zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. belorn+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 00:26:58
In Sweden there is a additional review board that go through the decision made by the inspector. The idea is to limit the power that a single inspector has. In practice however the review board tend to rubber stamp decisions, so incompetence/malice still happens.

There was a huge mess right after metoo when a inspector went against the courts rulings. The court had given the father sole custody in a extremely messy divorce, and the inspector did not agree with the decision. As a result they remove the child from his father, in direct contrast to the courts decision, and put the child through 6 years of isolation and abuse with no access to school. It took investigative journalists a while, but the result of the case getting highlighted in media was that the inspector and supervisor is now fired, with two additoal workers being under investigation for severe misconduct. Four more workers would be under investigation but too long time has passed. The review board should have prevented this, as should the supervisor for the inspector, but those safety net failed in this case in part because of the cultural environment at the time.

replies(1): >>tomp+Qp1
2. tomp+Qp1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 12:26:10
>>belorn+(OP)
Wait, so someone acted illegally (against law / courts) AND ALSO kidnapped a child for 6 years, and all that happened is that they're... fired?!

That's insane. Don't live in Sweden if you have kids, I guess!

replies(2): >>lolc+du1 >>belorn+WX1
◧◩
3. lolc+du1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 12:57:53
>>tomp+Qp1
> Don't live in Sweden if you have kids, I guess!

I heard of countries where parents are fond of having firearms around.

replies(1): >>tomp+tu1
◧◩◪
4. tomp+tu1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 12:59:54
>>lolc+du1
like Switzerland?
replies(1): >>lolc+Xu1
◧◩◪◨
5. lolc+Xu1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 13:02:40
>>tomp+tu1
Good example, there are scandals around custody too!
◧◩
6. belorn+WX1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 15:37:36
>>tomp+Qp1
It is fairly lenient. The review board, assigned political, do hold a bit of moral responsibility and got no punishment.

The reason I mentioned that this occurred right after metoo is that the cultural environment in Sweden was a bit unstable. Some people felt they could not trust the courts, which include people who worked as inspectors for the government. The review board is also selected politically, which may add a second explanation for why they permitted the misconduct. It was a very political time and everyone wanted to be perceived as being on the right side of history.

The case has been debate in Swedish parliament but the reaction has been to not really talk about it. People ignored the law and rules, and they shouldn't have done that, and that is then that.

[go to top]