“It should be a criminal offence to protect their children?”
“Debater: Important principles of law terminated in cases concerning the custody of children”
“This is an opinion piece. It is the writer who stands for the views that are put forward in the text, not Against.”
“the DEBATE. Svea high court decision last Friday to give a misshandelsdömd dad has sole custody and all visitation rights violate fundamental principles of law.”
“One of the key principles of law is that one is innocent until the opposite is proven. Another equally important is that no one should be judged a fair hearing. The accused has the right to defend themselves, concrete and specific. General investigations is not enough.”
“But in an area in Sweden do not apply these principles. It’s all about the proceedings concerning custody and contact with children.”
“It’s about two boys, 8 and 11 years old, whose dad of the year 2014, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for having assaulted them. Mother and father have had joint custody – the boys have lived with their mother and the father had visitation rights. However, according to both the mother and the social services ‘ investigation, the children in the four years that have passed since the imprisonment themselves expressed that they did not want to meet his dad.”
“the Svea court of appeal decides to give the father sole custody of the boys and that the mother should not be allowed to see their children at all.”
“We are many, which have reacted very strongly to this. Who listens to the children? Is it really reasonable that in this way punish a mother who carries her first basic duty as a parent – namely, to protect their children from violence and abuse?”
“That the father is sentenced for having abused their boys play no crucial role in Svea high court decision. It relies on a familjerättsutredning where the father, despite misshandelsdomen, ”is not considered to pose no risk for the boys – but considered to be the best way to meet a contact with both parents”. “
“And the district court’s view that ”the mother had not lived up to its responsibility as the guardian and boendeförälder – because any intercourse between the father and the children still had not come to fruition, despite strong calls to action in the last vårdnadsprocessen”. “
“However, attaches no importance to the Social services investigation into confirming the mother tells us – that the boys don’t want to meet his dad. In Svea high court judgment dismissed this in the following way:”
“”the Children, however, has not yet reached such age and maturity that their will may be given a crucial importance in the issue,” writes the court of appeal in the judgment. “
“Because the Svea court of appeal does not attach to the children’s opinions any importance as they lay the entire responsibility for the children not want to meet his dad on the mother.”
“the Core of it is about it”
“It is a ”crime” that is not regulated in the Penal code or any other regulation, but despite it has a very specific penalty. How to write the Svea court of Appeal in the judgment:”
“”It is very serious that the mother actively opposing the relationship between the children and their father – and this makes the father to get sole custody, despite the major change it means for the children”
“the Mother is not formally accused of anything – no official suspicion has been put forward, no charges have been filed – which is not possible because umgängessabotage is not a legal classification of the offence. But in this legal grey area, being accused and convicted the mother to ”actively obstructed the relationship between the children and their father”.”
“she Got any opportunity to respond to this specific accusation? No.”
“Was she to be innocent to proven guilty? No.”
“the Svea court of appeal considers it just proved that she has ”actively obstructed the relationship between the children and their father”.”
“Something concrete and specific defense against this charge was not allowed.”
“please Note – there are investigations of different kinds which can be addressed and critiqued, does not change the fundamental fact that we are dealing here with a legal grey area, with undreamed-of consequences for those affected. “
“It’s all about suspicions and accusations that leads to judgments and penalties without the fundamental principles of law are complied with.”
“My view is that we need a haveriutredning – with the best interests of the child as its guiding principle. An investigation that takes into account that no parent should ever have to be forced to choose between the absolute bid to protect their children and the risk of losing these children. “
“An investigation whose first principle must be the safety of children and security.”
“nMaria Robsahm, debater, and journalist.”
“n Join in the debate and comment on the artikelnn – like Aftonbladet Debate on Facebook.”
