<p>The purpose of this paper is to investigate on what basis a child is committed into care according to the law and to see on which grounds the decision about committed child care in law practice are taken when a child is committed to care due to parents who are mentally retarded. To better understand the juridical grounds for these decisions I will also in a short background describe the meaning of the term mentally retarded, how mental retardation and parenthood has changed over time and how different opinions are expressed in the law. Both people with mental retardation and children have in recent years gained their rights and sometimes these rights end up in conflict with one another. In those cases, what is in the best interest of the child, should be decisive. The children who have mentally retarded parents are at risk to not have their physical, psychological, emotional, social and intellectual needs met and are therefore being unfavourable developed. LVU gives possibilities for the right to intervene in the relation between child and parent through committing the child into care against the parent’s will. This law is supposed to be used in those cased when the child is being exposed to bad conditions which implies an obvious risk for the health and development of the child and when care cannot be given voluntarily. In my study it is discovered that the Supreme Court has decided cases where children with parents who are mentally retarded or have similar problems has been committed into care. The retardation in itself is not reason enough for the child to be committed into care, it is the consequences which are determining. The Supreme Court approved the Social service request concerning committing care in three of the eleven cases I have studied and they stated lack in material, social and intellectual areas, and also the immatureness of the parents and the inability to put the child’s need first. In the other cases I have studied the Supreme Court declined the requests from the Social service and motive it different in each case. They referred to the lack of necessary qualifications, that siblings has managed well, that supporting measures in the home should be sufficient etc. In my study I can clearly see that the demand for evidence about lack in care is increased by every instance. My study also show that the Supreme Court to a relatively great extent tend to decide against the Social service, experts and the opinion of public counsels. My opinion is that the perspective of the child is at risk of being put aside if the court lower their demands on good parenthood for parents with mental retardation.</p>

The purpose of this paper is to investigate on what basis a child is committed into care according to the law and to see on which grounds the decision about committed child care in law practice are taken when a child is committed to care due to parents who are mentally retarded. To better understand the juridical grounds for these decisions I will also in a short background describe the meaning of the term mentally retarded, how mental retardation and parenthood has changed over time and how different opinions are expressed in the law. Both people with mental retardation and children have in recent years gained their rights and sometimes these rights end up in conflict with one another. In those cases, what is in the best interest of the child, should be decisive. The children who have mentally retarded parents are at risk to not have their physical, psychological, emotional, social and intellectual needs met and are therefore being unfavourable developed. LVU gives possibilities for the right to intervene in the relation between child and parent through committing the child into care against the parent’s will. This law is supposed to be used in those cased when the child is being exposed to bad conditions which implies an obvious risk for the health and development of the child and when care cannot be given voluntarily. In my study it is discovered that the Supreme Court has decided cases where children with parents who are mentally retarded or have similar problems has been committed into care. The retardation in itself is not reason enough for the child to be committed into care, it is the consequences which are determining. The Supreme Court approved the Social service request concerning committing care in three of the eleven cases I have studied and they stated lack in material, social and intellectual areas, and also the immatureness of the parents and the inability to put the child’s need first. In the other cases I have studied the Supreme Court declined the requests from the Social service and motive it different in each case. They referred to the lack of necessary qualifications, that siblings has managed well, that supporting measures in the home should be sufficient etc. In my study I can clearly see that the demand for evidence about lack in care is increased by every instance. My study also show that the Supreme Court to a relatively great extent tend to decide against the Social service, experts and the opinion of public counsels. My opinion is that the perspective of the child is at risk of being put aside if the court lower their demands on good parenthood for parents with mental retardation.