(edit title) What ever happened to that kid who was taken off A plane - because his parents home schooled him Options

[byke]

Anyone remember this story?
Some parents annoyed local authorities by homeschooling their child (while it was still legal?)

Only to find themselves sitting on an airplane (emigrating?) and having the plane boarded and the child removed and held by the state.

It must have been a few years ago now ...

[Taxalien]

He is still in care, where the social services put him.

The father has been accused of all sorts, including insanity, only to be proven to be fully normal.

You can follow the case here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/returndomenic/

[gplusa]

What a load of crap. He was being home schooled illegally. Home schooling is legal in Sweden with the approval of the local authorities, it is not an automatic right. Like it or not, that's the law. Everyone knew it, including the doped up Swedish father. This boy's parents simply decided that he didn't need to go to school. Apparently his mother had some cultural idea that children aged 7+ should be staying at home and be hugged all day. When they got found out and were told to send their child to school, they decided (and only then) that they would home school him. Didn't ask for permission, mind, just decided. They then got told that they needed to apply to home school and, in the mean time, their child needed to be in school as required under law. That's when they decided to scarper. The Swedish authorities stepped in to ensure that the child, a Swedish citizen, received the appropriate care and opportunities afforded to all Swedish children. Duty of care. The father later tried to do a runner with the boy (not the sharpest knife in the draw).

The family, and their equally nutjob supporters, have tried to turn this into a case about home schooling. It has absolutely nothing to do with home schooling. The parents only tried to play the home schooling card at the last minute after they has been caught out breaking the law. Those wailing websites seem to have neglected to mention that fact. The home schooling angle is nothing more than an attention diverter.

Nice try.

[byke]

I thought the courts ruled in favor of the parents?
Furthermore, I thought the law change on homeschooling was banned in sweden in 2010? yet the boy has been held "in care" since 2009?

[byke]

Opps my mistake, the ban came into effect in 2011 (2 years after the child was taken into care)

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Well, that strengthens gplusas comment even further, i.e. this was not really an issue about home schooling, just nutjob parents...

[Yorkshireman]

The parents are waiting to have the case heard in the European Court of Human Rights.

[byke]

Well, that strengthens gplusas comment even further, i.e. this was not really an issue about home schooling, just nutjob parents...

I dont follow your logic here.
From what gplusa stated ...

What a load of crap. He was being home schooled illegally. Home schooling is legal in Sweden with the approval of the local authorities, it is not an automatic right. Like it or not, that's the law. Everyone knew it, including the doped up Swedish father. This boy's parents simply decided that he didn't need to go to school.

As shown before, the law didnt change until 2011 (banning home schooling).
That meant that any homeschooling prior to this wasnt illegal? (or am I missing something here)
Unless you are suggesting that future laws can be back dated, to gain a conviction?

[byke]

The parents are waiting to have the case heard in the European Court of Human Rights.

Doesn't it have to go to appeals in Sweden first?

[Yorkshireman]

As far as I remember they tried and failed in Swedish courts, so they are waiting for the hearing in the European Court of Human Rights.

Social Services won the appeals presenting a psychological report that showed the kid was developmentally delayed.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

I dont follow your logic here.. From what gplusa stated ...

A gplusa points out, this matter is not about home schooling, rather about nutjob parents. As gplusa says, home schooling was allowed, but the parents did not home school the kid; they just kept him away from school. When the social services interfered the parents tried to home school the boy instead, but the authorities did not allow it, not because it was forbidden but because the parents could not handle it properly.

[SOIS.COM]

A gplusa points out, this matter is not about home schooling, rather about nutjob parents.

Would propose to take a step back from the current analysis for a moment. My esteemed colleagues, obviously trained in the mental health field using professional terminology such as "nutjob", may have some points however, I would like to add some balance.

1. Swedish schooling. If it were the best in the world there may be an argument to say all children should attend Swedish schools. However, Sweden ranks 9th in reading literacy, 14th in Mathmatics, and 16th in Science. While not bad it is definitely not the best.

2. 2. Finland ranks the best in reading literacy, mathematics, and science. Here are "26 amazing facts about Finland's education system" Two facts being all teachers must possess at least a master's degree and about 30 percent of the kids go to tutors paid for by the state.

3. For better or worse Sweden is not Finland. Finland is largely a homogeneous whereas, 26% of the Swedish population is either foreign born or has a parent who was foreign born. In a diverse society members are more likely to benefit if they have more options, homeschooling could potentially be one of those options.

4. In my mind it seems like a waste of time to focus on making Swedish so incredibly important. Yes, all children who live in Sweden should learn it, but since all children learn English and English is much more transportable the focus should be on using English as an intermediary language while reinforcing that children become highly fluent in their mother tongue first and foremost. Sweden is an exporting nation and could very well utilize those 100's of diverse language groups to help crack new markets for its products. Therefore, push the mother tongue and maintain the current levels of Swedish and English and open schools dedicated to these children while trying to strive overall for higher education standards. The real trick is getting a diverse population to outperform Finland..If Sweden could do that it will make a real accomplishment but to think that it will do so by forcing Swedish as the primary learning language is unrealistic given that 100's of thousands of families in Sweden do not speak Swedish at home.

Yes, it is likely that there will be detractors on the basis of nationalism or tradition. However, those sentiments are a falsehood as Sweden is not the culture that is was for better or for worse and trying to do things the old way just wont work.

Other nations function just fine with multiple languages such as Canada. Yes, I am fully aware that Sweden has several protected minority languages however, markets the market size of Finnish, Meänkieli, Sami, Romani, and Yiddish are relatively small. Perhaps Sweden should consider adding Arabic and Balkan languages to the list as a start perhaps expanding to Mandarin or any other economically viable language down the road.

I do hope for a bright future in Sweden. Sweden has accomplished some amazing feats in the past and will likely do so in the future, what increases the likelihood are taking the resources Sweden has to work with and making the best out of them rather than living in the past.

Oh, because its the law, as GPLUSA pointed out is never a good reason to make decisions. Laws can always be rewritten and any law that does not celebrate the diversity that Sweden is in my opinion a bad law.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Doesn't it have to go to appeals in Sweden first?

ECHR works very differently from EJC. First, it is not an EU court and secondly, unlike ECJ, it not a "supreme court" and has no power to overrule national laws. Anyone can at any time report a member state of The Council of Europe to the ECHR.

If a member state of the EU fails to adhere to the court's ruling one can bring the case to EJC, since ECJ follows the rulings of ECHR. However, in that case it probably need to go to appeals court first, since EJC is the final instance.

[byke]

I still don't fully understand this story.
And I dont fully get what the charges were against the parents that justified retaining a child.

1. We have a child who's parents believed he should be home schooled - prior to the law change that prevented home schooling. Which at that point the law didn't require special circumstances to allow such. (2009)

2. He was 7 years of age when he went into care . Thus putting him academically in grade 1 at that point if he had not been in home schooling. Which makes me question how could he have been academically behind when he hadnt even completed his first first grade for authorities to be able to judge or see his performance?

3. According to a post by Yorkshire man, the child was "developmentally delayed."
Would it really take 3 years of being kept in care to help a child catchup the 6 months or so, supposedly caused by the parents home schooling? And doesn't that in some way only go to strengthen the parents claim that their child was not fit to attend a "normal" school, and thus chose to homeschool instead?

4. last but not least.
It has to make you question the role of state and parents.
If the parents disagreed with the local governing bodies regarding education - but state law also allowed homeschooling at this point. And when the parents decided they couldnt agree with the local bodies and decided to move abroad to escape such views - they find their child being taken into care (its been over 3 years now). Is this not just designed as a punishment against the parents for daring to disagree with local authorities on an issue which had the law on their side at the time?

Again, I dont know the whole story.
And have only been able to read tid bits of information.

But if the parents haven't been charged with any crime - then where is the justification for the state intervene? And who are they protecting ? the child or the role of local power.

Is 3 years of having your child with held a suitable punishment for the parents or the child for disagreeing with the state? Seems excessive to me.

[Yorkshireman]

The schools and social services objected to the idea that the child was taught at home.
The parents continued for the 1st year, they had legal right to do so.
During that time they were visited by social services a number of times.
Social finally took action after the 1st year.

They say that the parents are not capable of looking after their child. The judgement from the original trial stated that the parents took a big risk with the child by not leting him go to daycare or 1st year in school.

Part of that reasoning was that the social services said the mother lived in the shadow of the Father (he can speak Swedish and English), and only knew English, with a little bit of Swedish, and the child spent all day home with her.

The court agreed that whilst the parents had good intentions and wanted to do well by the child they lacked the ability to do so.

However, one positive thing for the parents happened end of last year, when the court refused the social services request that parental rights be terminated!... ...B*stards, social services tried to have the parents legally cease being parents of the child!!