[ad_1]
Not surprisingly, the government did not have full control over how the Convention on the Rights of the Child would land when it became Swedish law.
This is a leader who expresses the political line of Smålandsposten: for Christian values, conservative ideology in conjunction with the liberal tradition of ideas and for the preservation of commercial freedom and property rights. The political etiquette of the newspaper is moderate.
The convention is not drafted as legal text and research that was done prior to the 2018 government bill clearly shows that there was a preconceived opinion on how the Convention on the Rights of the Child would force reforms in certain areas.
Now that the Ombudsman for Children and also the President of the Court of Appeal Anders Hagsgård have investigated where and how the Convention on the Rights of the Child actually imposes demands on existing legislation, it appears that the government has underestimated the cultural difference in the Swedish legislation compared to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is formulated in thirty points where Swedish law must be changed so as not to violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Of course, there are areas where the government’s focus problems have been correct. In the area of migration, for example: Hagsgård believes that the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires Sweden to introduce compulsory schooling for children of asylum seekers and children who are in the country illegally. This is a requirement that will affect schools and the work of the Swedish Immigration Board. The other three areas identified by the 2016 research are not in the spotlight: children who are exposed to violence, children who witness domestic violence, children with disabilities seem to have mainly the necessary protection for Sweden to comply with your new legislation.
There are a number of situations that affect the right of children to information and legal assistance in meetings with authorities and courts, which can probably be said to affect these three areas, but the major confrontations occur in the family’s vision .
Children’s right to their parents is what most clearly appears as a deficiency when Swedish law complies with the Convention on the Rights of the Child: joint custody of the child should be the starting point, even when the parents are not married. At the time of the child’s birth, the parents should not be able to block a court ruling on joint custody. Best for the child, in custody cases, joint custody will be the starting point, very little emphasis on the child’s right to contact both parents when deciding on custody.
It’s hard not to see a pattern in which in our culture of individualism we have underestimated the importance of the family. Divorce should not be unnecessarily moralized, but it is remarkable that something that has become so commonplace in our country actually has an impact on the radar of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: the puzzles of parents’ lives have put before the needs of children.
One hope that various organizations had for strengthening the position of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the country was that the detention of children would be impossible. There is an international criticism of Sweden applying restricted detention for young offenders. However, that hope may be directed at politics rather than the law, according to the researcher, it is enough that young people in that situation are given four hours a day of contact with staff to live up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child will change parts of our legislation and, above all, will influence new decisions. But what’s most interesting is that it’s actually going on a collision course with our culture of underestimating the needs of children and the right to a cohesive existence.
