"The ultimate goodness and the Swedish LVU"

21 § När vård med stöd av denna lag inte längre behövs, skall socialnämnden besluta att vården skall upphöra.

Tuesday, February 15, 2022 by Martin Bäck

The social democratic party has been in power in Sweden for almost 100 years. Sweden does not have a constitutional court. To stop a new law or law change by the government there must be a majority against. Hence most of the laws have been and are today based on decisions by the social democratic party.

The laws are mainly a product of the social democratic ideology based on Marx and Engels. One of the main objectives is to split all interpersonal relations such as men and women, family, relatives, parent and children. The aim is a population where all individuals are solely dependent on the state.

To make this work without being too obvious by the independent observer or the foreign state, the execution of laws is an aggregate of a number of authorities without collaboration.

The law text written by the government secretariate shall be interpreted by the clerks at the different authorities, the voluntary laymen of the social committee in the municipality, and the judges handpicked by the social democratic government. None of those parties has any kind of responsibility for their decisions.

The law text is outermost vague and fluffy to make the interpretation valid for each purpose needed for the time being.

In Sweden the authorities separate about 10 000 children from their parents each year. There are mainly 2 different law texts utilized for this purpose.

The law 1962:700 chapter 4, § 1 to § 5of the crime act and the complete law about “care” of youngsters law 1990:52.

The aim with the excessive “care of children” in the social democratic rule of law is nothing but a measure to keep the public in fear and to penalise dissidents. A systemised way of wedge in to the family relation and make as much buzz as possible.

The criminal act 1962:700 Chapter 4 about crime of freedom

§1 Anyone who commits himself and abducts or locks up a child or someone else with the intention of harming him or her to life or health or to force him or her into service or to practice extortion, is sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period of time, not less than four and no more than eighteen years, or for life. If the crime is less serious, sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of six years. Law (2009:396).

1a § The person who, other than as referred to in § 1, by

1. unlawful coercion,
2. misleading,
3. exploitation of someone's vulnerable situation that severely limits the person's options,
or
4. other such undue means if it seriously restricts the person's options

recruits, transports, transfers, houses or receives a person for the purpose of exploiting him or her for sexual purposes, the removal of organs, war services, forced labour or other activities in a situation of emergency for the victim, sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum of two and a maximum of ten years.

A person who commits an act referred to in the first subparagraph against a person under the age of eighteen is convicted of trafficking in human beings even if no such undue means specified therein has been used.

This applies even if the person who commits such an act did not intend but was negligent in the fact that the other person had not reached the age of eighteen. If an offence referred to in the first or second paragraph is less serious, sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum of six months and a maximum of four years. Law (2018:601).

§1 b Anyone who, other than as referred to in section 1 or 1 a, through unlawful coercion, misleading or exploitation of someone's dependency, protectionlessness or difficult situation exploits a person in forced labour, work under manifestly unreasonable conditions or begging, is sentenced to prison for a maximum of four years.

A person who commits an act referred to in the first subparagraph against a person who has not reached the age of eighteen is sentenced to liability even if there has been no unlawful coercion, deception or exploitation of someone's dependency, lack of protection or difficult situation. This applies even if the person who commits such an act did not intend but was negligent in the fact that the other person had not reached the age of eighteen.

Comment: The concept creep from exploitation and trafficking to just be negligent of the fact that the other person had not reached the age of 18. Notice that this law also applies if the person who commits such an act “did not intend”. This is the law text against parenting of your children.

If a crime referred to in the first or second paragraph is to be considered serious, convicted of aggravated exploitation of human beings to imprisonment for a minimum of two and a maximum of ten years. In assessing whether the offence is serious, it shall be taken into account in particular whether the act concerned an activity carried out to a greater extent, entailed significant gain or involved a particularly reckless exploitation of another. Law (2018:601).

§ 2 Anyone who, other than as stated in Section 1 or 1a, removes or locks up someone or otherwise deprives him or her of his or her freedom, is sentenced to imprisonment, not less than one and not more than ten years. If the crime is less serious, you are sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years. Law (2002:436).

This part of the Swedish law is most commonly used for executing separation of children from their parents. It covers all upcoming situations within the matter of parenting. The fluffiness together with the framing removal of organs, sexual abuse, trafficking and war service will keep the clerks with authority on their toes.

Think of the situation when a parent tries to discipline his or her child. You know that your 13 year boy or girl has got bad company. Perhaps drugs or crime or both. What option do you have?

1a § The person who, other than as referred to in § 1, by

1. unlawful coercion,
2. misleading,
3. exploitation of someone's vulnerable situation that severely limits the person's options,
or
4. other such undue means if it seriously restricts the person's options

The interpretation by the social welfare clerk to define what you as a parent can and can’t do with your child. What is “Unlawful coercion”?

If you as a parent hide his gun and his illegal tramadol! Is that “exploration of someone’s vulnerable situation that severely limit the persons option”?

The father of the teenage girl who is abusing drugs. If you lock her up, you will be sentenced to not less than four years in prison.

If you try to limit an abusive smartphone or gaming habit. That is “other such undue means if it seriously restricts the person’s options”?

This applies even if the person who commits such an act did not intend but was negligent in the fact that the other person had not reached the age of eighteen.

Whatever you do as a parent will fall under one of those paragraphs of the Swedish law. Even if you don’t do anything:

Keep in mind that your revolting teenager know this situation. He or she is told about this in the school on a daily basis by the woke socialistic teachers and counsellors in school.

To mix the normal parenting with wording about trafficking, sexual abuse, removal of organs or war service makes the right framing for the purpose. The young social clerk who shall make the distinction if someone who are not allowed to go out to his friends if he don’t stuff the dishwasher. If you listen to the teenager himself the stories are horrifying. He is so abused by his parents.

The mother who is separated from her child, or the knowledge of the possibility. This is efficient. Much better than the torture chambers in Ljubljana prison in soviet, or the Stasi of the DDR. This knowledge is present in the daily life of all Swedish families. Efficient social “democracy”! Sweden don’t need any Uighur camps. The whole nation fulfils the aims anytime.

Some explanations before we go over to the “Care of youth” act.

Guardian= Biological Parent
“The person or persons that have custody of him or her” = Biological Parent
Administrative Court = An authority housing the special court in the Swedish system evaluating if the authorities has been following the formalities. The judges in this court are handpicked by the social democratic party. (Förvaltningsrätten)
Social Welfare Board = Each municipality has a social welfare board consisting of not elected laymen without any formal education, handpicked by mainly the social democratic party to provide for the “democracy” in making decisions as a voluntary commitment. (Socialnämnden) If the detained child is transferred to another municipality, there will be another Social Welfare Board “responsible” for the “care”. The chairman of the board is always a person with deep connections in the social democratic party.
State Department Board = Another authority where the employees are handpicked by the social democratic party on national level. (Statens Institutions Styrelse) The authority provides for youth homes with more or less grade of imprisonment. The state Department Board have authority that goes far beyond the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war.
continuous supervision = Belted down on a bed
Lockable unit = Solitary confinement

§ 1 Efforts of social services for children and young people shall be made in agreement with the young person and his or her guardian in accordance with the provisions of the Social Services Act (2001:453). The efforts should be characterized by respect for the young person's human dignity and integrity.

However, a person under the age of 18 shall be treated under this Act, if any of the situations referred to in section 2 or 3 exist and it can be assumed that the necessary care cannot be provided to the young person with the consent of the person or persons who have custody of him or her and, when the young person has reached the age of 15, by him or herself.

Care under § 3 may also be provided to those who have reached the age of 18 but not 20 years, if such care, taking into account the young person's needs and personal circumstances, is otherwise more appropriate than any other care and it can be assumed that the necessary care cannot be provided with the young person's consent.

Certain other measures may be taken without consent under §§ 22, 24 and 31a. When deciding under this law, what is best for the young person must be decisive. Law (2020:352).

Preparation of care

§ 2 Care shall be decided if, due to physical or psychological abuse, improper exploitation, lack of care or any other relationship in the home, there is a significant risk of harm to the young person's health or development. Law (2003:406).

§ 3 Care shall also be decided if the young person exposes his or her health or development to a significant risk of being harmed by the misuse of addictive drugs, criminal activity or any other socially destructive behaviour.

Care shall also be decided on the person sentenced to inpatient youth care according to Chapter 32. § 5 of the Criminal Code at the end of enforcement is deemed to be in obvious need of continued care in order not to run the risk referred to in the first paragraph. Law (2006:896).

§ 4 Of the decision on care under this Act is issued by the Administrative Court upon application by the Social Welfare Board.

The application shall include a statement of: - the young man's circumstances, - the circumstances on which the young person needs to be treated, - previously taken measures, - the care which the Social Welfare Board intends to organise, - how relevant information has been provided to the young person, - the type of relevant information provided, and - the kid's attitude. Law (2009:804).

§ 5 Of the court's decision on care expires, if the care has not started within four weeks from the date on which the decision became final.

Immediate disposal

§ 6 of the Social Welfare Board may decide that anyone under the age of 20 shall be immediately

1. it is likely that the young person needs to be treated under this Law, and
2. the court's decision on care cannot be awaited in view of the risk to the young person's health or development or that the further investigation may be seriously impeded or further action prevented.

If the social welfare board's decision on care cannot be awaited, the chairman of the board or any other member appointed by the board may decide on care. The decision shall be notified at the next meeting of the Board.

When the Social Welfare Board has applied for treatment under the law, the court may also decide that the young person should be taken into care immediately.

Comment: The state, the authorities, the democratic institutions are always right. There will never be admitted that a child has been separated from his or her parents mistakenly or on false grounds. Hence an immediate disposal will always be considered the right decision by the administrative court.

§ 6a If a Swedish court is not competent to decide on the preparation of care under this act, the Social Welfare Board may decide that the person under the age of 18 shall be immediately taken into care, if:

1. measures by the competent foreign authority cannot be awaited in view of the risk to the young person's health or development or to the serious difficulty of further investigation or hindering further action;
2. it is likely that the young person will need temporary care referred to in this Act.

For decisions pursuant to the first paragraph, section 6 of the second paragraph applies and, in the event that the Social Welfare Board has applied for care under the Act, section 6 of the third paragraph. Sections 9a and 9 b provide for continued care for the young person.

This paragraph, together with Sections 7-9(b), accedes to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 on jurisdiction and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial and parental responsibility cases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels II Regulation) and the Act (2012:318) on the 1996 Hague Convention. Law (2019:472).

Comment: The Swedish socialistic party Law admit taking children who are not Swedish citizens into their necessary “Care”.

§ 7 If the Social Welfare Board has decided on immediate custody, the decision must be submitted to the Administrative Court within one week of the date on which the decision was made. In doing so, the decision, together with the documents relating to the case, shall be sent to the court.

The Administrative Court shall examine the decision as soon as it can be done. If there are no exceptional obstacles, the examination shall take place within one week of the date on which the decision and documents were brought to court.

If the decision has not been subject to the administrative court within the prescribed period, the detention ceases. If the Social Welfare Board has decided on immediate care after the board has applied for care under the act, the decision shall be subject to the right that examines the issue of care. This applies to the provisions of the first to third paragraphs. Law (2009:804).

Comment: Ethos by formalities.

§ 8 If the Administrative Court establishes a decision on immediate custody, the Social Welfare Board shall, within four weeks of the date of the execution of the care, apply to the Administrative Court for the young person to:

1. be provided with care under this Act, or
2. remain in care for temporary care in accordance with § 9a. The Administrative Court may grant an extension of this period if further investigation or any other special circumstance makes it necessary. Law (2019:472).

§ 9 An immediate custody ceases

1. if the application for care or the application for continued care for temporary care pursuant to section 9a has not been made within the time specified in section 8, nor has an extension of the time been requested, or
2. when the court decides the question of care or the question of continued care.

An immediate custody order may not be enforced if the young person is in custody.

Comment: Here the concept creep makes the translation difficult. The meaning of the first “immediate custody” is “care”, where the second custody means detained by the police for suspicion of a crime.

If there are no longer grounds for disposal, the Social Welfare Board shall decide that this should be terminated immediately. Such a decision may also be issued by the right that examines a question of care under the act or a question of continued care under section 9a. Law (2019:472).

§ 9a of the Administrative Court may allow that a custody under § 6a shall continue if the young person continues to need temporary care and the Social Welfare Board has applied for continued care within the time specified in § 8, first paragraph, the time for a decision on an extended time limit under § 8, second paragraph, has not expired or the time for a current decision on continued care has not expired. In the application, the Social Welfare Board must state how long the young person needs to be taken into care and what circumstances form the basis for continued care.

Together with the application, the Social Welfare Board must submit the documents in the case to the Administrative Court.

If the application has been submitted to the Administrative Court within the prescribed time, the detention may continue pending the administrative court's decision. A consent for continued custody may be given for a maximum of two months at a time, calculated from the date on which the court delivers a decision on the matter. Continued care may last for a maximum of one consecutive year, unless continued temporary care is necessary. Law (2019:472).

Comment: And additional formalities.

§ 9 b A continued care for temporary care pursuant to section 9a ends if the social welfare board has not applied for the young person to remain in care before the time for the current decision on continued care has expired. If there are no longer grounds for the young person to be taken into care, the Social Welfare Board or, where applicable, the court shall decide that the care should be stopped immediately. Law (2019:472).

Comment: § 9 and § 9a provide the necessary formalities which is the base of ethos in the Swedish laws. The formalities together with the aspect that the Social Welfare Board is a democratic phenomenon will justify whatever assault on Swedish individuals.

Care

§ 10 Care shall be deemed to have begun when the young person has been placed outside his or her own home due to a decision on immediate care or if care has been placed outside his or her own home. For the content and design of care, the provisions of the Social Services Act (2001:453) and the provisions of Sections 11-20 apply. Law (2001:466).

§ 11 of the Social Welfare Board decides how the care of the young person should be arranged and where he or she will stay during the care period. However, in the case of a person being cared for in a home referred to in § 12, first paragraph, the State Department Board may, when the young person is transported, decide that he or she should temporarily stay in another such home.

The Board may allow the young person to be in his or her own home, if this can be assumed to be best suited to promoting the care of him or her. However, care under this Law shall always be initiated outside the young person's own home.

If the board's decision pursuant to the first or second subparagraph cannot be awaited, the chairman or any other member appointed by the board may decide on the matter. The decision shall be notified at the next meeting of the Board.

The board or the person to whom the board has assigned the care shall supervise the young person and, to the extent necessary to carry out the care, decide on his or her personal circumstances.

During the care period, the board has the same responsibility as the guardian to ensure that the young person's fundamental rights under Chapter 6. Section 1 of the Parental Code is met. Law (2007:1312).

Comment: The lack of resources gives the possibilities to utilize the state institutional board facilities. Hence the child will be transported all over the country to find a free space for the detention. It is most common that the child will be moved a several times between the institutions including institutions for care of the most dangerous criminals and mentally very ill adults which is also within responsibility of the state institutional board. In addition, the responsible Social Welfare Board will always be the board of the municipality where the detained child is in care for the moment. The state will always be the best solution for care of our children. The last sentence of § 11 has no relevance.

§ 12 For the care of young people who, on any basis specified in section 3, need to be under particularly close supervision, there must be special youth homes.

If the Social Welfare Board has decided that the young person should be staying in a home referred to in the first paragraph, the State Department Board shall assign a place in such a home. In emergency situations, the State Department Board shall immediately assign such a place. Law (2018:652).

§ 12a If the young person is placed in a special youth home and is being cared for or has been treated in hospital, the operations manager of the care unit must immediately inform the State Department Board if the young person wishes to leave or has already left the care unit.

Does someone who belongs to the health care professional and works at a special youth home know that the young person has such an infectious disease as according to Chapter 1. Section 3, second paragraph of the Communicable Diseases Act (2004:168) constitutes a general dangerous disease, the National Board of Institutional Affairs shall be informed, unless it is clear that there is no risk of spreading infection. Law (2018:652).

Comment: What is this about? We mix some wording about contagious disease as well to be on the safe side! Be aware that a health care professional at a unit under the State Department Boars will most probably be a member of the social democratic party!

§ 13 If the young person has been considered care with the support of § 2, the Social Welfare Board shall consider at least once every six months whether care under the law is still needed and how care should be directed and designed.

If the young person has been prepared care under § 3, the Social Welfare Board shall, within six months of the date of enforcement of the care decision, examine whether care under the act should be terminated. This question shall then be examined continuously within six months of the last examination.

When the young person has been placed in the same family home for three years from the time the placement was carried out, the Social Welfare Board shall consider in particular whether there are grounds to apply for transfer of custody under Chapter 6. Section 8 of the Parental Code. After that, the issue should be considered annually.

When considering the third subparagraph, the following shall be taken into account in particular: - the attitude of the young person and the foster parents towards a transfer of custody, - the young person's relationship with the foster parents and their ability to meet the young person's need for a safe and good upbringing, - the attitude and ability of foster parents to meet the young person's need for contact with their parents and other close relatives, and - the kid's relationship with his parents. Law (2020:1259).

§ 13a of the Social Welfare Board shall closely monitor the care of the person receiving care under this Act. The Social Welfare Board shall follow the care primarily through

1. regular personal visits to the home where the young person is staying,
2. individual conversations with the young person,
3. conversations with the person or people who have received the young person in their home, and
4. conversations with the guardians.

The Social Welfare Board shall pay special attention to the young person's health, development, social behaviour, schooling and relationships with relatives and other close relatives. Law (2012:777).

Comment: The social welfare board are a board of voluntary people with no education and a morbid urge to interfere with other people’s privacy. The representatives in the board must have spent at least 20 years with the social democratic party as volunteers to reach the social welfare board. No person with a demanding job in the private sector can be of question. There is no possibility to hire one who have been absent for one week per month the last 20 years.

§ 14 of the Social Welfare Board has a responsibility to ensure that the young person's need for contact with parents and guardians is met as far as possible. If it is necessary in view of the purpose of care under this Act, the Social Welfare Board may:

1. decide how the young person's access with guardians and with parents who have access rights regulated by judgment or decision of a court or by contract shall be exercised, or
2. decide that the young person's domicile should not be disclosed to parents or guardians.

The Social Welfare Board shall consider at least once every three months whether a decision referred to in the second paragraph is still needed. § 30 of the third paragraph of the Population Registration Act (1991:481) states when the Social Welfare Board may apply for protected population registration for children who are cared for under Section 2 of this Act. Law (2018:686).

Comment: “If it is necessary in view of the purpose of care” “decide that the young person's domicile should not be disclosed to parents or guardians.” The purpose with the care might be to penalize the parents for their oppressive thoughts or actions with respect to the social democratic ideology.

§ 14a of the State Department Board shall follow up on the activities of this Act. The follow-up shall cover the time both during and after the end of care. The Social Welfare Board shall provide the State Department Board with the information on individuals that the State Department Board needs to fulfil the obligation arising from the first paragraph. Law (2005:468).

Comment: More formalities!

Special authoritites

§ 15 If the young person is cared for on any basis specified in section 3 and is staying in a home for particularly careful supervision, he or she may be prevented from leaving the home and otherwise subject to the restriction of freedom of movement necessary for the care to be carried out. The young person's freedom of movement may also be restricted where necessary for the safety of other inmates or staff. Law (2003:420).

Comment: Now we start talking!

§ 15a Anyone who is covered by the provisions of § 15 has the right to use electronic communications services, receive visits and stay outside the home to the extent appropriate. For those covered by § 15, the right to use electronic communications services and receive visits may be refused or restricted if it may jeopardize care or order at home. Such a decision may be valid not more than 14 days. When the decision no longer exists, it must be repealed.

The person referred to in the first subparagraph may stay outside the home for a predetermined period, but not more than four weeks.

Decisions on restrictions on the right to use electronic communications services or receive visits and decisions on staying outside the home are made by the National Board of Institutional Affairs. A decision on staying outside the home must be made after consultation with the Social Welfare Board.

The Act (1996:981) on visiting restrictions on certain compulsory care provides for visits to healthcare institutions under this Act. Law (2018:652).

Comment: If the parent due to the 1962:700 chapter 4, § 1 pont 4 “other such undue means if it seriously restricts the person's options” they will be prisoned for at least 4 years. But the state has the full power “If it may jeopardize care or order at home”! You must consider that those children taken from their parents are completely at the mercy of the people designated by the authorities. In addition the state, the authorities, the “democratic boards” cant do anything wrong. Whatever happens will be covered up and concealed. Those Childs are the most vulnerable people on our earth. The previous records of paedophiles and mistreatment of this Childs tell us that those things happen regularly. Most of those childs will never be heard of, not even as adults. Most of them become heavy addicts or end their lives early.

§ 15 b The person covered by the provisions of § 15 may be treated at a unit within the home that is lockable or otherwise set up for particularly careful supervision (care in lockable units),

Comment: Solitary Confinement

1. where necessary in the interests of the safety of the young person or others, or
2. if necessary to prevent the young person from absconding or to otherwise carry out the care.

The person being cared for at a lockable unit shall be given the opportunity to spend daily outdoors and be given the opportunity to engage in physical activity or other leisure activities.

Care at a lockable unit may last for a maximum of two consecutive months. However, if special treatment reasons so warrant, the care at the unit may last longer, provided that one of the circumstances referred to in the first paragraph still applies and that the young person is at the same time given the opportunity to stay in more open forms or outside the home. Law (2018:652).

§ 15(c) The person covered by the provisions of § 15 may, if particularly called for because the young person behaves violently or is so affected by intoxicants that he or she cannot be kept to the order, be kept in seclusion. The young person must then be under the continuous supervision of the staff and have the opportunity to call in staff. He or she shall not be kept in such seclusion for longer than is indispensable and in no case for more than four consecutive hours.

A doctor or nurse shall give an urgent opinion on any action taken pursuant to the first subparagraph. If the doctor or nurse so requests, the action should be immediately discontinued. Law (2018:652).

Comment: Belted to a bed is common within the Swedish “Care of children”. There have been whistle-blowers who witness about belting of children for weeks. Be aware that doctors and nurses in this context are party members.

§ 15 d The person covered by the provisions of section 15 may, if necessary in view of his or her special need for care or safety or safety at home, be prevented from meeting others who are cared for there (care in private).

Care in private should be adapted to the young person's individual care needs. A matter of care in isolation shall be examined on an ongoing basis and always reviewed within seven days of the last examination. Law (2018:652).

§ 16 Anyone subject to the provisions of § 15 may not possess narcotics, alcoholic beverages, other intoxicants, the means referred to in the Act (1991:1969) prohibiting certain doping agents or goods covered by the Act (1999:42) prohibiting certain dangerous goods or syringes, needles or other objects specifically intended for the misuse of or other employment with narcotics. The young person may also not possess anything else that may be of interest to the care or order of the home. If such property is found, it shall be disposed of. Law (2005:468).

§ 17 The person covered by the provisions of § 15 may, if necessary, be physically searched or superficially body-inspected upon arrival at the home for verification that he or she does not carry anything that under § 16 may not be held. The same applies if, during the stay at home, there is a suspicion that such property should be found with him or her.

A body search or a superficial physical examination shall be carried out in the presence of a witness unless the young person waives that right. The young person shall be asked if he or she wishes that any particular member of staff carries out or attends the body search or the superficial physical examination. The young person's wishes must be met as far as possible. All considerations that the circumstances allow must be observed during body searches and superficial physical examinations. Law (2018:652).

§ 17a The person covered by the provisions of § 15 is, unless otherwise justified by medical or similar reasons, obliged to provide blood, urine, saliva or sweat samples on arrival at home to check whether he or she is under the influence of drugs, alcoholic beverages, other intoxicants, the means referred to in Section 1 of the Act (1991:1969) prohibiting certain doping agents or goods covered by the Act (1999:42) prohibiting certain dangerous goods. The young person may be asked to submit a test only if there is a reason for doing so.

The first sentence of the first subparagraph also applies if, during his stay at home, it can be suspected that the young person is under the influence of any such drink or good or any such means as referred to in the first subparagraph. Law (2018:652).

§ 17 b If necessary to carry out care or maintain order at the home, living rooms and other closed storage facilities disposed of by someone covered by the provisions of § 15 may be examined (room searches). A room search may only be carried out to search for items that the young person may not possess under § 16. A room visit shall be carried out in the presence of a witness. All considerations allowed by the circumstances must be observed. Law (2018:652).

§ 17 c If necessary to carry out care or maintain order at the home, a security check may be carried out with a metal detector or other similar device at the special youth homes determined by the National Board of Institutional Affairs. Each special youth home shall specify the situations in which checks may be carried out. Such checks may only be carried out on young people who are subject to the provisions of § 15 in order to search for items that the young person may not possess under § 16. Law (2018:652).

§ 18 The provisions of §§ 16, 17, 17 b and 17 c shall apply to everyone who is cared for in a home for particularly careful supervision, if it is necessary to carry out care and maintain order at the home and the government, or under the government's authority, the State Department Board admits it. Law (2018:652).

§ 19 Anyone subject to the provisions of § 15 may be subject to the supervision of his letters and other consignments, if this is necessary in view of the order at home or to the young person's special circumstances. To this end, the State Department Board may open and receive shipments that come to or are sent from the young person. If an arriving consignment contains property that the young person may not hold pursuant to § 16, the property shall be disposed of. Letters between the young person and a Swedish authority or lawyer or his or her public counsel shall be forwarded without prior examination. Law (2005:468).

§ 20 Has narcotics, alcoholic beverages, other intoxicants, the means referred to in the Act (1991:1969) prohibiting certain doping agents or goods covered by the Act (1999:42) prohibiting certain dangerous goods have been disposed of under §§ 16 or 19 or have such property been found within a home for particularly careful supervision without any known owner of the property; The State Department Board shall have the property destroyed or sold in accordance with the provisions on seized property in § 2, first paragraph of § 1 of the Act (1958:205) on confiscation of alcohol, etc.m. Amounts received on sale accrue to the State.

The same shall apply to syringes, needles and other objects specifically intended for misuse of or other dealings with narcotics. Law (2019:358).

§ 20a Of coercive measures pursuant to §§ 15-15 d and 17-19 may only be used if they are proportionate to the purpose of the measure. If less intervention measures are sufficient, they should be used. Law (2018:652).

Comment: The State Department Board procure a lot of their institutional placements. This is an outermost profitable industry. The private entrepreneurs, mainly with good connections in the social democratic party does not need to provide for educated staff. The supervision is in accordance with the Swedish axiom an employee with a title will be above all doubt. Hence the care of the children will not be by any professionals. If we can talk about professionals in a country where the political party makes up the curriculum for all education. Whatever wording the lawmaker use, the profit will be the main driver for the state care of children. Belting and solitary confinement is known to be utilized as a measure to reduce staffing cost. The brainwashed social clerks have their mortgage to pay down. The voluntary members of the social welfare boards meet once a month to make decisions, that will ruin the life for both children and their biological parents. It is questionable if the board members have the mental ability to understand what they are dealing with. The social democratic party has the mantra the less education the more democratic the decisions.

§ 20 b I 15a, 17 c and 18-20 §§ there are provisions that decisions are made by the State Department Board. In addition, decisions are made in accordance with § 15 and 15 b-17 b of the National Board of Institutional Affairs. Law (2018:652).

20 c § The young person shall be offered a follow-up call following an enforced 1. seclusion according to § 15 c, 2. body searches and superficial physical examinations in accordance with § 17, or 3. room searches according to § 17 b.

During the conversation, the young person shall be informed of the reason why the coercive measure needed to be resorted to and given the opportunity to express his or her opinion on the measure taken. Law (2018:652).

Cessation of care

§ 21 When care under this act is no longer needed, the Social Welfare Board shall decide that the care shall cease. The Board shall carefully prepare the young person's reunification with the person or guardian of him or her. Care that has been decided under § 2 shall be discontinued no later than when the young person turns 18. Care that has been decided under § 3 shall be discontinued no later than when the young person turns 21. Law (2003:406).

Comment: The difference between § 2 and § 3 is irrelevant when the child is taken into custody by the Swedish society. If the child tries to escape once they will automatically be under the § 3 for the rest of their dire youthhood, until they are 21 years old. Most children will sooner or later try to escape back to their biological parents.

There are another 25 paragraphs with apparatchik bullshit, that I don’t manage to translate.

Historically there are just the Nazis and the social democrats that systematically have separated children from their parents. In many cases the child is transferred to another family with the right ideological framing. For those children the life will be pretty good. But the trauma for the biological parents will still be severe and possibly not possible to overcome during a lifetime. Beside the stigma from the rest of the society where you are not considered due to be a parent of your own child.

This abusive care of children by the society has been gonging on for a long time. Before the 70th century there was enormous camps on remote places in Sweden where the society housed all different kinds of human residuals what they did not considered fit in to the perfect social democratic society. After 1976 when they closed the rase biological institute there was a slight liberation. Since then, the new narrative of goodness and laws to criminalize normal parenting is in force.

The state controlled media has recently (2020) made a spectacle about a child who died in care of her biological parents. To make the Swedish population positive to detention of children. The media gave it the heart-breaking title Little heart (Lilla Hjärtat)

A child who had been taken care of by the authorities. She had been placed in to a foster family, since the heavily addicted mother left the child after she gave birth at the hospital. When the girl was 3 years old, she was handed back to the still heavily addicted parents by the social authority.

Late on the girl was found dead in their apartment. It is hard to believe anything but that this was a hardcore propaganda action to get the acceptance for an even more excessive detention of children. The state media reported about the case in the most pathetic way you can think of. Interviews of the foster parents, pictures of the little girls’ birthdays and so on. The mother was of course charged for her death.

The state media did not ever question how the little girl could be handed back to 2 adults not in the state to take care of themselves. No questioning about the responsibility of the social welfare board, the social clerks involved or the court that made the decision to return her to her addicted parents. The answer is that for the authorities in Sweden there is nothing as the word responsibility.

What this story tells us is how the social democratic party will deal with our new citizens. The problem that occurs with gangs, shootings, and violence. The social democratic party has their specific solutions. There will not be via the police force this shall be taken care of. After 100 years in power, the set of laws, the positioning of the righteous in the authorities, the social welfare state will be ruling.

Muslims and all other religious or etic affiliations will be conquered by the social democratic “Care”.

Your children will not grow up to be good Muslims. They will grow up to be good social democrats! With their parents on dole money, the children will after detention be the coming generations of front soldiers for the social democratic ideology.

Welcome all new citizens to Sweden. The meaning of life is now to put the pink ballot in to the envelope each 4th year.

Go back »