The Disastrous Swedish Child Protection Act
Main Page
by Peter Klevius
Psychoanalytic Influence on the Assessment of Potentially Dangerous Parents 1
“Political Tools” of the One-Armed Justitia 4
“Swedish” characteristics in applying the law 4
The development of the Swedish child protection act 5
Compulsory care according to LVU 5
Does Compulsory Separation Benefit the Child? 7
The Wealthy Symbiotic Mother 9
The Poor Symbiotic Mother 11
Family Interventions in Sweden and Japan 12
Psychoanalytic Influence on the Assessment of Potentially Dangerous Parents
The greatness of Sigmund Freud?s psychoanalysis is to a considerable amount based in his followers? fate. Thus only critics really read the details of Freud. But reading his works without considering the dynamics of modern and changing sex-segregation is like reading the Bible without considering the belief in God. Hence Freud?s most eager critics  ? the feminists - are the true victims of this worldwide Gender Identity Disorder named psychoanalysis.
According to BRIS (Children?s Rights in the Society ? an association closely related to Anna Freud, see below), psychologically defined destructive relations between parents and children, for example ?symbiosis?, constitute the ?very foundation for child protection? (BRIS 1987:5). This statement came to be the foundation for the introduction of the psychoanalytic concept of ?pathological symbiosis? as a criterion for separating children from their parents, in the Swedish child protection act.
Psychiatric and psychological diagnosing and subsequent treatment of an allegedly mentally disturbed child is, in Sweden, almost entirely an affair based on psychoanalytically influenced epistemology. Furthermore, a variety of people facing a child when its protection against allegedly deviant parents is at stake, are most often trained in accordance ? but not necessarily internally coherently ? within the realm of psychoanalytic concepts.
Although there has grown a vast range of criticism against Freud and psychoanalysis, no efforts has been made (with the exception of the seduction/incest debate) to draw conclusions from it due to the use of psychoanalytic epistemology in child protection. This might well be because criticism against measures made in the alleged purpose of protecting children, is easily (and maybe purportedly) misinterpreted. The risk that less well-developed ideas are given disproportionate power is even more pronounced when the measures are sanctioned by the state. Furthermore, according to Sven Hessle[1] et al, psychiatric diagnosis as a ground for compulsory separation of parents and child, labels parents as deviant. Thus prerequisites for un-necessary compulsory care are created. Furthermore the possible reunion of the family is delayed (S. Hessle et al 1985:5).
The Swedish child protection act LVU[2] (act containing special[3] regulations concerning the care of young persons) states that, except in cases of abuse, exploitation and neglect, a child should also be taken into custody because of  ??some other condition in the home?? These conditions are specified in the Government?s Bill 1989/90:28 (p 108)[4]. Two of these conditional concepts are directly related to psychoanalytic epistemology. The first is described as ?when a parent does not relate to the child? (rejection below), and the other is ?pathological symbiosis?. An unknown but supposedly high amount of children are taken into custody on the basis of these criteria ? mixed or alone.
?Rejection? seems problematic as a concept, not the least because it could either be seen as a) a total lack (although temporarily) of relation, in which case it should be easy to conceptualise as such, or b) as a qualitative assessment about the care, in which case it has to be differentiated against other ?normal? instances of non-relating parenting. Thus, for example, how much attention and intervention should be considered appropriate in the parent/child relationship? For how long time is it defendable for a parent to read etc. while the child is entertaining itself? This problem is similar to that of how much personal time children at day care and school should have with their teachers etc. In conclusion there is, hence, not much to say about a lack (rejection) in this context. The concept of ?pathological symbiosis?, on the other hand, does contain something. In fact it indicates (see below) that there is too much of something, i.e.?symbiosis?. What then is that what there is too much of?
The rejection of Sigmund Freud?s psychoanalytic construction of trauma and the flow of conscious and/or unconscious, repressed ?psychic energy? would challenge the view of many child professionals. But a reasonable doubt about the use of psychoanalytic concepts and constructions might also open up for a better understanding on how crucial the contemporary settings and the personal motives of the involved individuals outside the parent/child relationship, have been.
?Pathological symbiosis?, ?rejection?, ?ambivalence?, as well as Melanie Klein?s ?play techniques? has been in frequent use in the purpose of evaluating the possible need of separating children from their parents. Social authorities take these measures ?in the best interest of the child?. Quantitative research, however, clearly reveals, according to Bo Vinnerjung, that prognostic assumptions framing a decision of taking a child into compulsory custody lacks support in statistical public records (Vinnerjung 1996).
The child protection act LVU recognizes two main categories of original threats to a healthy development: A) inferior parents, and B) the young person him/herself. In the case of a threat related to a parent some could be described as a lack of capacity to protect the child and others as a deviant behaviour directed toward the child.
In the case of ?pathological symbiosis? child and parent are supposed to interact and relate to each other destructively. Because the parent is responsible as a custodian for the welfare of the child, she (foremost) is also seen as deviant no matter if this alleged deviance is a product of mental illness etc.
The normal procedure when introducing new concepts in legislation is to base them on research and a political debate. These findings are usually collected in SOUs (Public Reports from the State). In the state?s public report on child-protection 1986:20 Needs of Children and Rights of  Parents, the concept of ?pathological symbiosis? is totally lacking[5] as a criterion and there is nothing indicating the introduction of such a criterion for separating the child from its parent. On the contrary, the report emphasizes the risks of separation and the need for continuing relation between parent and child. Nonetheless, in the final proposal 1989/90:28 p. 108[6], the concept of ?pathological symbiosis? is introduced as an indication for separating a child from its original family.
Although the head of the department states that the new law does not differ from its predecessor (Prop. 1989/90:28 p 106) the introduction - though with a minimum of text ? is referred to as based on several (in fact two) bodies to which the proposed measure was submitted. These two bodies contributed with a total of four words related to the new concept[7].
16 years later, in the state?s public report Taken Care of ? The Responsibility of the Society for Exposed Children and Youth (SOU 2000:77), the relational psychological school emphasizing the importance of continuity and bounds to the parents, are not mentioned anymore. Instead the previously rejected emphasise on the necessity to remove a child from its parent if the child?s needs has not been properly satisfied, makes its victorious return.
 ?Political Tools? of the One-Armed Justitia
?Swedish? characteristics in applying the law
The despotic manner of altering the meaning of decisions made by Supreme Courts came to an end when Montesquieu, in 1748, published ?De 1?ésprit des lois?, according to which judges had to be independent. But, according to J. Sundberg, the socialist way of interpreting jurisprudence changed all of this again. The socialist Justice tends to carry only her sword thus lacking the arm with its balancing weights. Sundberg refers to the Swedish minister Carl Lidbom?s statement that laws are tools for achieving political aims[8]. In another statement Lidbom emphasizes the need to make socialist reforms by altering the family law[9] (J. Sundberg 1990:109-224).
An additional aspect on the variety of flexibility in different legal systems in the realm of western democracies is the way the laws are interpreted. In the Swedish legal system, according to J. Sundberg, the use of preparatory works in considering judgements is more pronounced than elsewhere. Although starting in Denmark in 1919[10] this praxis has, in Sweden, developed during the extensive ?one party domination? of the 20th century (J. Sundberg 1990:232-233). And, as times went on the professors in jurisprudence, engaging in the writings of preparatory works, were asked to make comments on already promulgated acts. Although the annotations at first were often almost straight copies of the motives in the preparatory works, some editing and additional interpretations were included without a clear-cut distinction due to the original text (J. Sundberg 1990:234-235).
The long lasting ?one party domination? encouraged the continuing emphasise on the preparatory works on the behalf of the text in the act itself. This process was backed up by the continuing control over those who were allowed as researchers, how the proceedings were out-lined for a body to which a proposed measure was submitted etc. All of this contributed to a new approach in fabricating and using laws. The text in the act was, hence, merely seen as a general and rather un-distinct ?title?- sometimes even ?without a content?[11] - whereas the purpose of the law had to be searched for in the writings of the head of a ministry This procedure was also described as ?the principle of loyalty?[12]. The main characteristic of this principle is a subjective method that dictates that decisions are aligned in accordance with the will of the legislator (J. Sundberg 1990:234-237). In conclusion this process thus has ended in sharp opposition to the thoughts of Montesquieu.
The development of the Swedish child protection act
In 1902, influenced by trends of social control within the European social policy, Sweden passed the first child welfare legislation that made possible the intervention with preventive measures at the first sign of anti-social behaviour. The aim was to save young people from future criminality (T. Lundström, 1993).
The general Child Welfare Act of 1924 replaced the 1902 legislation. Thus compulsory care was extended to all groups including small children abused at home. From now on the local child welfare authorities (committees) under specified rules were obliged to intervene in families where children were being abused or at risk for viciosity. At the time of the Child and Young Persons Act of 1960, the municipal organizations administrating child welfare had developed into bureaucracies. Furthermore, the fast growing field of child psychiatry, with a variety of theories, became the dominant incitement for taking children into public care. ?The theories of child welfare? changed? from explanatory models based on moral precepts to models based on psychological grounds.? (T. Lundström 1993:268). Apart from this the Child and Young Persons Act of 1960 added nothing new to the Child Welfare Act of 1924. Finally, in 1980, LVU (Care of Young Persons Act) was introduced as a compulsory complement to the Social Services Act. Child welfare, thus, became organized together with other social services. The professionalization of social work made a huge increase and the professionals became ?counsellors? for social welfare consumers (S. Hessle 1998:23-24).
Compulsory care according to LVU
Children can forcefully be taken into care in accordance with the law containing special regulations[13] concerning the care of young persons (LVU - Care of Young Persons Act). Although the social welfare committee can offer parents and children support and help on a voluntary basis according to the Social Services Act (SoL), LVU applies to care without consent[14]. A main difference, compared to previous acts, was that child protection no longer was connected to the protection of the society but only to the protection of the young person in question. In other words were the measures taken no longer seen neither as punishment for delinquent behavior nor as protecting other citizens from the delinquent.
LVU implies severe limitations of the parents' rights on decisions concerning the child. Thus, it is extremely important that no mistakes are made on the part of the social welfare committee (SoS report 1990:24). Judgments on care according to LVU are made by county courts after notification via the social service authority.
But, according to A. Hollander, a vaguely formulated law and detailed rules for action do not constitute a guarantee that the child's needs and good are fulfilled. The risk that the wrong children are taken into custody still remains. Hollander further explains that the study of a number of child custody cases has made obvious the importance of recognizing the evidence and interpretation problems in child custody cases: "It cannot be considered sufficient to confirm that there are documented bad conditions in the home. Facts concerning the connections between these conditions and the "danger" for the child's health and development must be clarified." (1985:299). Hollander found that facts in childcare cases generally had to do with the mother, and her alleged weaknesses. Evidence issues focused on these facts, while factors in the child's environment were neglected. In conclusion the legislation seems to be more a coercive law against the parents rather than a law in the best interest of the child. Anna Hollander?s overview thus reveals three conflicting situations:
 Children      versus parents
Children      versus society
Parents      versus society.
(A: Hollander 1985:365-367).
It was clear from both precedents in the Supreme Administrative Court and the application of the law in lower courts of appeal that the motives for taking children into care increasingly are formulated in terms of child psychiatry. The motives are also getting more diffuse (Hollander 1985:367).
The material shows that the judgments mainly deal with the family and the parents and not with the children. Children can show signs of insecurity and problems in many different ways and if the agreement of the judgments mainly concerns the parents it is possible that it is only superficial. According to this interpretation it is the parents? symptoms, which lead to public care of the children because, no alternative measures are presented or discussed (A. Hollander 1985:369-370).
It is, furthermore, a fact that Sweden has a higher rate of children in care than the other Nordic countries where the legal regulation is similar and other social conditions comparable. We do not know the reason for this (A. Hollander 1985: 355). A possible explanation could partly be connected to the fact that Sweden has had a quieter political climate (the social democratic ruling over a vast period of time) in which the social bureaucracy has been able to grow more forcefully and mainstreaming than elsewhere.
The proposal for a new LTU replacing LVU, out-lined in SOU 1986:20 Barns behov och föräldrars rätt (Public Reports of the State 1986:20 Needs of children and rights of parents), suggest the replacement of the concept ?some other condition in the home?, by stating directly in the text of the act, abuse and exploitation[15]. These bad conditions were mainly the ones intended by the concept ?some other conditions in the home?. By mentioning them directly in the text of the act they become more elucidated. Furthermore, this would eliminate uncertainties regarding which other situations, except neglect, could bring about the compulsory taking care of a child. Furthermore, as LVU is written, it is not in accordance with the UN Convention on the Right of the Child. The new, simplified expression in the proposed  (but later dismissed) LTU (The Act of Compulsory Care of Young Persons) would, then, be consistent with the UN formulation (SOU 1986:20).
Nothing of this ever occurred. Instead of removing the concept of ?some other conditions in the home?, this became a title in the act hiding ? in the preparatory works (see the chapter ?The Swedish way of interpreting the law?) ? a variety of new concepts, such as, for example, ?rejection? and ?pathological symbiosis?.
Does Compulsory Separation Benefit the Child?
An investigation that forms the basis of a decision under LVU must be objective, impartial and worked through in accordance with true facts[16]. Implications for child welfare legislation, policy and practice, however, can differ considerably depending on theoretical and ideological preferences. (B. Vinnerjung 1996:316).
Because the taking of a child into compulsory care can affect the investigator emotionally, the investigation should proceed by the aid of a critical-objective method involving a number of basic criteria, which have to be met. These include clarity, posing questions, relevant information, account of sources, precision, avoidance of emotional language, ethical considerations for the protection of private persons etc. (Edvardsson 1996). Failure to meet with these criteria may cause partial investigations lacking in objectivity and characterized by the fabrication of evidence with the intention of influencing and persuading the reader and supporting the investigator's own purposes. Defective investigations leading to questionable decisions might in the end destroy the future of the family and the child (ibid).
When Ms Gro Thune was pleading the case Rieme v. Sweden in the Council of Europe, she claimed that the Swedish system has established separate procedures to deal with the child?s situation. The social authorities test whether separating the child from his foster home would create a risk, which is not of a minor nature, of harming its physical or mental health (J. Sundberg 1995:21). This is in fact a mirrored view compared to when the child originally was taken into custody in the first place.
?In the Nordic countries today, a lot of people have lost confidence in the social services. Those who still believe that the Nordic states have the right formula for protecting children at risk are completely out of touch with reality. The truth is that the present systems in the Nordic countries are woefully inadequate and are, in fact, responsible for more abused children than any other source of abuse? (in J. Sundberg 1995:5)
The danger to the child?s health that was a condition for the taking into public care, need not be serious, and no detrimental effects had to be established. The only thing that the powerful social bureaucracy needed to interpret was ?the psychiatric apartness? of the parents (their special mental character) and their ?personal disposition? as it was mentioned when examples were given.The expansion of the social bureaucracy entrusted with these tasks took place during the 1970s. (J. Sundberg 1995:6, 13). The ideology seems to have been that the less number of hours and minutes that people spend together in the family, the less chance there is that the evil wrongful influence is exercised that entails the unhappy consequences (ibid:8-9).
The Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet, of September 30, 1994 reported on the programme for school work that recently had been announced in the Swedish broadcasting service by ?Mr Sven Wernström, a widely known old Communist and author of instruction-books in the virtues of the class struggle, adapted for use by children.? Yes, the school must ?theorize?, i.e. about ?the parasitical upper class?[17]. The children must be separated, to the extent possible, from the detrimental influence of the parents. And this should be done early. Kindergarten children shall be in the day-home, even if it is possible for them to stay home with their parents. The correct view of Man can only be transmitted in public administration (J. Sundberg 1995:9).
?A terrifying blast, authored by Jésus Alcala and published in Dagens Nyheter a few weeks after the European Council of Human Rights? judgment in the Olsson vs. Sweden case, was directed at the lawyers behind the complaint in that case. It evidences a vicarious suffering for the sake of the social bureaucracy that would be hard to take seriously, had it not been known that Alcala ad been chosen to be one of the heads of the ?anti-course? in human rights that was set up during the Spring Term of 1988, the Board of Line having adopted its first resolution in the matter at the initiative of Professor Madeleine Löfmarck (now ? Leijonhufvud) on October 14, 1987. This ?anti-course? was to have the then Socialist Minister of Justice, Ms Anna-Greta Leijon, as its shining star? (J. Sundberg 1995:9).
The clear-cut descriptions of criminal acts in criminal cases have no correspondents in cases concerning the conditions in which children are brought up. A legal procedure in these cases is as we, in a criminal case, should ask whether a crime has been committed or not (K. Vinterhed et al 1981:177). Furthermore, the ?psychological gap? in the parent?s defence has been abused on extremely loose grounds by the social authorities. Without knowing the facts in the case, expert?s opinions against the parents are delivered (ibid 178).
The enormous industry of foster parenting[18] and the ambivalence built into that system, has forced people towards a rigid, dichotomist thinking resulting in different ?schools?. The ?Anna Freud-Joseph Goldstein-Albert Solnit?[19] school emphasized the separation of the child from allegedly deviant parents. This school was named ?The-Right-of-the-Child-movement?, and inspired BRIS (Children?s Rights in the Society) in Sweden. This school introduced the concept of a ?psychological parents? (K. Vinterhed et al 1981:82-85) as an alternative to the biological parents. BRIS was also one of the two bodies, mentioned above, that asked for the inclusion of the concept of ?pathological symbiosis? in the renewed child protection legislation of 1990.
 The Wealthy Symbiotic Mother
Sven Hessle, has a professional history tracing back to Barnbyn Skå[20], which was one of the most important Swedish sites for psychosocial experimental work in the 60s and 70s. He has also compared the Swedish system with that of Japan[21] and has for a long period of time lectured his knowledge to students and researchers in psychosocial work at the University of Stockholm. Although Hessle seems to be a strong supporter for the use of ?pathological symbiosis?[22], he has also criticized the Swedish child protection system for making too many wrong and in-humane separations. His attention was drawn to a case of child protection involving a wealthy and well-educated journalist and her son who was abducted from school by the help of the police and placed on an isolated island together with an abusive foster parent who had himself a heavy, criminal and drug addiction record. The case became widely heard of not least because of the attention it received from outside Sweden with the help of the human rights fighter, Amnesty International activist and ?prisoner?s angel?, Birgitta Wolf[23].
Hessle?s judgement is severe[24]. The most serious intervention a society can have to its disposition is to reduce an adult of his/her parenthood.  It is also a violation of the parent?s right to bridge the generational gap. From the child?s point of view the message from the society is to deny its mother. Abducting parenthood thus equals to officially be declared dead. These cases are the tip of the iceberg and reveals an ideological altering toward contempt and indifference in the most fragile of relations, namely that of parent and child[25]. In its grotesque and naked plainness its management represents not only the stiffness and insensitiveness of our system of society, when confronting eternal variations and emotions of human life. The case also expresses a cynical approach towards individuals who refuses to adjust them to the ideological pattern forced upon them by ideological ?experts? and bureaucrats (Hessle 1984).
According to the mother in the case referred to by Hessle above, she was stupid when she asked the school for permission to stay abroad with her son for a school year. ?We could just have left and then come back and continue without anyone bothering?[26].   After having abducted the child with the help of the police, the social authorities presented half a paper accusing her for not being able to take care of her child. This accusation was later completed with the notion that the mother and her son lived in a ?symbiotic relationship? According to the mother, her son was completely isolated from her. We were not allowed to talk to each other over the telephone, not to meet, and not even to write letters. I was told that my influence over my son was too dangerous (M. Niskasaari 1996).
According to the book[27] the mother wrote about the case, the foster father was an alcoholic and cruel sadist who kept the boy for long periods of time without letting him to school or offering complementary home-education. Despite the mother?s relentless pursuits complemented with the help of friends and private investigators, it took five years, and many efforts, before the boy succeeded to escape while the foster father laid drunk. Suddenly all the legal measures taken to protect the child against her mother, were forgotten and erased. According to Eva Aminoff cultural pluralism is not accepted in Sweden and that constituted a main factor in the authorities efforts to establih a ?Swedish identity? in the child with the help of compulsory abduction  According to the pediatrician and lawyer Siv Westerberg, child protection before the 50s were for the most part poverty whereas now, because of a wealthier society, and the social workers fear of loosing their jobs, new criteria for abducting children were created (M. Niskasaari 1996).
 The Poor Symbiotic Mother
A 14 year old boy died alone in the night at a foster home after having suffered a massive series of epileptic attacks. According to his mother, she and her son had been denied a meaningful way of communication during the last three years of his life. Allegedly there was a symbiotic binding which had to be eliminated by decreasing the contact between mother and child. This symbiotic binding was also seen as a main cause of the boy?s epileptic attacks. The real reason, however, was, according to the mother, that she was labelled a troublesome person by the authorities (M. Zaremba 1993)[28].
Zaremba cites from the social report the re-definition of the problems of the heavy epileptic boy: ?Marianne (mother) has relational problems of her own and thereby also Daniel (son) has been affected by the mother?s inability to feel confidence and attach in relations? This document is important because it is the equivalent of the medical case-book and therefore should fulfil requirements of objectivity[29] and completeness. (M. Zaremba 1993).
The social secretary?s re-defining of the boy?s disease lasts to the end of the matter. Everything suggests that this brought the story to its factual ending. The boy?s physical disease is never hereafter mentioned in the summaries of the social authority?s reports. The connection between the boy?s hormonal disturbance and ambivalence toward his mother disappears forever. It is, according to the social authorities, the mother who makes him feel ill because of symbiotic bindings, erroneous patterns of up bringing, and a fixation for diseases. ?Daniel is not that sick, it is only the imagination of Marianne?, says the social secretary whose task it was to protect the child, two months before his death  In this case, as in the case above, the children were neglected and abused (physically, psychologically and sexually[30] ? my comment) in the system supposed to help them. Accordingly they could not count on any help from the social authorities (M. Zaremba 1993).
The mother was not a drug abuser or asocial. The care decision rested entirely on symbiotic bindings supported by other psychological terms. In a comment to the death of the boy, the social authorities states: ?The night was not extreme. Daniel has suffered from 40 cramps previously without dying?. (M. Sigström)!
Daniel wrote letters to his mother complaining about: the physical, psychological and sexual abuse; the neglect; the fact that his correspondence was scrutinized; that his calls were intercepted, and that he was forced to apologize for what he had said about the family in front of the psychologist. Daniel?s mother sent the letters on to the social authorities. She received the following answer[31]: ?The letters from Daniel that you have distributed to the social committee does not alter our assessment in the case. Furthermore we question whether it is appropriate, in this manner, to hand over the letters from Daniel that he, in confidence, has written for You.? And when Daniel, because of being the target for sexual abuse, temporarily was evacuated to a woman?s home, she called the social authorities asking what to do when a person gets epileptic attacks. ?Pat him on his cheek? was the advice she got (M. Zaremba 1993)[32].
Family Interventions in Sweden and Japan
Japan has a special place, as an anomaly, in criminological discussions. It is possibly the country with the most advanced high tech industry in the world, but at the same time, in many aspects quite old-fashioned. How then, has a slow social modernization affected the social policy and the issue of taking public care of children, in comparison to Sweden? Some insights are given by Sven Hessles study from 1996.
The first placement of children in public care in Japan appears to be motivated by a deficient home environment as a more frequent reason (0.34 per 1,000)[33] than the young person?s own behaviour (0.13 per 1,000) for placing children in public care. Voluntary placements are more common (0.38 per 1,000) than compulsory placements (0.09 per 1,000), and it seems that compulsory measures are used only for juvenile cases. There was actually only one case in Japan in 1993 of a child being taken into compulsory care under the Child Welfare Act for reasons of a deficient home environment (S. Hessle 1998:52).
Thus the contrast between Japan and Sweden is obvious. Furthermore compulsory measures in Sweden are directed more towards deficient home environments (parents) than towards the behaviour of young persons. Compulsory measures involve comparably more children in Sweden (1.08 per 1,000) than Japan (0.09 per 1,000). Swedish social authorities seems to be more reactive to children considered at risk than are their colleagues in Japan, especially when it comes to children in deficient home environments (S. Hessle 1998:52). However, in Sweden long-term stable foster care does not seem to have improved outcome in adult age compared to growing up in ?insufficient? family environments, identical to the birth homes of the foster children (B. Vinnerjung 1996:315).
In a summary for the society of RFFR, Riksförbundet för Familjens Rättigheter (The National Society for the Rights of the Family), Hessle concludes that Japan seems to be a more kind society than Sweden. He also notes that social workers in Japan seem to respect the families they meet and not getting involved in conflicts. But although he is unable to present an alternative explanation this, according to Hessle, cannot be interpreted as a weakness in the Swedish system. But this is hardly in line with Hessle?s own description of Malmö (the third city in Sweden), which is known as a progressive and open-minded county when it comes to new caring ideologies and organizational development. Nonetheless its foster care strategy failed[34] remarkably (Hessle 1988:91). Although an alternative view is accessible, it would hardly fit into the realm of a Marxist-modernist, Swedish professor in psychosocial work resting on Freud. This view includes continuous, trans-generational, biological (mostly) kinship ties not distorted by ill-founded social interventions. In a world where people move more than ever before these ties should be more, not less emphasized if we care for non-deviant social bounds within the realm of human rights (P. Klevius 1996).

[1] Sven Hessle is referred to through out the paper as a connecting representative of the psychosocial work in Sweden. This is because he has been a longlasting and main figure in different aspects relating to the subject of the study.
[2] LVU means compulsory care although this is not mentioned in the title. This is probably due to a general ideological tendency to avoid measures of coersion at the time it was created. Care by consent is regulated in SOL (the social service act).
[3] Should be read compulsory. During the late 70s when LVU was prepared for introductoion the general idea was to avoid compulsion. To such an extent that it should not even be seen in the title of the act when children, young persons and drug abusers (LVM) were in question. Only the act concerning those in need for psychiatric care was openly titled LPT (The Act Concerning Compulsory Psychiatric Care).
[4] Although only mentioned in the preparatory works one has to acknowledge the special meaning of these in the Swedish judicial tradition (see chapt. The Swedish Way of Interpreting the Law).
[5] Although destructive relations are briefly mentioned in the discussion, it is the need of care that should, according to 1986:20, determine which measures to be made.
[6]SFS Act no: 1990:52, promulgated 1990-03-08
[7] BRIS ?  the word ?symbiosis? is mentioned once in an enumeration of destructive relations. Botkyrka Kommun (Botkyrka County) ? three words in a similar context are mentioned (?too strong symbiosis?).
[8] Pappersindustriarbetareförbundet?s congress papers 1974 p 191.
[9]  Report over the preceedings in judicial issues of  15 aug. 1969.
[10] According to von Eyben (Juridisk Grundbog, 2 uppl. Kbhn 1967, s 121) after 1919 motives are referred to more commonly.
[11] Hessler?s expression in SvJT 1957 pp 241-243
[12] ? Frändberg, Om analog användning av rättsnormer, Sthm 1973, s 159.
[13] It is notable that the term compulsory is lacking from the title of the LVU-act in a similar way as in the case of the LVM-act (Care of Drug Abusers Act) but contrary to the LPT-act (Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act).
[14] Whether the authorities should trust a given consent is not always given for sure, but is regulated in a way that could make it almost impossible for a parent to get her consent accepted.
[15] The Swedish equivalent ?otillbörligt utnyttjande? would rather be translated as ?sexual abuse?, whereas ?exploitation?, as it appears in the UN Convention on the Right of the Child, has a broader meaning. 
[16] Constitution Act, Chap. 1, section 9
[17] To this Sundberg adds that in the new Socialist Cabinet that took over after the 1994 elections, the post as Minister for School Affairs was given to former Communist, Ms Ylva Johansson (J. Sundberg 1995:9)..
[18] Although Hessle does. not mention it in this context, the caring homes has become an ever increasing economic factor in this industry. Today the costs for a child on such a place could be 10.000,- Sw. Cr. Per day. In a recent case the child placed in such a home was transferred to some previous, drug abusing, customers.
[19] Barnets rätt eller rätten till barnet (The Right of the Child or the Right to the Child ? Stockholm 1978).
[20] See previos chapter regarding ?the boys from Stockholm?.
[21] See the chapter Doubting Child Protection above.
[22] Hessle does not mention symbiosis in the paper here referred to but see the chapter A Swedish interpretation of ?pathological symbiosis? below.
[23] Birgitta Ericsdotter, (born von Rosen) has become famous because of her altruistic and humanistic work. Poor factory workers in Sweden as well as Nazi-victims and political prisoners around the globe has all got help from her.  She has proposed the introduction of ?consequence justice? instead of punitive juatice. She also has paid attention to how easily social authorities can abduct children, keep them from seeing their parents and place them in homes for care with the main purpose of huge earnings.
[24] It should, however, be noted that this is written before he himself wrote about ?symbiotic? parents as described above (S. Hessle 1988).
[25] It is notable that although the interpretation of a particular mother/child-binding is based on rigid sex-segregation, the ways this is done could be rather different. A non-psychoanalytic, marxist-feminist would probably term it a ?socio-biologist? manoeuvre favouring the patriarchy in its continuing oppression against the class of woman, whereas a psychoanalytic/psychodynamic view (as Hessle?s above) emphasizes the psychodynamic concepts of symbiosis and individuation (see Mahler below).
[26] Eva Aminoff, the mother, was well educated herself and had a social net work around the globe due to the fact that she worked as a well reputated international journalist
[27] Has been sold in many Finnish editions but has never been published in Sweden (Eva Aminoff:  Lapsen parhaaksi, (In the Best Interest of the Child). Published by WSOY Helsinki 1996)
[28]Maciej Zaremba is a Swedish journalist, who made the world aware of the connections between compulsory sterilizations in Sweden 1936-1976 and the ruling social democratic party.
[29] According to the preparatory works of SOL (Social Service Act) ?subjective information? is allowed in the report.
[30] While the foster mother was on vacation on the Maldives and the foster father on an unknown destination, another foster boy sexually abused Daniel. This behavior had been previously reported to the sociual authorities without an effect (M. Sigström). Compare also the case of a girl placed in a foster home and sexually abused there by her foster father. When she took his sperm to the school, the nurse poured it in the sink and asked her to stop these accusations against her foster father. A previous incident of sexual abuse had been reported by the girl to the social authorities but had not given any result. ?This is already investigated? was the comment by the school nurse (Klevius 1999:35-36).
[31] Signed by chairman Ingrid Lindahl (s = social democrat).
[32]This text was reported by the social workers, to the Panel of Lay Assessors for the Opinion of the Press, which took as its stance that the author had a good understanding and was well informed about the case. Furthermore the panel noted that the social workers had not responded to considerably many of the grave accusations out lined in the article.
[33] 1993
[34] Compare Hessle?s surprising comments about social work in Japan above.