that of the issues we are discussing, it is primarily the surrogacy issue that has an international character and is the main issue being discussed at the EU level when it comes to creating a private law framework that applies equally for everyone throughout Europe. The other issues we are now raising, for example, the time limit for contesting parenthood and expanded opportunities for adoption, are, so to speak, national regulation.

What makes me still believe that there is a point in handling this in one and the same grip is that the reforms in the area of family law have often occurred – one can see this over time – in somewhat larger grips. This also results in a kind of organic change of the whole. An important purpose of the grip that will now need to be taken is also to create a whole that hangs together. To get rid of the complexities and to make it clear and simple is an important part of the purpose. That is probably the background to why there are now several issues on the table and that we are going to try to take them collectively. Preparation is ongoing in light of the investigation, referral responses, and other things.

We simply have to continue to discuss the issues. I want to emphasize that this should not be interpreted as them not being prioritized. It is more a question of how they should be handled in a good way, so that the overall objective is also achieved.

I am not prepared to take a stand on the issue of parental power of attorney on the spot. It has been discussed for a long time. There is an openness from several parties regarding the issue. And the underlying purpose, I think, is very simple to understand and grasp. It is fundamentally about contributing to as secure family conditions as possible, based on the actual situation that the individual child is in.

That is why I believe that all such proposals should be discussed in a constructive spirit. What it should lead to in the future, we can return to, but I am open to discussing all proposals aimed at creating a secure family situation for children and proposals aimed at strengthening children's right to a family life.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the answers! I just want to point out that this investigation has taken exactly that broader approach, as it was the first time that the entire Parental Code was reviewed and an attempt was made to make it consistent and not a patchwork. I hope that it will be prioritized and that something will happen during the mandate period.

In conclusion, I will say something about the situation for children who have come into being through surrogacy arrangements. As the Minister mentioned in his answer, there is no consensus here, neither in Sweden nor internationally. But the situation for children who have come into being through such arrangements must nevertheless be considered.

In the investigation report from 2021, New rules on foreign parenthood and adoption in certain cases, the investigator proposes that the legal recognition in Sweden shall take place within the framework of the existing adoption legislation and that certain provisions on adoption shall therefore not apply in exceptional cases.

The proposals originated from two rulings in the Supreme Court, which among other things stated that Sweden must look at legislation from a perspective of the child's best interests, even if one has views on the existence of surrogacy. The child itself has no possibility of influencing how it came to be.

The parental responsibility regulation from the EU, which may come, is important and much awaited. But it is perhaps not likely that it will become a reality in the near future, at least not in its current form.

I read a fact memorandum from the Government Offices from January of this year. It states that a number of countries have already opposed, for example, including children who have come into being through surrogacy arrangements. Therefore, I would like to encourage the government not to wait for the EU in this specific issue.

Since the Minister mentioned the second investigation, Safer Homes for Children, I just want to remind that we also debated that earlier this year. Our co-submission then was that we hope the government will go a bit further than what the government proposes regarding, for example, not forcing children into contact.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Ulrika Westerlund for the opportunity to discuss these issues!

I will start where the member ended, with Safer homes for children. It is a broader investigation concerning children's safety, not least in vulnerable situations. I was in the Committee on Civil Affairs last week and could then say that we intend to proceed with a referral to the Council of Legislation based on that investigation. We will have to see exactly how we land on different parts towards late spring, in order to be able to submit a government bill to the Riksdag after the summer.

During next year, this will be one of the most important bases for continued discussion on children's rights. I am very glad that we can do this, and I am also aware of the comments that have been made from various sides regarding different parts of the proposals.

Regarding the second question, it is quite true that there are different views on surrogacy. It is not unknown that the party I represent is open and offensive on that issue. But quite regardless of what I think on the issue, I want to take note of what Ulrika Westerlund said, namely that children cannot themselves control the way they have come into the world. From a children's rights perspective, regardless of different views on the issue of surrogacy itself, there is no doubt whatsoever that we have a positive obligation to ensure that all children, regardless of how they have come into the world, receive a secure, safe and well-protected upbringing and a good family life.

I want to emphasize that, and it is in that vein that we must work forward with several of the proposals that we have now discussed together.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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