Response to interpellation 2025/26:67 on new criminal classification and amended prescription rules for illegal adoptions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government takes the issue very seriously and has taken measures by extending the prescription periods for serious crimes and appointing an inquiry into human trafficking 1. M emphasizes that the work is being carried out seriously based on the Adoptionskommissionen's findings to ensure compensation and future security 2 3. M believes it is easier to blame previous governments for passivity than the current government 3. M wants to point out that extensive changes to the prescription rules have already been implemented 4. M argues that work is ongoing to move forward as soon as possible in light of the Adoptionskommissionen's report 4.
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! Lorena Delgado Varas has posed a number of questions to me regarding illegal adoptions, including whether I intend to take the initiative for a new criminal classification for illegal adoption of children and whether I intend to work for a legislative change so that crimes linked to illegal adoptions are not subject to a statute of limitations when the crime has been committed against children.
This summer, the government received the Adoption Commission's report on Sweden's international adoption activities (SOU 2025:61). Many important and difficult questions are raised in the report. The consultation period expired on October 6, and the commission's proposals and the consultation responses are now being processed further within the Government Offices.
In cases where crimes can be suspected in connection with adoption, it is the judicial authorities that shall investigate it. Suspected errors and deficiencies in the adoption mediation can also be investigated by the supervisory authority, the Agency for Family Law and Parenthood Support. As Minister for Justice, I cannot comment on what measures these authorities should take in an individual case. But I want to highlight that the government during the mandate period has taken several measures in the areas that the interpellor raises.
On April 1, legislative changes came into force which mean that the prescription period for several serious crimes has been extended. For example, the prescription period for human trafficking has been extended from 15 to 25 years. Furthermore, the legislative changes mean that imposed prison sentences will not be prescribed. The legislative changes give crime victims the opportunity for redress even if a long time has passed since the crime was committed.
Earlier this year, the government appointed an inquiry that is to submit proposals on how Sweden should implement the amending directive to the human trafficking directive. The amending directive states, among other things, that member states shall ensure that the crime of human trafficking also covers exploitation of illegal adoption. The inquiry is to present its proposals in December this year.
We have also strengthened the support for adopted children and adoptive parents. In January this year, the government tasked the Agency for Family Rights and Parenthood Support to, among other things, be the national contact point for issues concerning irregularities in international adoptions, provide support to adopted children in connection with origin searches, and provide adoption-specific, professional counseling to adopted children and adoptive parents.
The question regarding Sweden's international adoption activities is important. It requires careful analysis and consideration. I do not want to anticipate the work currently underway within the Government Offices to analyze the Adoption Commission's report and the referral responses, but I can assure the questioner that the government takes the matter most seriously.
Lorena Delgado Varas (-)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer.
When I began my work here in the Riksdag many years ago, this was one of the issues I decided to make a difference in. I was involved in pushing through the investigation. Fortunately, you were in opposition. I am not sure that you would have opened this door if you had been in government, especially considering that the Prime Minister himself bears some of the responsibility in that he was chairman of the Adoption Center and chose to ignore alarming testimonies and reports.
I also react to the language when it is called "irregularities" when it should be called "crimes against humanity." We are talking about child trafficking, after all. A structure was built where it was permitted to sell – adopt – children who had been kidnapped, in some cases even declared dead, in their first home country. It was a system that split families, deprived children of their right to identity, and left mothers and fathers standing with empty arms and a lifelong search for their children.
This is a human rights catastrophe, and government after government has chosen to turn a blind eye to it. It was not until the children who were subjected to trafficking now as adults discovered the truth that this began to be questioned. And it was absolutely not until the media did its job that the political parties listened, if only half-heartedly. However, they did stand behind the demand for an investigation.
The government's response is strategically evasive. While the minister tries to appear proactive by pointing to minor adjustments and future investigations, the reality shows a need for a paradigm shift. We need a full acknowledgment of the crimes. We need to remove the statute of limitations. We need to thoroughly settle the score with history, both morally and legally. That is to say, we need to create justice.
There is a phrase used by those who have been affected by these crimes: ”No mas silencio.” It means ”no more silence.” It is time for the government to take a bit more action and ensure that there is a new criminal classification for illegal adoption of children in place when the baton is handed over to the next government. It would be a classification that clarifies that it is a punishable crime to adopt children through false documents, corruption, or without consent from biological parents. It would also mean that the statute of limitations, which today is an obstacle to justice, is removed.
My question to the Minister is: Will it happen before the gavel is handed over to the next government?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the timeline. It will undoubtedly happen before we hand over any gavel to a new government, as it is at least four, eight, twelve, or perhaps sixteen years away. We will ensure that the work is carried out expeditiously, and we will do so in light of the proposals that have been submitted by the Adoption Commission as recently as this year. The referral period for the important work, as mentioned, expired a few weeks ago.
If we are now to take the questions seriously, the investigation was commissioned against the background of an announcement from the Swedish Riksdag that all parties here in the house stood behind. If we are to discuss the questions in a serious way from now on, I think it is important that the historiography is correct. All parties here in the chamber stood behind an announcement that led to this important work.
We received the work this summer. We have referred it in a serious manner. Many are engaged in the issue. We have received a basis that is broad and deep and has an offensive intention. It is from this basis that we are now working further.
We know which proposals the Adoption Commission submitted. It is everything from a public apology to the affected persons to a national resource center and financial contributions in various respects. A long series of proposals were submitted, which it is now, of course, very important to continue working on in a serious manner. This is precisely what is happening.
I also turn towards the somewhat sloppy description of how we describe the problem, that is, as serious crime, also in my interpellation answer. The fact that we speak about punishment and about extended or abolished prescription periods is precisely because it is serious crime. We have a very strong interest in that the seriousness of this crime is reflected in the punishments, and it is against that background that we are now changing the prescription rules in the area.
There is no doubt whatsoever that for those persons who are affected by the failures, the abuses, and in applicable cases the criminal acts that have occurred historically, we shall, as we look forward in light of the basis we have received, naturally both ensure that compensation is provided for transgressions that have occurred in the past and ensure a regulatory framework for the future that entails safety, legal certainty, and decency. My firm opinion is that we will be able to achieve this, not least based on the basis we have received from the Adoptions Commission, which, as mentioned, came after a unanimous announcement here in the Riksdag.
Lorena Delgado Varas (-)
Madam Speaker! I have not said that not all parties stood behind this, which they did. It was very good. But it was thanks to the media giving a push forward on the issue that it was decided to start an investigation.
It is very good that the Minister raises the issue of compensation and forward-looking rules so that this does not happen again. No one wants that. What I, however, lack in the answer is the word justice. I believe we are obligated to achieve justice for all those who have experienced this.
I intend to read a text that one of those who have experienced this has sent to me. It is from a woman who is 49 years old today, and she describes the whole thing like this: I was taken from my home when I was nine months old. I was hidden until they had found the "right" family who could adopt me. During that time, they changed my identity, my name, my age, and my entire history. On paper, I became a foundling, but in reality, I was a child who had been stolen. My biological parents continued to search for their beloved daughter who disappeared. She vanished into thin air one day in December 1977.
Minister! This is unfortunately not an isolated case. Unfortunately, most do not begin their search for their first family until they are adults and, in many cases, not until they themselves have had children. This means that a prescription period of 25 years is not sufficient. I also want to point out that the delay of justice means that more parents from the first family, that is, those who stood with empty arms and searched for their children, risk passing away, and some have already passed away before they have even received redress.
IPU, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, has come to the same conclusion as they adopted, that is, that the prescription period must be removed. It was a unanimous decision and truly shows how pressing the issue is.
Sometimes I am surprised by how slowly the handling of the issue proceeds here in Sweden. One waits for answers despite having all the underlying documents. If one compares this with other issues within the justice policy that go to referral bodies, against the UN and so on, this issue proceeds at a snail's pace. I assume that it has to do with the fact that in this case it concerns accused organizations, organizations that governments perhaps have not wanted to be uncomfortable towards. Furthermore, it would be a way of acknowledging that the Swedish self-image is not as fine as we have historically maintained.
This would also be an acknowledgment that the Swedish state, at the very least, turned a blind eye to this. There have been several governments where this has been done.
The Minister mentions in their answer an investigation into human trafficking. But why is Sweden waiting to ratify the UN Convention against enforced disappearances? It has been 18 years since the signing, and one still chooses not to ratify. In 2019, we received criticism from the UN because of that. The UN Convention would actually address the issue of statutes of limitations in a good way. It is a tool.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I do not want to be unnecessarily polemical in this matter at all, because I know that there is a genuine commitment to the issue on the part of the interpellor. I also know that there are far too many people out in our society who have suffered badly and whose situation can undoubtedly be described as both a profound injustice and a profound and serious transgression. But since the interpellor for their part is quite insinuating and, I would also say, conspiratorial in some parts, I nevertheless want to clarify a few things.
First and foremost: Regarding the alleged passivity, the interpellant's former party, shall I say, was a substantial part of the government base during the previous eight years. I do not know what happened in this area during those eight years, but I know that at the end of the eight years, an inquiry was commissioned following a unanimous announcement here in the Riksdag. I note now that the government is continuing to work based on that basis. We have already commissioned authorities in this area to provide important support for those persons who are affected by adoption.
Regarding the prescription rules, the interpellator refers to UN documents that are 18 years old. I can only state that during this parliamentary term, this year, we have changed the prescription rules.
Regarding activity in this area, I would therefore say that it is easier to blame previous governments for passivity than this very government.
When it comes to the Adoption Commission's report, I think it is natural that we now, when it has only been a few weeks since the consultation period for the proposal expired, work through the material in a serious manner. We are not stalling, but we are doing it in a serious manner. We will, of course, return to both the Riksdag and to the citizens in a broader sense regarding the way forward based on that material.
Regarding the word justice, I want to say in conclusion that I have no problem whatsoever with either describing some of the abuses we are talking about here as deeply unjust or stating that the questions regarding both the prescription periods and the penalties in this area are about precisely justice – that is, that the consequences of the criminal justice system should reflect the gravity of the crimes and the deep injustices that they represent.
Lorena Delgado Varas (-)
Madam Speaker! That is exactly why I say "governments". It is not only this government that is responsible for this.
But the minister did not want to give a timetable himself but mentioned up to 16 years. I think it would be good to still give a timetable precisely because so many have been affected by this. There are so many who need redress, not least those who are waiting for answers in first families, where people actually pass away without getting answers or redress.
This is one of Sweden's worst legal scandals. It concerns children who have been kidnapped. The state has enabled it, and the adoption organization Adoptionscentrum has structured the system. There, documentation has been forged, disappeared, and denied so that the truth would not be revealed. This is a disgrace for a country that has always stood up for children's rights and which also has the Convention on the Rights of the Child as law.
I think it is also quite telling that the government places its trust in MFoF, an agency that unfortunately does not have as much confidence among those affected. Furthermore, this is an administrative measure, and no criminal investigation is taking place, that is to say, no justice.
Therefore, I want to know if the government will investigate crimes committed in connection with adoptions with a greater human rights and children's rights perspective, in line with what is being done by truth commissions around the world. Justice must be served, and the fact that crimes have prescribed does not mean they were not committed; they are simply unpunished. Therefore, I am so eager to receive a timetable.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today.
Regarding the timeline, I want to note a few important points that are highly relevant to what we are discussing here today. One is that we have already implemented extensive changes to the prescription rules, including in the area we are discussing today. The other is that we have now received the Adoption Commission's report; the consultation period has just expired. Work is, of course, ongoing to move forward as soon as possible in light of that material.
In December, I will receive the investigation concerning the EU's human trafficking directive, which also has the merit of applying directly in Sweden. It is a directive that has an immediate effect for individuals in our legal system. It is clear that what we receive in December will be very important in order to be able to move forward in this area.
There we have three concrete timeframes. We naturally intend to work expeditiously in all these parts precisely because the problem we are discussing is so serious, both for the individual persons who have been affected by it and for Sweden as a society.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.