International Conference on Child Protection System: Whether The State Will Take Over The Parental Role?

International Conference on Child Protection System: Whether The State Will Take Over The Parental Role?

The conference aims to share experiences, insights, and expectations of the protection of children's rights and government support for the family in the Nordic countries, Denmark, the UK, Australia and Lithuania.
Conference Chair - Vytautas Budnikas, leader of Lithuanian Organisation for Human Rights.
Vilnius, Lithuania, February 20, 2014
Invitation for the International Conference in Lithuania

Read more...

Summary and Report to the Council of Europe: Child Removal Cases in Sweden and the neighbouring Nordic countries

This Report was made by 32 Nordic Law professionals.
Since the beginning of the 20th Century, Sweden and the Nordic countries all have laws which give the social welfare authorities the power to forcibly remove children from the care of their parents - on what appears to be arbitrary grounds - and place them in foster homes, or institutions, among total strangers. From 1920 to the present day, more than 300 000 children in Sweden have been removed from their homes and placed in compulsory foster care.

The statistics for Norway, Finland and Denmark are a little lower.

Read the Summary:
pdfSummary. Report to the Council of Europe - Child Removal Cases in Sweden and the Nordic countries

Read the Report:

pdfReport to the Council of Europe - Child Removal Cases in Sweden and the Nordic countries


 Read the Council of Europe Reply
pdfReply from The Council of Europe




REPORT from "The Family Education Trust"

By Lynette Burrows. 6.3.99.

First, the background. 'The Family Education Trust' of Great Britain was set up more than twenty-five years ago to monitor the effects of social change on the family. Its composition is broad and includes doctors, lawyers, churchmen, teachers, housewives and businesspeople, covering the entire social spectrum. From very early on it was apparent to people of good sense that many of the more radical ideas of the social innovators were unlikely to work. Most of the innovations - such as the sexualising of the young were basically opportunistic commercial innovations, which exploited the new liberalism in order to develop a youth market for their products. Others, such as liberal divorce, abandoning censorship on sexual material (whilst increasing it on race, for instance) dropping the stigma of 'illegitimacy'; allowing girls (but not boys) to have sexual experiences at an illegal age, without their parents' knowledge or consent, quickly showed themselves to be damaging and misery-producing. What is more, most of these novel ideas were quickly found to be absolutely counter-productive, producing the opposite of what they were supposed to do.

However, even though they had only existed for a few years, whole livelihoods had been founded on them and various professions, notably the legal and medical professions, as well as social work, had become parasitic upon their continued existence and hopeful of their continuing escalation.

It is a vain, therefore, to expect these professions to cut-back their activities or their advocacy of them, because of either moral considerations or their adverse effects. They were not founded on either morality or doing good. So, it is not unduly cynical to say that, as long as they continue to make money for the practitioners, the professions will continue to shout for them!

Last year, the Family Education Trust published a book called

'The Fight For the Family' which was a critique of another professional pressure group that was seeking power and financial support. Under the guise of 'children's rights' a very small number of individuals, using organisations which they have, for the most part, formed themselves, seek to subvert the role of parents and to substitute paid officials; i.e. themselves. The book gives chapter and verse of their philosophy, aims and inter-connected personnel. It also notes how they use Sweden as an example of 'good practice' in the field of childcare and how they wish to follow Sweden. In particular, they attach particular importance to establishing a law against smacking children - as in Sweden. They say how it has improved life for everybody and has not resulted in any prosecutions, or disruptions to family relationships. Many people were sceptical of this claim which is, however, always claimed by Swedish authorities.

The book, naturally enough, enraged the children's rights lobby who did their best to 'warn-off' discussion of it by claiming that it was 'possibly defamatory'. However, the biggest-selling British broadsheet newspaper, 'The Daily Telegraph' ran a feature-page article by the author of the book, Lynette Burrows, in which she set out the main arguments of the book and this resulted in the edition selling out completely.

At this point, the Nordic Committee for Human Rights comes into the picture. Whilst a new edition of 'The Fight for the Family' was being prepared, the attention of the Family Education Trust was drawn to the existence of a web site ( which contained a robust refutation of everything that the children's rights people in Britain, said about Sweden. To the delight of the author, it was apparent that an opposition of academics and professionals had at last organised itself under the chairmanship of Ruby Harrold-Claesson of Gothenburg and was engaged in a war of facts against the misinformation disseminated by the Swedish authorities. We read the information on the web-site and immediately prepared a new chapter in the book specifically on 'Swedish practices', which will be an eye-opener to many people.

It cannot be emphasised enough how important it is that Sweden has, at last, got itself an 'alternative voice' to which other countries can apply for a more truthful account of what is really happening there. With the best will in the world, no one has been able to get at the facts concerning the number of children taken from their families on one pretext or another. It has been impossible to discover how disgracefully those children are often treated by foster-parents thereafter; and how indifferent the authorities are to this state of affairs.

More than anything else, it has not been realised by any other country, I think, that the device of making smacking children illegal has the effect of placing a majority of parents in the power of social workers. Let us get to the nub of the argument. Most parents everywhere know what the independent, American 'Institute of Healthcare Research' found in 1993; that the majority of genuine research studies into parental discipline, demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking in certain situations. Thus, the removal by the state of the right of parents to do what they know is best for their children, infantalises the average adult. Unable by law to trust their own judgement in this matter, adults are thrown into an unnatural dependence on the approval of social workers. The Soviet Union was full of such psychological tricks, designed to break the spirit of a people, and Sweden has got away with this one by simply denying that it is happening. They are not only autocratic; they are also hopelessly wrong and out of date.

After discovering this Nordic web-site, we decided to invite Ruby Harrold-Claesson to England, so that we could discuss the Nordic Committee for Human rights and acquaint the media here with their existence. This was done, first at a series of interviews with interested journalists and, on the second day, at a reception at the Institute of Economic Affairs in Westminster. At both, Ruby gave a good account of the work of the committee and described a number of cases which illustrated the problem. It is not an exaggeration to say that people were stunned. Over and over again the same question was put: 'where is the opposition to this policy in Sweden?'

Ruby did her best to explain that, once such a policy is in position, the public feels powerless to resist; they feel threatened in a professional capacity if they complain, and vulnerable as parents if they draw attention to their opposition. She also pointed out that propaganda plays its part in making individuals feel that they do not have the right to protest in a system unused to having its rules questioned.

Even so, this is the hardest part for us here to understand. We know that the poor and inarticulate are always vulnerable to bullying by officials and that is why public opinion is always ready to come to the aid of those who are bullied. After a fictitious account of the plight of a homeless young mother with her children some years ago, 'Cathy Come Home', the outcry against the policy of separating a mother from her children when she was in trouble, was so great that the entire policy was reviewed, heads rolled and an automatic right to be housed by the state was put in place.

In contrast, Ruby had with her a heart-rending Swedish documentary about Christina, a homeless woman whose child the social workers stole. The whole disgusting business was filmed, including the birth and the mother's joy; her falling asleep afterwards and the nurses stealing away her child with the promise that it would be by her side when she awoke. It was a scene from a horror movie and, despite its sympathetic intention, so reminiscent of the Nazi's liking for recording how efficiently they carried out their loathsome programmes, that it made the flesh creep.


It was shown on Swedish television on 31st January, 1999 - apparently without any significant outcry from the public. I can only say that if such a film had been made about a British girl who was treated in the way, there would have been no peace for those concerned until natural justice had been done. Not even criminals are treated in such an inhuman a way in any country which calls itself civilised.

This brought home to us here, even more clearly, the need to alert people to what can happen to a free people when a bureaucracy is allowed to become too powerful and the government, which is supposed to control it, is acquiescent. We have many avenues yet to explore on our own behalf and we know that the media here will take some convincing that Swedish social policy is, in this respect, reminiscent of the Gestapo.

However, we shall do our best to get the 'Christina' film shown on British television since its eloquent testimony to the enduring appetite of some people to subjugate and torment their fellow human-beings, is sensational enough to ensure a wide audience. It was a shock to liberals everywhere to realise that Sweden had a policy of sterilising those whom it considered 'unfit' to have children, until 1976. It will be even more of a shock to their belief in the 'progressive' credentials of Sweden, to realise that they did not abandon the policy, they merely adapted it to modern conditions. They now take the child away from those whom they still consider 'unfit' to keep their own children.

We hope, by drawing attention to what Sweden is doing, to ensure that no other country, including our own, falls into the same trap. We shall, with your help, bring over to England, as many Swedes as it takes to convince our intelligentsia that policies which interfere with family freedoms, enslave the citizen. Unfortunately for the oppressed everywhere, the Liberal-Left always treasures its heroes - even when they are murderous tyrants - so it will take a little time for the worm to turn; but turn it will. We shall always be grateful to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, to Siv Westerberg and all those other professionals who have dared to stand up to the insolence of officialdom and speak the truth.

The window they have opened in their web-site will allow daylight to fall, for the first time, on those who oppress in secret. It gives the Committee for Human Rights a voice to the outside world that cannot be controlled or silenced and it allows others to join in their struggle. A country that has lost its family freedom has lost all freedom. The right to live as you choose with your family is the point of all liberty; without it, the very concept becomes meaningless. That is surely a freedom worth fighting for? We send you all our best wishes and encouragement.


To The Fight for the Family

Back to Article index

Back to Main



Report from Ruby Harrold-Claesson's New Zealand Tour, July - August 2006

Report from Ruby Harrold-Claesson's New Zealand Tour July 19 - August 1, 2006
Family Integrity Newsletter 109 & 110

By Craig Smith, MA






Craig Smith, BA, MA is the National Director of Family Integrity.





Family Integrity Newsletter #109 -- Ruby's Tour 1


Greetings all,


Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson arrived in NZ on July 19 just after 5am after 36 hours of travel. TV 1 & TV 3 were scrapping over who would have her first, one spitting the dummy and saying they wouldn’t have her at all. They both had appointments with her on the 20th, but ended up filming her on the 19th, same day she arrived, after she also did three other media interviews.

Some elements of the media decided to use July 19 to fabricate a story about a pamphlet I wrote two years ago, saying it promoted smacking children for 10 to 15 minutes. What the pamphlet actually said was parents should take 10 to 15 minutes to determine if a smack is even necessary. (It’s on our website at ….click “Christian Corporal Correction”). The fabrication has travelled to many countries, and I received phone calls from Australia and the USA wanting to know more.

Ruby had more media interviews on Thursday and Friday, 20-21 July, then flew to Wellington on Saturday. That night in Upper Hutt was the first of five public meetings, the second one being in Porirua Monday. Also on Monday Anna Chalmers of the Dominion Post cancelled the interview she’d arranged. She rang back Wednesday afternoon wanting an interview. She knew we would be leaving for the airport at that time and asked a series of dumb questions, so Ruby just cut her off. Anna and the DomPost were abominable throughout, leading the others in twisting the facts and digging up truly unqualified people in Sweden who were happy to say that Ruby was unqualified. The fact is, Ruby’s mastery of four languages, her knowledge of law in France, Sweden and European law put her way out in front of most other Swedish lawyers. Incidentally, Swedish universities have recently ruled that a person must be employed by the University, on its payroll, in order to gain their PhD at that university… much for academic freedom!

Tuesday 25 July Ruby met with the Family Commissioner, Rajen Prasad and with Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro. Both are totally fixated on repealing section 59 and would not entertain any notion that drugs, alcohol, TV violence, the abortion industry or school bullying were more urgent issues to pursue in order to really deal with domestic violence. She met with 14 MPs that evening.

Wednesday we did a lot of filming for a DVD featuring a lengthy interview with Ruby that will be available shortly. Flew to Hamilton and Ruby appeared before the Select Committee there on Thursday 27 July. Again, the DomPost fabricated a story about a large police and security guard presence due to a tip-off of potential violence plus demonstrators clapping and stomping feet at Sue Bradford. Well, we were there, Anna Chalmers wasn’t. There were no police present and the only clapping (no foot stomping) was spontaneous applause on two or three occasions when the individual submitter’s presentation against Bradford’s Bill was exceptionally impressive. There was also a group of seven 12 & 13 year-old school girls who each wanted to keep Section 59, saying they knew their parents loved them when they smacked them, only they suggested amendments to rule out smacking in certain places.

There was a public meeting in Hamilton, one in South Auckland and another on the North Shore. Ruby also met with Pacific Island leaders and the Auckland District Law Society. Before she flew out of NZ on Tuesday 1 August, Ruby also took in some NZ Culture at Rotorua’s Tamaki Village and also got to see live Kiwi, Tuatara, Wood Pigeons, Tui, Kea and other critters, plants and geothermal activity.

Ruby totally loved her time here and constantly talked of coming back with her husband Håkan (pronounced hoe-can). We found Ruby so gracious, polite and unassuming that her many talents and specialist knowledge came out gradually over her time here and not all at once at the beginning. She is thoroughly delightful and New Zealand can be glad that someone with her total and fearless commitment to justice and truth came here to lift the cover on the official whitewash about the Swedish situation that has fooled us all for so long.


Family Integrity Newsletter #110 -- Ruby's Tour 2

Greetings all,


Barbara and I just finished touring parts of NZ with Jamaican-born Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson. It has been a real education. We have gained quite an insight into the Swedish psyche and the way that particular society expects its members to behave.

One of the silly arguments advanced by the repeal lobby is that children should be given the same rights as adults. They obviously don’t mean what they say, for they are not suggesting children be allowed to vote, sign contracts, smoke or drink. Well, Swedish society has gone down this track of extending more and more “rights” to children and has been forced to become extremely tolerant of childish behaviour to the point of what most of us would call irresponsible indulgence: rudeness, disrespect, disobedience and more are allowed to go unchecked except for some verbal admonition.

We have also learned how intolerant Swedish officialdom is toward those who would criticise the system. Sweden has for many years now prided itself on being the world leader in progressive social experiments: free sexual expression of the 1960s, increasing socialised benefits over several decades (resulting in Sweden being the most highly taxed nation on earth), the world’s first legal ban on smacking, etc. So when people such as Ruby, being an outsider of sorts, makes it her habit to dispassionately and more objectively observe and report on what goes on there in a negative light, officials at almost every level close ranks to defend their international reputation.

Same thing happens here in Kiwiland, we’ve found. When someone like Ruby comes over here and not only shatters a favoured myth about conditions in Sweden held by the ruling liberal elite (from Helen Clark downwards) but also shows how loosely and “creatively” this elite handles the truth, they take shots at the messenger from Sweden rather than listen to the message from someone who obviously knows better than they simply because they don’t like the message… doesn’t support their agenda.

The political machinations the opposition has shown us as a result of Ruby’s visit here are very instructive: the one-eyed commitment of the present political elite in New Zealand to the repeal of Section 59 is so strong, we must conclude they have a larger agenda in mind. They have said time and again that repeal of Section 59 is only a small step and only a first step in a larger strategy to supposedly eliminate child abuse. While we all applaud moves to eliminate child abuse, it is false logic to say repealing Section 59 (which embodies parental authorisation to use “reasonable force by way of correction”) is a step in this direction: “reasonable force” is clearly not abuse. Children who go uncorrected will bring harm and angst to themselves and others. Such children will become targets for both frustrated parents and officialdom who will be called upon to sort them out, using force, since the parents cannot legally do so. And we all know that if CYFs gets involved in a family, life as that family knew it comes to an end. The resultant abuse to the family’s integrity - the child removed to a foster home and the parents charged with criminal assault - such legal, institutionalised abuse is far, far worse than any use of “reasonable force by way of correction”.

Helen Clark, Sue Bradford and others have held Sweden up as an example of social structure for us to copy. They have not exposed the full story: Sweden is a Socialist dictatorship. The Social Democrats have been in power for 50 years. The populace do as they’re told. Opposition is suppressed and even various expressions of difference are marginalized. State experts are assumed to be right, and because children are assumed to belong to the state, natural parents are not trusted as much as foster parents, the latter being well-paid agents of the state.

The Swedish state wants a certain outcome in its society. Just like in a chemistry laboratory, to get the desired results, you must control all the variables. So Swedish authorities are working to control all the social variables in order to get a peaceful and harmonious society. New Zealand’s political leaders have been doing the same thing over recent years. They see repeal of Section 59 as absolutely key since this one little clause in the law is what gives parents legal recognition that they, and not the state, have primary authority over their children.

The sodomite lobby has also said that they see repeal of Section 59 as key, for if parents will not fight to retain their authority over their own children, neither will they fight homosexual marriage and adoptions, hate speech legislation, de-criminalising other sexual perversions.

Specific Fibs
Let me clear up some of the criticisms the pro-repeal lobbyists have refused to clarify, no matter how many times we told them. Ruby is not a member of the Swedish Bar Association. Hundreds of Swedish lawyers do not belong to the Bar…it is not a requirement to practise law in Sweden. Ruby has never applied to join the Bar. In addition, one must also have a certain high level of income to join. Ruby does a lot of work for free. She is owed a lot of money by the provincial court of western Sweden for legal aid work she has done. But when she took a holiday to Jamaica in 1996 and criticised the Swedish system on Jamaican television, she returned home to Sweden to a local work ban: her home provincial court system refused to appoint her as legal aid lawyer, saying she was an “inappropriate” (not an incompetent) lawyer. They also refused to pay for the legal aid work she had been doing for some time up til then. She is free to represent clients in western Sweden otherwise and there is no work ban in the rest of Sweden.

Bradford tries to say repeal of Section 59 will stop violence against children the way repeal of similar legislation in Sweden back in 1957 reduced child deaths at the hands of their parents to “one every four years”. Ruby claimed that such deaths happen at the average rate of seven a year and have done since at least 1966. When we visited Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro with Ruby, Dr Kiro confirmed that Ruby’s figures were correct and Bradford’s were not. “In Sweden, many people believe that children have not been subjected to violence since the ban on corporal punishment was introduced, but this is not true,” said Sweden’s Children’s Ombudsman, Lena Nyberg, in an article in Sweden’s The Local dated 5 May 2006 titled “New Child Abuse Commission after Bobby Death”. In the same article Morgan Johansson, Sweden’s public health minister, said, “Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years.” So it is actually worse than Ruby was saying.

Some Swedish expert, a psychologist, was interviewed on NZ radio recently and said that since 1957, when Sweden’s equivalent of our Section 59 was repealed, only one parent had been charged with the crime of smacking. It has also been pointed out, by Ruby whenever she speaks, that the 1979 ban on smacking was in Sweden’s civil code and did not carry any penalties or legal sanctions. And so it is not even possible to bring such charges to courts. But what the media fail to point out or fail to understand is that with such laws in place, parents are then exposed to being charged with assault and battery under various criminal codes. This is precisely what happens. Ruby tabled 41 cases, copies of official rulings against parents in Swedish courts, at her hearing before the select committee. The psychologist is not a lawyer….which perhaps explains why he knows little about what actually goes on in Swedish courtrooms. In addition, Ruby has practised Swedish lawyer for 20 years.

Here is a quick outline of the legal history. The equivalent of Section 59, giving parents a defense from a charge of criminal assault against their children of having used reasonable force by way of correction, was repealed in Sweden in 1957. In 1966 they changed a law which said parents must curb their children to read parents must correct their children. In 1979 a law was added to the civil (not the penal) code banning smacking and any belittling treatment of children. In 1998 a law was introduced making gross disturbance of the peace a crime. Under this law parents have been charged and children removed for a non-specific accusation that the parents had hassled the children or imposed their will on the child at some unspecified date and time in the past in a way unwanted by the child.

The cumulative effect of these laws is that many parents are afraid to correct their children in any way. Children are coached in preschool onwards that they do not have to put up with any discipline from their parents but only need to report them to a teacher, social worker or police to make the parents stop. (What the children are not coached in are the implications to their family’s integrity and relationships of making such a report…more on this later.) To give a child “time out” is a crime for the child may suffer mental and emotional stress, and it is a form of physical punishment since the child is separated from the physical presence of his family. Of course when the authorities separate a child physically from his family for weeks and months at a time and place the child with total strangers, that is not seen as abuse but as protection. You must apologise to a child for disturbing his peace, lest you be charged with this crime, when you drag the child from in front of a truck on the road or when prying a huge kitchen knife from his hands.

There has developed a thinking within the Swedish social services that most parents are near-incompetents and can hardly be trusted. This is evidenced by the number of children taken into care: over 20,000 in a country of 9 million, a rate 4 times higher than New Zealand. To mind all these children, an army of over 300,000 social workers has arisen plus thousands of foster homes. These can be either obvious institutions or private homes, but all are well-paid. Qualifications are very low, just like New Zealand’s cases of foster children being placed in gang headquarters and brothels. According to Ruby, these foster agents are rarely investigated for abuse they commit against their charges. This is due to the Swedish sense of self-righteousness: the state system is best, it is at the apex of human social development….it can do no wrong. New Zealand’s social welfare system also suffers from this blindness: when they get it wrong, they are loathe to admit it or correct it for such admissions of error damage their professional credibility.

This kind of administrative and institutionalised child abuse is the worst part of this whole anti-smacking scenario: it gives power into the hands of strangers to the children who not only have no personal care for the children, but stand to gain materially from interfering in their lives. Since parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force to correct, train or discipline their children if Section 59 is repealed, its repeal dramatically lowers the threshold at which social workers can justify intervening into private family affairs. Ruby says fostering is big business: it keeps the social workers in green as well as foster agencies, lawyers and psychiatrists. Each of these groups has a financial interest in seeing the problem expand, not decrease. And once a child has been in care for three years, the state may rule that it be forcibly adopted out.

Report from Ruby Harrold-Claesson's New Zealand smacking debate tour July 19 - August 1, 2006
By Craig Smith

Back to Articles




The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report
Department of Education, London, England - May 2011

The NCHR's Greetings to The Caribbean Conference on Life & Family Values 2012, Trinidad - April 27 - 28, 2012

 'The Government Reply to the Report from the Joint Committee on the Draft Children (contact) and Adoption Bill
HL Paper 100-I/HC 400-I


 The NCHR Symposium, August 20, 2011


New Council of Europe guidelines on child-friendly justice
Press release - 865(2010), Strasbourg, 17.11.2010

  The NCHR observes United Nations Day, October 24, 2010


 The NCHR Symposium, August 21, 2010


  The NCHR celebrates International Family Day, May 15, 2010

Family Matters: Charter for Grandchildren

High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights
Interlaken Declaration, 19. February 2010

Press release: "Neglect and abuse at the hands of society", January 14, 2010

Summary: "Neglect and abuse at the hands of society", January 14, 2010


NKMR Symposium at Scandic Crown, 22 August, 2009

The NCHR's Greetings to the WCF V, August 10 - 12, 2009


The NCHR celebrates Human Rights Day December 10, 2008

The NCHR celebrates the International Day of the Family, May 15, 2008

The NCHR awarded the Society Magazine's Diploma of Honour for its long struggle for Human Rights.

 Care Profiling Study - UK, March 2008


The NCHR celebrates Human Rights Day, December 10, 2007


WCF IV Closes with Well Wishes and Wise Words


WCF IV Closes with Well Wishes and Wise Words

The NCHR's Greetings to the WCF IV, May 11 - 13, 2007

The NCHR celebrates International Family Day, May 15, 2006 


Committee on the Rights of the Child - UN advises ADHD misdiagnosed and psycho-stimulant drugs over-prescribed
30 September 2005


Committee on the Rights of the Child considers third periodic report of Sweden
January 2005



The International Day of the Child. October 6, 2003 

The International Day of the Child 2002 

The NCHR celebrates International Family Day, May 15, 2002 

The International Day of the Child 2001 

 COMMUNIQUÉ to UNICEF Summit meeting September 19 – 21, 2001 


Report from Family Education Trust 

Ruby Harrold-Claesson's lecture at the Families in Care, Conference for the Millennium, Newcastle, October 6, 2000


   Conference for the Millennium. The Family and The Human Rights Act 1998. The Conference will be held in Newcastle, England, on Friday 6th October 2000.   

"Towards a Child-friendly Society" - Communiqué to the Council of Europe Family Minister Conference, Stockholm 14 - 16/6 1999






Back to Main

Summary and Report to the European Parliament Petitions Committee: Child Removal Cases in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden

Summary and Report to the European Parliament Petitions Committee: Child Removal Cases in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden
This Report was made by 40 Nordic Law professionals.

The purpose of this Report is to direct the attention of the European Parliament towards the laws of the Nordic countries regarding compulsory care of children and young persons, and the implementation of the said provisions.

The Nordic countries in general, and Sweden in particular, implement these provisions in a way that leads to unusually high numbers of children being removed from the care of their parents and being placed in foster homes every year. In the case of Sweden, this is the result of the Social Services Act and the Law with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons, which most often leads to compulsory care, on arbitrary grounds.

Read the Summary:
pdfSummary: Report Child Removal Cases in the Nordic Countries + index

Read the Report:
pdfReport to the European Parliament Petitions Committee: Child removal cases in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden

Report to the UN and CRC


Summary - Report to the UN and CRC - Child Removal Cases in Sweden and the Nordic countries

This Report was made by 32 Nordic Law professionals.
Since the beginning of the 20th Century, Sweden and the Nordic countries all have laws which give the social welfare authorities the power to forcibly remove children from the care of their parents - on what appears to be arbitrary grounds - and place them in foster homes, or institutions, among total strangers. From 1920 to the present day, more than 300 000 children in Sweden have been removed from their homes and placed in compulsory foster care.

The statistics for Norway, Finland and Denmark are a little lower.

The Report was sent to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Judge Navi Pillay, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section, and the Coordinator National Institutions Unit, Gianni Magazzeni, on Human Rights Day, December 10, 2012.

Read the Summary:
pdfSummary - Report to the UN and CRC - Child Removal Cases in Sweden and the Nordic countries

Read the Report:
pdfReport to the UN and CRC - Child Removal Cases in Sweden and the Nordic countries

Realtime website traffic tracker, online visitor stats and hit counter