Safer homes for children

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Over time, information has emerged - alarms have been raised - that the family law legislation is deficient in the protection of children exposed to violence. It has been about children being forced into visitation and housing and custody situations where they are completely alone and abandoned to a parent who subjects them to neglect and physical, psychological, and sexual violence, and about how parents exposed to violence, mostly mothers, have been forced to hand over these children to violent parents, often very dangerous fathers, despite the children protesting in every conceivable way out of fear of what they would be subjected to by the violent men when they were left alone there without any protection.

Madam Speaker! These alarms described that the mothers, if they did not hand over the children to the fathers, lost custody, and then the children were completely at the mercy of the men. The mothers were accused of sabotaging the children's relationship with the fathers, even though it was actually the men's violence that was the sabotage of visitation. Violence sabotages both visitation and life.

The alarm came that society was turning a blind eye to the violence against children and mothers, and we Social Democrats took the alarm seriously and acted in a government position. In 2021, our government tasked the Gender Equality Authority with mapping out how information about violence or other abuses is considered in cases concerning custody, housing, and visitation. In their report "Information on violence is no exception," the extent of the problem emerged clearly: It was system-threatening in the sense that children exposed to violence were forced into the homes of violent perpetrators to be subjected to more violence there, even though the risks of violence were often known, not least among the police and social services. But the children were still forced into visitation with the perpetrators, entirely as a result of other adults' decisions in family courts and courts and, Madam Speaker and honorable colleagues, as a result of the legislation. I will return to that.

Madam Speaker! In 2021, we Social Democrats appointed the Inquiry on the importance of safety and continuity for children in vulnerable situations, which was to review the rules in the Parental Code regarding the transfer of custody, adoption, and specifically visitation. The assignment aimed, among other things, to strengthen the protection for children when questions arise regarding visitation with a parent who has committed violence or committed another serious violation. Fundamentally, it was about producing proposals to change the law so that children would no longer be forced by the law and the adult world into the perpetrator's home.

In January 2023, the investigator released their independent product. We had comments, and so did many referral bodies. We Social Democrats have therefore continued in the Riksdag what we initiated in the government. We have done so intensively to get the government to submit proposals to the Riksdag to change the law as soon as possible.

During 2023, we raised a large number of issues to the government from various perspectives in order to get the government to act as soon as possible. In the spring of 2023, we also took the initiative for the Committee on Civil Affairs' open meeting on the theme Guardianship, housing and visitation in cases of domestic violence. There was a strong pressure on the government when this meeting was held in September.

The autumn passed. Nothing happened. We Social Democrats took the initiative again, this time to call responsible minister Gunnar Strömmer to the committee. He came in December last year and promised a bill by September at the latest this year. That was good.

After that, we Social Democrats have had several meetings and good contact with the Ministry of Justice. We welcome that several of our inputs have been taken into account.

Madam Speaker! What we have conveyed to the Minister for Justice was that at least the following changes needed to occur:

The principle of contact must be subordinated to the child's right to life and health. The legislator's intention that the child's right to life and health is paramount over the principle of contact must be clearly evident. 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 in municipalities and the judiciary that the child's right to life and health is always paramount. Risk of violence must be considered, as violence affects children's lives and health. This applies to all violence - physical, psychological and sexual violence, neglect and so on.

The goals regarding custody, residence, and access are forward-looking. The risk assessment is central. The legislator's intention regarding its importance must be clearly apparent.

The wording in Chapter 6, Section 2 of the Children and Parents Code needs to be sharpened.

We want to see a review station in three years to see if and how the new legislation has had an effect.

We note that the government in the bill agrees with our first three proposals and that the government intends to take a position on the need for an evaluation after the legislative changes have been in force for a few years.

We want to see such an evaluation, not least in light of what has emerged from, among others, the Swedish Psychological Association and Save the Children in the final phase of the preparation.

Madam Speaker! Against this background, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal to adopt these legislative changes.

We would like to thank our colleagues from all parties in the Riksdag, not least our colleagues in the follow-up group where we worked out the open meeting. We would also like to thank the head of the chancellery who helped us execute it.

A big thank you also to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer! It is a message of strength for Sweden that the work from our previous government is being taken up in this way.

Thanks also to Gunnar Strömmers State Secretary Mikael Kullberg, with whom we have had meetings and constructive contact regarding the formulations.

We also want to highlight the Constitutional Committee's contribution, which often remains in the shadows. It was only with the KU's review of Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall's lack of action in this legal matter that the government's preparation gained momentum and took shape.

I sat myself in the Committee on the Constitution for several years before I was placed in the Committee on Civil Affairs to continue the work on certain constitutional matters here, such as the rights of children and adults not to be subjected to violence – something that the civil law legislation has generally shown extensive deficiencies regarding.

KU's contribution to this legal matter shows the importance of the Riksdag's oversight function and how the constitution must have an impact in all committees, including ours.

Mr. Speaker, our greatest thanks go to civil society – all the children and parents, mostly mothers, who have fought for this legislative change. It is children and mothers who have suffered, been tormented, and been subjected to extensive violence due to forced visitation, housing, and custody as a result of the previous law. It has not been about any individual cases or exceptions. It has been about systemic failure.

Many of you have been in contact with us, and we want to thank you all for the knowledge and experience you have shared with us. You have had to pay a high price - some of it the very highest. Those who have been murdered. The children whose mothers were murdered. The mothers whose children were murdered during visitation.

The responsibility for the murders, as well as for other violence, for example physical, psychological and sexual violence and neglect, is of course primarily that of the murderers and the perpetrators of violence. But not solely. Responsibility also lies with the surrounding environment that enabled the violence and forced the children to be alone with the perpetrators, even though the surrounding environment knew about the risks.

Some politicians speak a lot about family law and the courts' responsibility, and certainly, there is a responsibility there. But their decisions are governed, Madam Speaker, ultimately by the laws. That is what we occupy ourselves with here in the House, and therefore it is so important that we legislators see our responsibility. We should not primarily point fingers at others but act ourselves.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must be considered to have a well-functioning legal system with well-functioning, independent courts and law enforcement. According to Freedom House's annual review, for example, Sweden receives the highest possible grade in the rule of law. That Sweden's courts have systematically and repeatedly disregarded violence in judgments regarding custody, housing, and visitation, and that children and women exposed to violence are left alone to protect themselves against violent fathers, can therefore not be explained by the fact that we in Sweden would generally have bad courts.

Thus, the conclusion should be simple, namely that the law has failed. The law has not protected the children who are subjected to violence, and the law has not helped the mothers who try to protect their children from the violence. Instead, the law has enabled continued violence.

Mr. Speaker, now that is the end of it. Now we are changing the law. The Riksdag and the government are clear: the contact principle is subordinate to the child's right to life and health. Proper risk assessments must be made. The child shall be given the opportunity to express their opinions. Risk of all types of violence shall be considered, that is to say physical, mental, sexual, neglect and so on.

Decision-makers' assessments, that is, of family courts and courts, shall be based on knowledge and proven experience. This is a clear message from the Riksdag and the government. Pseudoscience, for example the parental alienation theory, has no place in this given what a collective body of experts has stated.

Earlier this year, it was warned about how pseudoscientific theories with deficient or even irrelevant scientific basis are being exploited as weapons in family law disputes. The pseudoscientific theory that was warned against was the so-called parental alienation theory.

Since concerns have emerged regarding this in the final phase of the preparation of the committee report, it should be mentioned what is stated in the bill, namely that it is clear in the government's bill that assessments shall be based on knowledge and proven experience. Of course, pseudoscience, such as the one mentioned, has no place in the assessments to be made.

Madam Speaker! The Civil Outskirts Committee's and the Riksdag's intention is, of course, that our legislative changes shall have an effect for the country's children and parents who are victims of violence. But we naturally continue the work in the Riksdag; more needs to be done.

For example, changes were needed in the procedural framework so that children who are victims of violence can be given the opportunity to have legal counsel in proceedings concerning their custody, residence, and visitation. This week, we Social Democrats and the Center Party put forward a proposal on this in the Committee on Civil Affairs, which the government parties unfortunately voted down. But we note that they have today announced an inquiry, and we naturally welcome that.

Society also needs more tools to help children in relation to violent parents. One such tool is visitation with visitation support. It was an important reform in 2010, but it is applied with varying quality across the country. It is high time to evaluate and improve it.

Madam Speaker! In June last year, I received an email that I will never forget. It was from the mother of Tintin; the boy in Luleå who was murdered during a gathering in January last year. Despite the mother's warnings and the fact that all authorities had knowledge of the risks of violence, Tintin was forced into the gathering – where his father murdered him.

Mother, Sanam Gharaee, wrote to me that she had read on the Riksdag's website about the questions I have posed to the government regarding our work with this. Since then, we have been in contact. I am grateful for all the knowledge and experience Sanam has conveyed about Tintin's life and many others' lives, who are in contact with the association you formed - Lex Tintin.

In September last year, I invited Sanam to the Riksdag to meet all the parties. It was a meeting that was moving and contributed to concrete change. Today, Sanam is with us in the gallery. She is fighting so that no more children are forced into socializing in the way that Tintin was forced to. These legislative changes are one piece of the puzzle, but it is not a complete "lex Tintin". Much more is required, Sanam argues. We Social Democrats agree.

Madam Speaker! In September this year, I received another letter, which I also will never forget. It was from Tintin's murderer, his father, who wrote from prison. He wrote that he had to take his son's life, that Tintin is freed. He urged me to leave his son in peace.

Someone might think that I should not speak about this here. This should not be given attention. But on the contrary! The outside world must be able to see the perpetrators, what they stand for, what they do to the children and how they behave. There are so many examples. Only then can we relieve the children and women who are affected by these very dangerous men. It is not the children who should be forced into contact with them. It is not the mothers who should be forced to parry the perpetrators themselves. It is the outside world that must be forced to take its responsibility to protect the children from these dangerous men. And then the violence, the acts of violence, must be made visible. Only then can the law be directed correctly. It is part of the paradigm shift we are now carrying out.

Madam Speaker! I have received letters from Tintin's parents, but I cannot get any letter from Tintin himself. For the father took his life - during visitation.

As members of Parliament, we all represent everyone in this country - including the children. We adults must listen to them. Many are the children who suffer from the violence they have been forced to endure due to the previous design of the laws and the decisions of the adult world.

Children have the right to protection against all forms of violence according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Swedish law. Today's report is a step in this work, but by no means the final point.

In this speech, Denis Begic (S) agreed.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet considers that the government's bill is heading in the right direction. However, we do not share the view that the announcements regarding specific competence requirements for judges in family cases are addressed.

The Judicial Academy's courses are voluntary for judges to participate in. It is thus possible for judges to handle such cases without special competence in the area. Vänsterpartiet shares the Children's Ombudsman's view that it should be mandatory during judicial training to undergo training on how the best interests of the child are assessed and tested, as well as on children's rights. We also share Unizon's view that the right to a legal representative should apply to children in all cases concerning custody, residence, and access. This is also an issue that we have championed for a long time.

Against this background, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are therefore debating the bill Safer homes for children. Finally, we are moving forward with these important changes.

We can also note that the announcements that we were forced to send to the previous government are now finally being answered. Unfortunately, it was the case during previous terms that the socialist government established a system of not acting until they were forced to. Often, the Civil Affairs Committee sent several announcements regarding each issue. So too in this case. Sometimes the Social Democrats chose to support announcements in the Civil Affairs Committee, and sometimes they chose, conversely, to consider the announcements unnecessary. Regarding the announcements that are now being answered, they have done both.

The problem of children suffering badly is unfortunately nothing new. We were rightly outraged by the case of Lilla hjärtat, where a small girl's dead body was found wrapped in plastic under a bed. It was on January 30, 2020. Later, it was determined that there were more than 100 injuries on her barely four-year-old body. The forensic pathologist testified to a prolonged dying process lasting between three and twelve hours.

Three years later, the Tintin case became yet another reason to act. The eight-year-old Tintin was strangled to death by his father.

The most distressing thing about these cases is that society has failed so capitally, and the betrayal becomes so clear when one examines the details of what happened before the murders of the children. They could have had a completely different outcome if we had slightly better legislation and if our society's functions had worked slightly better and a bit more optimally.

Worst of all is that Lilla hjärtat and Tintin are not alone. During the five years from 2013 to 2017, 33 children were killed in Sweden. This was therefore not enough for the previous government to act. The figure also increased slightly to 36 children during the years 2018-2022. Despite these alarming figures, the previous government chose to wait to even appoint an inquiry until enough reports forced them to do so.

It is completely unacceptable that children suffer harm. Unfortunately, it occurs despite good intentions from many in society. Now, a number of legislative changes have been made recently to strengthen children's rights.

This bill places particular emphasis on the risk of children being harmed, and these matters shall be assessed specifically. The court's basis is improved because it will be possible to request an expert opinion from a licensed psychologist.

We also finally get a clarification that visitation shall be for the child's sake, not for the parent's. It is a highly anticipated change that it is the child's best interests that will be governing. I usually say that my starting point is that children have a right to parents but that parents do not have a right to children. The legislative change that we are now implementing is completely in line with starting from the child's and not the parents' needs.

Children in custody transfer cases are entitled to a public counsel. The counsel also, and this is important, is given the opportunity to speak with the child without the guardian's presence.

All these changes are completely in line with the Sweden Democrats' childhood guarantee.

The Child Guarantee was introduced by my party in 2017 at a family law conference in Ängelholm - this was because we saw a need to act to strengthen children's rights.

In the Sweden Democrats' committee motion from 2018, it can be read that we therefore want to "introduce a childhood guarantee, within which society establishes a zero vision against discrimination, bullying and harassment" and "protect children from physical and mental violence, sexual abuse and neglect or exploitation".

Together with our childhood guarantee, we have therefore set a zero vision against all types of child misery. Safer homes for children are part of the measures that are needed, but one must be realistic and realize that today's problems are not something one solves with one or even a couple of legislative changes. It is a task where we need to change society in a more conservative spirit, that is, with constant improvements of what we have built up so far so that the meshes in the net become finer and can more precisely catch the children who are actually in need of help.

Unfortunately, much of the work initiated earlier by the Riksdag and the government has been limited by a strange attitude that it is men who are the problem and the cause of all the world's evil. If it were really that simple—that if we lock up all men, there are no more problems! If one has the starting point that men's violence against women is the problem and nothing else, one misses the real problems, and then one also misses the opportunity to solve the problems.

We need to shift the focus and work with vulnerable children based on reality and not rehearsed one-liners such as "men's violence against women must cease." We need to realize that the problem is violence and oppression from a broad perspective. It has also been reinforced by new cultures that have a greater capital of violence than the traditionally Swedish one, sometimes also linked to honor-based oppression.

Of course, a zero vision for vulnerable children and a childhood guarantee do not hit as well. Our childhood guarantee is, however, a guarantee that we intend to continue to act to strengthen children's rights.

Madam Speaker! A question that is not actually up for a decision today, but which is raised in the Bris referral report, is the question of legal representatives for children in custody disputes.

The Sweden Democrats are positive about providing children with support throughout the entire process, not just during the trial. That is why we also voted down the previous committee initiative, which would have been focused solely on a legal representative in custody disputes.

It is therefore extra pleasing that our government has today announced that it will meet the Sverigedemokraterna with an inquiry specifically to strengthen children throughout the process. The government intends to appoint an inquiry during the spring which shall review how children's position in cases regarding custody, residence, and access can be further strengthened. One of the questions that the inquiry shall consider is the introduction of legal representatives or equivalent support for children in custody cases, but the inquiry is thus not limited to just that. The intention is, as stated, that the inquiry shall be appointed during the spring.

With that, I move for the approval of the bill.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! For the reason given: Violence by men against women and children must cease.

Madam Speaker! I remember my eldest child as a seven-year-old - a little old and incredibly sweet, rosy-cheeked child with a serious gaze that looked out into the universe. A child who read everything she came across and drew the most incredible drawings.

I also remember my eldest child in secondary school - introverted and a bit uncomfortable in themselves with eyes cast down. She still read everything she came across.

I see my eldest child today - a young woman who is heading out into the world. She reads just as much. Her gaze looks around curiously. She sets off, tests her wings, and comes home to me between the intervals.

Madam Speaker! Sanam also remembers her seven-year-old - Constantin, Tintin, with the lively, happy gaze. Tintin with the big heart. Tintin who drew so beautifully for his mother and longed so much for his little sister. Tintin who turned seven years old. Tintin who did not become more than seven years old. Tintin did not get to experience upper secondary school, and Sanam will not get to see him graduate. He was taken from her, and he will not come home again.

Madam Speaker! I recoil from every thought of losing my children. I do not even want to touch the thought. That pain is so great that I can hardly bear to imagine it. I recoil from the thought, but I force myself to see. I force myself to see other mothers' pain when their children are blown to pieces in Gaza, the pain of the mothers whose dead sons are diminished to headlines about gang killings, and Sanam's pain when Tintin's father took his seven-year-old life despite all warnings and despite all alarms, the pain that she was not allowed to protect him.

Madam Speaker! I force myself to see the children who have died, I force myself to see my own fear and I force myself to see Sanam's raw grief over her son, over Tintin, because we must be witnesses to the violence and the death. We must see the death, we must mention it by name and we must feel it in our chests.

We must fuel our anger over the world and death and violence. We must force ourselves to see, for only then can we achieve change.

And now, Madam Speaker, now it is finally time for change.

I stood in this speaker's chair barely two years ago, shortly after Tintin was murdered, and I pleaded with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall to please, please use the investigation that we in the red-green government had commissioned and which was about to be completed, to put political prestige aside and work together to stop the violence.

And they did it. They didn't just take the investigation to heart; they also listened to us and to others when we pointed out the flaws in the investigation. They cooperated with the committee and with the opposition for the sake of the children, and now it is happening. Now the report Safer Homes for Children will finally be voted through, and for that I will always be grateful. Thank you, Ulf, and thank you, Camilla!

Madam Speaker! I am grateful – but I am not satisfied until all children live in safety.

Sanam has told that Tintin once was asked what he thought the judge who gave the father visitation rights would have said if he had understood how the visitation made Tintin feel. Tintin answered: I think he would have said sorry.

Tintin wanted to be listened to, and he wanted to be taken seriously. But that is not the case today. Far too few children are allowed to have their say in the matters that affect every aspect of their lives.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants to make two additions to the legislation.

Firstly, we argue that if a psychologist is to contribute their expertise in court, which we are extremely positive about, the psychologist must also meet with the child. We are convinced that it would benefit the child to be able to speak in the assessment that the court asks the psychologist to make, because it is literally the child's life that is at stake.

Secondly, we argue that it must be ensured that the judges who handle cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation have adequate further education in issues concerning children who are mistreated. Judges in child rights cases hold a life in their hands. Requirements must be set that one has sufficient knowledge of what this entails—of what violence entails. As Tintin stated: If the judge had understood the extent of and the seriousness of psychological and physical violence and all aspects of violence, and understood what it means for a terrified seven-year-old to be forced to be alone with a violent father—yes, then he probably would have said sorry. And not only that—then he might have made a different decision. And perhaps Tintin would have lived.

It is a very difficult thing to say, but neither are we allowed to defend ourselves against it: With different legislation, Tintin could have lived today. We must be able to see that, and we must temper our anger.

Therefore, requirements must be set for adequate training of the judges. The judges must have sufficient knowledge to understand what it is they are hearing. Therefore, the children must be heard; it is about their lives.

We in Miljöpartiet stand with all our hearts behind all the proposals in the bill, but we must not let ourselves be satisfied. We must see, we must remember and we must fuel our anger and continue to act. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 3.

Madam Speaker! When I spoke here in January 2023 and when I speak now, it was and is for Sanam and Tintin. But it is also for all the women I have met who live hidden with their children, who hide their children from their fathers to protect them. I cannot say their names here - I do not even know all of their real names - because it would expose them to risk. But you know who you are. You are with me today, and all your children are with me today. I speak for you when I say: Today we take a big step when lex Tintin becomes law. But today the work also continues for a society that is safe for children and for women - for you.

Madam Speaker! I remember my eldest child as a seven-year-old, just as I remember my middle and my youngest child. I remember both of my stepchildren as seven-year-olds, and all of my niblings. And I remember Tintin. I could not carry him to safety, but I will carry him in my heart - always.

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

Åsa Hartzell (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill Safer Homes for Children, and I begin by moving for the approval of the bill.

More than 200,000 children in Sweden live in homes where violence or other abuse occurs. It is these children our thoughts turn to now as we are to strengthen the protection for children.

One of these children was Esmeralda Gustafsson, who received the nickname Lilla hjärtat. Esmeralda was moved back to the biological parents following a legal process. In January 2020, the police found her dead under her bed. The biological parents were detained, and her father died in custody. The girl's mother was convicted of manslaughter.

Another well-known case concerns eight-year-old Constantin, who was called Tintin. It was on 8 January 2023 that Tintin was found dead in his father's apartment. This occurred after his mother, who had custody, alerted that the son had not been handed over as planned. For many years, Tintin and his mother had been subjected to threats from the father, but Tintin still had to meet his father. It was a visitation decided by the district court.

The best interests of the child shall now always take precedence over the right to contact with a parent with whom the child does not live. When there is a risk of violence or violation, unsupervised meetings shall no longer take place. It is therefore not only direct violence against the child that shall be considered, but also the insecurity the child feels when one of the parents subjects other persons in the family to violence.

Even if it concerns a risk of violence, this can be a basis for denying visitation. The act does not therefore need to have occurred; it is sufficient that there is evidence of previous threats or a criminal conviction that has not yet gained legal force. A guardian who intentionally kills or seriously harms the other is almost always unsuitable to care for a child.

The child and its guardian shall also have the right to a public counsel when a social committee initiates a transfer of guardianship. The public counsel shall be permitted to speak with the child without the guardian's consent and without the guardian being present.

The government goes very far in this bill. There is criticism that the text regarding children's need for a close and good contact with both parents is removed. It is of course good to have a good contact with both parents – as long as the contact is indeed good. Now, the child's best interests are prioritized in the interpretation of the law. A new special provision shall also be introduced stating that in difficult cases, the court shall obtain an expert opinion from a licensed psychologist.

Madam Speaker! I do not believe the bill would have been as sharp if we had had a different majority in the Riksdag. Therefore, we are very pleased that the Tidö parties seem to be getting support for this proposal. The legislative change is proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2025.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if this is a formal reply or more an opportunity for an exchange of views. I would like to thank Member Åsa Hartzell for her words and for the fine cooperation that our parties, and all parties, have had in the committee. I am curious about and interested in how we can now continue the work that must not end and stop here, as we have all talked about.

More than ten years ago, the government submitted a proposal that a court in cases regarding visitation should have the possibility to decide that a person appointed by the social welfare committee shall participate during the visitation, so-called visitation support. It was the Reinfeldt government that put forward this. We have studied this here in the committee and had a special research meeting which was very enlightening, where knowledgeable experts came and spoke with us about this.

Just social support can be something that makes a big difference for children exposed to violence. The proposal from the Reinfeldt government received the Riksdag's approval, and the regulation is mentioned in the report Safer homes for children from the investigation that we commissioned and which you have so nicely moved forward.

It was a good reform in the right direction, but we know that it is applied with varying quality in the country. It was also something that the experts who came to the committee spoke about. A long time has passed since the reform, and we Social Democrats have at various times pointed out that we think it is important to evaluate the regulation. It has been a few years now, and we have seen how it has worked and how it has not worked. Such an evaluation can be important to see how this can be improved.

I therefore wonder if this is also something we could join forces on, just as we have done in these issues. As I mentioned, we have had very good contact with your party colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, and I truly thank both the Minister and the State Secretary. My question, therefore, is whether we can join forces in an evaluation and improvement of this regulation in the Parental Code as well.

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

Åsa Hartzell (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course we can always talk about improvements in the legislation. It is more than a self-evident matter.

As Mikael Eskilandersson mentioned, we are presenting today the next step in the work, namely an investigation to review and further strengthen children's position in cases concerning custody, residence, and access.

One of the issues that the investigation shall consider is the introduction of legal counsel for children in custody cases. This is also a measure to improve children's rights in society. During 2024, we have also tasked Socialstyrelsen with strengthening the support to the social services in their work with these issues. We can certainly continue to talk about the matter!

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! We have noted the announced investigation and welcome it, as I said. It feels very good that we can have this unity. We did raise the proposal regarding specifically representatives for children in the committee a few weeks ago, and we are truly open to finding a design that we can agree on. It feels good that the government also opens for us to have a contact regarding this in the Riksdag and that we can continue on the path taken.

Madam Speaker! Member Hartzell did not mention reviewing the regulation of interaction with social support. Is this something that the Moderaterna envision can be included in the investigation? When the regulation was introduced in 2010, the Council on Legislation had an objection and a view on the design. It was thought that it could have been done in a slightly different way. Is this something that the government parties envision that can now be taken into account? Can what the Council on Legislation said in 2010 be woven into the investigation, for example, or can it be done in some other way?

There are many pieces of the puzzle required to improve things for the children. I therefore ask out of pure curiosity whether the government parties are open to also looking at the regulation of visitation with visitation support. The other thing we have already noted and welcomed.

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

Åsa Hartzell (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said earlier, we can very well speak about the issue. I cannot give any further information here today.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Safer home for children - those are fine words for a new law with a portal paragraph that shall proceed from the best interests of the child and the child's right to associate and live with sufficiently good parents and not with parents who are not. It is very good. It is something that I and the Center Party have fought for for a long time.

There is a risk of violence for some children in certain families. It can be psychological, physical, or verbal violence. It can be economic violence. There are surely more forms of violence. In that case, it is important that those who work with these issues have the required competence and that they have knowledge of how to conduct a risk assessment, as not everything affecting the children is visible. It can be both mothers and fathers who are perpetrators. Therefore, it is important that the child must be able to speak up and be involved.

Madam Speaker! This morning, the speech I planned to give looked a bit different than the one I am giving now. The government has now finally announced an inquiry into a personal representative for children. But that I get to redo my speech a few minutes before the debate is the small thing. A personal representative is a big and important step for those children who today lack their own voice and are not allowed to speak for themselves.

The question has been raised by, among others, the Center Party on several different occasions during this year, but unfortunately, on those occasions we have only been told "no, we are not doing this now" or "we will take it up in the spring, when we are going to handle motions." That is what we were told most recently a few weeks ago.

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but hope that this government will act a bit differently than previous governments, regardless of who has sat in these governments, and open up for the issues where we agree, put away the battle axe and say: Let us do this together! Let us jointly review the directives that are now to be drawn up to obtain a full and good investigation!

I can only regret that this is coming only now. We could have had an investigation on site earlier if we had only worked together on this to save every month that can be saved for these children, who live an insecure life.

But even if the whole thing could have gone faster, I must nevertheless extend a thank you to the government on behalf of the children because an investigation has now been announced. I have not seen it yet. It took a year to get started with the announced investigation when it concerned division of property processes.

In the bill we are now discussing, there are many good proposals. Among others, it is proposed that children should have their own representative when it concerns investigating whether custody should be moved from the biological parents to foster parents. Hopefully, children will therefore also be given a representative at other times.

But for the legislation to become even better, I hope that the government can also begin to focus on criminal cases where children are victims. Today, it can take many years before a judgment can become final, even if a parent is the perpetrator and the child is the victim. This is something that could affect an investigation regarding custody, residence, and visitation. If these processes can be made to go faster, it is another way to give the children a safer home.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to risk assessments and conversations with children, special competencies are required that demand special training.

During the previous parliamentary term, the then opposition, which are today government parties, together with among others the Centerpartiet, gave a notification to the then government that this would be reviewed. The notification concerned uniform methods that would be evidence-based and that there would be a specific education for all those who are professionally active working with custody, housing, and visitation. This does not exist, but nevertheless, the government says that it is discarding the notification.

I perceive it as the government trying to crawl out of what it stood behind during the previous term. My interpretation is that the government does not prioritize the children's perspective in all parts. I hope I am wrong and that the government acts in these issues as well moving forward.

Madam Speaker! Let me give a summary. Thank you for a good law! Thank you for the fact that there will hopefully soon be an investigation! I will continue to follow these issues regarding both education, evidence-based investigations, and conversations with children, and it is so that all children shall have the opportunity to grow up in a safe home.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The most memorable moments in a person's life are when one has children. That is likely the case for most parents. The child – this life that is to navigate through childhood with the help of its parents and become an independent individual who hopefully makes wise decisions for its own future. I am convinced that the vast majority of parents do their utmost for their children and are the security, love, and care that the children need – the ones they can rely on and in every way walk hand in hand with into the future.

Unfortunately, we as humans and parents are imperfect. Sometimes we fail in our role as parents. We can only imagine what a traumatic experience it is for the child when the parent who is supposed to provide love and care is the one who harms the child or the other parent. We must not forget that the world that exists in front of the child is the one the child knows and relates to.

It is our duty as a society to protect children from an environment that is destructive. All children have the right to grow up under safe and stable conditions without violence, abuse, or offensive treatment. Just as has been said from the rostrum previously, several legislative measures have been taken in recent years to protect children against violence and violations. There has also been talk about what the government has now announced, that in the spring they will present an investigation that shall consider the introduction of legal representatives or equivalent support. Just as has been said in the discussions between government and opposition and between parliament and government, we shall not have deadlocks but openings.

We are not to have a solution. We are to find a solution that we are all comfortable with in one way or another. It is very well done by the government to announce it. I hope that it will be as good as possible and that everyone can feel that they can stand behind it.

With this bill, just as everyone has said, we strengthen the court's ability to take special consideration regarding the risk that the child or someone else in the family is exposed to violence or other abuse. It can mean that the child does not meet the parent who is destructive.

It may seem like a small change in the law. But as things stand today, the child is allowed to meet a destructive parent. That parent may also not dare to take the step all the way, to report and fight for their rights, because it might become even worse for the child in question. It is a reasonable change that we are making. One looks at the overall picture of the child's situation and tries to protect the child as far as is possible.

We have said it before: Both parents are important for the children. But a secure upbringing must also be weighed in and be a significant part of the assessment.

This bill also provides a better opportunity for courts to obtain a sufficient basis for decisions by requesting statements from experts, just as we have heard before, if it is necessary to assess the risk that a child will come to harm. I believe it is the government's view that one should have as much basis as possible to be able to make the decision on whether there is a risk to the child or not. I think that is quite good.

The proposition reflects the discussion we are having in some way. The best thing about politics is that we can actually reach a common ground. We have done that nonetheless. We can have different starting points. We can think that it should go faster, and some think it is going far too fast.

I still believe that we as politicians can be proud when we can do something together and move the positions forward, in this case for the children's safety. I move for approval of the bill.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

We are approaching the time for group meetings, but I think it would be nice if we could settle this debate, so if no one objects, I intend for us to continue. I see no one objecting, so we continue.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for allowing us to conclude the debate before the break for the parties' group meetings!

I wish that this debate never had to take place today. We are talking about children who have been failed, not only by their own parents but by the entire society that had a duty to protect them. These are children whose homes should have been a place of safety and love, but which instead have become a place of fear, threats, and violence.

I have noted that there have been many important and emotional contributions regarding other issues that are at least equally relevant in the debate. One is, of course, the question of legal counsel for children in custody disputes. It is good that that question has been raised here.

I agree one hundred percent with the Minister for Justice that this is the next important step in this very important work to strengthen children's rights. This applies in particular to those children who today live in a very great state of vulnerability. With that said, I intend to move on to what the debate is actually about, Madam Speaker, namely safer homes for children.

It is precisely for these children that we stand here today. They are the ones who cannot advocate for themselves and who are forced to live in the shadow of adults' actions and choices. They are children whose needs have repeatedly been ignored because parental rights have been prioritized over the children's right to safety and good care.

We must be very clear: wanting to be a part of one's child's life is not the same as being able to or deserving to be it. The tragedies are many and painful to take in. It is about children who have been forced into contact with parents who have been dangerous to their lives and health. It is children who, despite clear warning signs and reports of threats and violence, have not received the protection they needed. In some cases, it has gone so far as to cost the children's lives.

It is not just individual mistakes. It is a systemic error, and we have a responsibility to correct that systemic error. That is precisely what we are doing now, not least with the decision that we are to make here tomorrow, Madam Speaker.

The bill we are debating today rests on a self-evident basis. It is that a child's right to safety and security must always carry the most weight. The risk of a child being harmed shall be the decisive factor in all decisions regarding matters concerning custody, residence, and visitation.

It is a change that is not just about a legal text but about a fundamental reprioritization. We are moving from a focus on promoting close contact with both parents to more clearly putting the child's protection and well-being first.

No parent has the right to visitation if it risks harming the child. According to the new bill, visitation may not occur if there is a risk that the child will be harmed. This can, for example, be if the child is in a protected residence or has protected personal data due to threats from a parent.

Madam Speaker! This clarification gives the courts a stronger mandate to prioritize the child's safety over the rights of adults.

We also change the view on the rights of children placed in foster homes. The previous requirement that it must be "obviously best" for the child to transfer custody to foster parents is now removed.

In its place, a holistic assessment is introduced that prioritizes the child's safety and stability. To uproot a child from a secure life due to legal technicalities is nothing less than a betrayal, a betrayal that this bill now rectifies.

The Liberals have long questioned norms that have prioritized adults' demands over children's needs. With this proposal, a clear message is sent: Children's rights come first.

It is not just about legislative changes. It is about how we view children's rights and adults' responsibilities. We must leave behind old mindsets and instead place the child's need for safety at the center. To protect children from violence and fear is not just a legal obligation. It is also a moral duty.

Madam Speaker! I am glad that so many are standing behind this reform. There is a consensus on its necessity, and many of us stand behind the most vulnerable children in our society.

But at the same time, we stand here today debating a question that I initially said we should not have to debate. Why? Well, the bitter truth is that the words about the betrayed children have been many over many years. The debates have been many, but action has all too often been conspicuously absent.

We are now ensuring that children's right to safety can no longer be sacrificed so that adults' interests can take precedence. For the children who have time and again been exposed to and let down by society, we are now putting their safety first.

We must protect the children not just for a short time, but for the rest of their lives. It is our responsibility as a society, and it is a promise we will not betray. I assume that all eight parties stand behind this promise. With this, I move for approval of the bill.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is often said that a society is not stronger than the way it takes care of its weakest. All children are in a vulnerable situation, as they are completely dependent on their guardians.

In most cases, a parent wants what is best for their child. But unfortunately not always, and in those cases, society must step in. Listening to the debate we have had today, there is also no doubt about how important we consider the issue to be. Children must not be left to suffer; children must be able to have a secure upbringing.

That there is an agreement on this has been clear during the time the bill has been prepared, which is important. There has been a good and open dialogue and ministers who have listened and tried to understand and improve. People have listened to relatives, to civil society and to other politicians.

Therefore, we can all stand behind the proposals that are on the table today. But I also hear that most of us agree that there is much more to do to ensure that no children are harmed by their parents. We are not finished.

I want to therefore only underline that it is clear that the work must continue. Measures need to be put in place faster when children are affected. Children must be able to be listened to, they must be able to be understood and they must be able to feel safe. Those who contribute to deciding children's life situations need better basic conditions in order to be able to understand and do right.

There is much more we need to do to protect children from violence and abuse. It feels very good to know that there are so many people standing here today who will carry this work forward. I look forward to continuing the work ahead.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 27 November.)

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