Barnets bästa eller föräldrarnas förändring? : En undersökning av intresseavvägningen mellan återföreningsprincipen och kontinuitetsprincipen vid upphörande av tvångsvård enligt 21 § LVU

Sammanfattning

Taking a child into public care and placing them in a foster home is a decision that profoundly impacts both the child’s and the parent’s life. It is a serious in- terference in their lives, where the aim is to terminate the care as soon as the circumstances permits it and then reunite the child with its biological parents, according to the principle of reunification. This principle is emphasized in The Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act, LVU. However, it is also important to consider the child’s need for continuity. To strike a fair balance between these principles, a thorough investigation of both aspects is necessary. This thesis focuses on examining how these principles are weighed when deciding to terminate the care in accordance with section 21 of LVU. The legal dogmatic approach is used in this examination and the questions are analyzed from a perspective of children’s rights. Furthermore, research in developmental psychology suggest that children can form secure attachments within foster homes and that it may be in their best interest to remain in these stable environments. Premature termination of the care can have adverse effects on the child’s development and overall well-being. However, it is important to note that the legislation strictly separates the assess- ment of whether the circumstances that led to the care order still exist from the assessment of whether it is in the child’s best interest to continue staying with their foster family. One can argue that interfering with a child’s life in a foster home conflict with their right to family. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how the act aligns with the child’s right to family when considering the termination of a foster placement. The legislation claims that the child’s need for continuity is addressed through other provisions, but these are insufficient as they separate legal proceedings and do not adequately cater to the child’s need for stability. Furthermore, the legisla- tor refers to initiative that partly require the initiation of the social welfare board, and partly an initiative that are characterized by its exceptional nature. It appears strange that such a central need of the child as continuity and stability should be accommodate within an exceptive initiative. This system poses a risk of not strik- ing the necessary balance between the interest of family reunification and the child’s best interest in remaining with their foster family. Such a situation could potentially contradict the child’s right to family and the principle of the best in- terest of the child.