9 Pages V  « < 7 8 9   Reply to this topic

Cavalry arrives for beleaguered homeschool family

Top human rights expert to help in return of child

post 18.Dec.2012, 05:58 PM
Post #121
Location: Luleå
Joined: 4.Sep.2009

Home schooling was never legal, not without the express permission of the relevant authorities. The parents never sought nor attained permission. Therefore, in their situation, home schooling was not legal. That, coupled with their social development neglect of their child, they should consider themselves fortunate that the lenient Swedish justice system didn't lock them up.
Go to the top of the page
post 18.Dec.2012, 06:32 PM
Post #122
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

If that was the case, then why did they feel the need to change the law in 2010?
Go to the top of the page
Bender B Rodriquez
post 18.Dec.2012, 06:56 PM
Post #123
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

Gplusa is actually wrong on this one. Home schooling was explicitly allowed in the previous school law from 1985 through an addendum that came into power 1995.

In 2010 a completely new school law was introduced, and in this one the option on home schooling was no longer present, unless in very special cases.

The law was not only new with respect to home schooling, but regarding all aspects of school, and homeschooling was one of the parts that changed. So the law was in no sense made specifically for home schooling.
Go to the top of the page
post 18.Dec.2012, 07:21 PM
Post #124
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (Bender B Rodriquez @ 18.Dec.2012, 06:56 PM) *
Gplusa is actually wrong on this one. Home schooling was explicitly allowed in the previous school law from 1985 through an addendum that came into power 1995.

The addendum in 1995 was to bring Sweden roughly in line with the EU, that was the only reason it was done.

@byke, you are fixated on teh home-schooling part of the case that is highlighted by the parents etc... however, go with the flow wink.gif ...they did actually start to home-school, but it was clear to social services that it was detrimental to the childs welfare, isolation etc..., which called into question the parents ability to care for him. Home-schooling was only a trigger that highlighted deeper issues.
Go to the top of the page
post 18.Dec.2012, 08:38 PM
Post #125
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008


Unfounded speculation, which to according to reports is not what happened.
But again, this is nothing new is it ... Especially as you are now suggesting I have a personal interest in this in regards to home schooling - which I don't, nor have I expressed anywhere in this thread that I do.

The parents wished to exercise a right, in which they were fully within the law to be able to do.
A law that was both covered in Sweden and the EU.
Believing that homeschooling was the best choice of action for their child, they found that the authorities had different views.

If home schooling was the issue that sparked off the whole saga as suggested.
Given what has been reported, one has to question if the authorities trumped up charges against the parents as a way to impose their authority since they were unable to use the current legislation to go against the parents will and beliefs in what would be best for their child. And again, with a 3 and half year court case where the child has been removed from the parents and their rights removed, many cynics would suspect foul play.
Go to the top of the page
Bender B Rodriquez
post 18.Dec.2012, 08:55 PM
Post #126
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

QUOTE (byke @ 18.Dec.2012, 09:38 PM) *
Unfounded speculation, which to according to reports is not what happened.

What reports if I may ask?

The only thing I've seen presented here is from one side of the conflict.
Until we see the court proceedings everything is pure speculation.
Go to the top of the page
post 19.Dec.2012, 10:38 AM
Post #127
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

QUOTE (Bender B Rodriquez @ 18.Dec.2012, 08:55 PM) *
What reports if I may ask?. The only thing I've seen presented here is from one side of the conflict.. Until we see the court proceedings everything is pure speculation.

The decision of kammarrätten can be found at the following link:

QUOTE (CTIDinÅrsta @ 28.Sep.2010, 08:15 PM) *
The link to the appeal court ruling is here.

It is more than an issue of home schooling.

@ byke - it is an overall assessment of the risk to the child and the degree to which that risk of harm is evidenced that is important. Read the above linked decision and then comment! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
Bender B Rodriquez
post 19.Dec.2012, 12:06 PM
Post #128
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

QUOTE (mångk @ 19.Dec.2012, 11:38 AM) *
The decision of kammarrätten can be found at the following link:It is more than an issue of home schooling.@ byke - it is an overall assessment of the risk to the child and t ... (show full quote)

From reading the ruling it is quite clear that this case has little to do with home schooling; it is a case of negligence in several accounts.
One may of course question the ruling itself, but it is not a question about home schooling.
Go to the top of the page
post 19.Dec.2012, 10:05 PM
Post #129
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

I take it byke doesn't want to answer this... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
post 19.Dec.2012, 11:13 PM
Post #130
Joined: 24.Dec.2009

I'll have to chip in and add my view.

I think this case is an extremely complicated case which each and one of you who try to understand it should try your best to draw some lessons from.

The executive summary of that is that Sweden is a very complicated society which ideally should come with its own instruction manual. But it doesn't. Many who come here come here because they have found a partner who is Swedish. Over and over again I see cases where the immigrant half is living in a situation where they don't understand their rights, their obligations, the benefit and tax system and most importantly the unwritten rules and norms that Swedish society impose on all its residents. Depending on your circumstances, it can at some point become a very violent awakening when the individual discovers that he has broken the contract and face some kind of emergency situation, whatever that may be. Having children is the most important one and something that can turn out to be a critical permanent trauma for the family concerned, as has been proven in this case.

If you read the latest court decision you will in essence (my humble opinion) discover that there are 4 corners to this story.

The process.

There is a judicial process in Sweden. It is its own tradition but shares a lot in common I think with long rooted Germanic cultural values. And those values are that there is this process and nothing else. You follow the rule book until you come to a conclusion and can make a ruling.

In the eyes of the court the family is not following the process. They take offense that the family is attempting to side-step the judicial process by using the Internet to garner support and pressure on the court system.

Result: Failure for the family.

The extended family unit

Before the intervention: As I mentioned at the outset, it seems that extended family is aluf and does not appear to have assisted the parents to understand the system or to become part of it.

During the intervention: They do not appear to have made any attempts to keep in touch with the child. They claim that they assumed that they were banned from visiting the child. That is very bizarre. If I stalk someone or harrass X and a court takes out a court order banning me from being in contact with X, then I would know because the court would serve me such an order. Obviously none was ever served, so why did they assume what they did?

Obviously if they had kept in contact at all times, then that would have helped the boy to cope with the abnormal situation.

Result: Failure for the family to recover and end the LVU.

The social services

Their point of view can be summarised that they identify themselves in the role as God. Based on what looks like rumours and assumptions they decide to intervene in haste, as the window of opportunity closes because the family is moving to India. In their eyes, as they sum up everything they seem to make the conclusion that the boy is "swedish" and should remain "swedish" in all essence. Everything else after that is a quest to find as many reasons to make the intervention and its effect be valued as if it had in fact cost less than had they not intervened at all.

But I personally take offense here. The court ruling shows very clearly that the effect was that the boy was heavily traumatised. He reacted with vomiting due to fear and shock and was sick for six months following the intervention. The mother collapsed and had heart failure at the airport and had to be reviwed by her husband as nobody else tried to do anything.

That section describing what actually happened reads like something out of a perfectly normal event in Nazi controlled Europe in the 1940s.

In my view, the process where social welfare agents act as if they had godlike powers must come to an end. I don't have any problems with a process in which the child selects to seek help or receive help after some kind of more humane help but if the child persists and asks to be reunited with the parents I don't want to live in any system in which some beaurocrats have the power to overrule the will and interest as expressed by the child.

It's just wrong and evil.

Result: We know the result, you are reading it.

The Boy

Before this intervention from what I have seen from video evidence given in the court he was a perfectly normal child. The only observation is that maybe he was lonely and lacked contact with anyone outside the extended family. But I don't see that as in anyway abnormal. There are children that grow up in far more remote places in this world and who have even less contact than he had.

He was bilingual, speaking both English and Swedish. He could both read and write. He could operate a computer and he was intelligent and eager to learn things.

This was at the time an 8 year old boy who could do things many Swedish kids who are in school cannot.

So how was he being harmed? Why did he have to be taken away from their parents in the middle of summer because he was being home schooled, sitting on an airplane (turkish, doors shut on the runway, ie. extraterritorial to Sweden) while all schools in Sweden were closed for the summer break?


The parents failed to understand that they had to take him to medical checkups. When the system finally forced them to do it, they did and he was found to be in perfect health. You can see the Swedish system peering through. Unless you follow the norms and do what you have to do, a child is to be considered sick and it doesn't matter if he wasn't later on even if he was then found perfectly healthy.

The parents failed to understand that dental care is not just free but indeed mandatory. Instead they decided to put more faith in the system in India and expected to go there instead. Again, total fail on their part. There were caries attacks on his milk teeth(!). Meanwhile in the rest of Sweden there are parents who take out their children from folktandvården because it is so shite and go private instead because their childrens teeth are so bad that they have to urgently be catered for. Ask any dentist about it, especially if you have a private one.

But I don't see all these kids being taken and placed under LVU because of it, do you?

Now, the intervention has taken place and what is now best for him?

I guess it is up to him to decide. Ideally in a less imposing situation than he is in, without being represented by lawyers appointed by the state who have a background that is heavily coupled with the legal system itself and who appear to have their own accusers of past wrong doings. Someone with no contact or connection to the commune that this family is from or live in. Then maybe there could be some justice being served, but I remain sceptical.

I'll make one more comment. The state had one consultant child psychologist who testified on what is best for the child, falling in favour of keeping him in custody.

From the background check I have made I found that he is being challenged and questioned by many people regarding his views on ADHD and his insistance on giving medication to each and everyone that are given that diagnosis. That medication has the same effects on the brain as cocaine. The psychologist is the former chief medical officer at some hospital in Uppsala (he was sacked unexpectedly and abruptely but the reason was never disclosed) but appears to practise also in Gotland. Both these places top the statistics in Sweden in how many children are given this drug.

The reports I have seen state that somewhere between 5-7% of all children below 18 in these two communes are taking this medication.

Sweden has been here before, repeatedly, overusing and over relying on this that or the other because of some poorly and often unfounded conclusions.

And it troubles me that he testified.

Personally after all this I have nothing further to comment about the case. I don't think the family is being helped by trying to get this through the "internet/facebook court system" (if one can be said to exist) and I think the only way forward is if either the extended family took up the thread they failed to do or if the mother divorces the father and immediately seeks to receive custody of the child. I don't see any reason why she would be denied that right as I cannot see any incriminating evidence against her. The father is a different case and there are things I have read that I don't like.
Go to the top of the page

9 Pages V  « < 7 8 9
Reply to this topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


3,458 Jobs
Click here to start your job search

Popular articles