<p>In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.</p>

<p>In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.</p>

In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.

In 2006 there was a change in LMA (1994:37) that clarified the division of responsibility be-tween the Migration Board and the municipalities, concerning unaccompanied children. The social services should now be utmost responsible for the housing and care of these children, to assure that they gain the same standards and rights as all other children. The aim of this essay has been to examine how the division of responsibility has influenced the work of the social services and how they interpret their responsibility for the unaccompanied children. How do the social services investigate and make decisions concerning these children? Do these chil-dren have the same rights as other children? To answer these questions a legal study was made, followed by qualitative research interviews with four social services that receive unac-companied children. The study was made from a legal sociologist perspective, which involves analyzing the results from the interviews with the legal results, together with earlier research on unaccompanied children. The results show that the division of responsibility still is indis-tinct and that the investigations concerning these children often are brief and simplified. In two of the interviewed municipalities the view was that unaccompanied children did not have the right to efforts according to SoL (2001:453), which in practice means that the unaccom-panied children are discriminated.

Author: Martina Holgersson och Pranvera VishajSupervisor: Matts MosessonTitle: “A study about how Social Services understand and put child perspective into practice”The purpose of this study is to describe and understand how the child perspective is perceived and put into practice by the Social Services. Our questions were: “How is the child perspective perceived by the Social Services?” and “In what way is the child perspective put into practice in the Social Services’ work?” Our approach to knowledge is based on the hermeneutic tradition of knowledge. The essay rests upon semi-structured interviews with ten Social Services’ workers. We have analysed our results from the theory of actions where we have applied analytical ideas; the five P’s and actor and objective perspective. Our main findings in the study were; the Social Services’ workers regarded the child perspective as a complex and hard to define concept. Furthermore, the Social Services’ workers considered to think the fundamental apprehension of the child perspective; is children’s well-fare and protection from abuse. From which angle they choose to see the child perspective; the child’s, the parents or the professionals vary. The Social Services’ workers experienced the children were being implicated in the work. The reports are written from both angels, children and parents point of view. A special interest and importance from the Social Services’ workers were children being involved through-out the inquiry process as at decision-making. The child perspective doesn’t have to be crucial at a settlement. Based on our findings and our theory we can draw the conclusion that the scope the Social Services’ workers have in their work can influence how the child perspective is perceived and carried out and how it should be applied.

When young people are placed in residential care, the staff have a responsibility to ensure that the youth have a safe environment where they can thrive and develop. Residential staff also have responsibilities to ensure the rights of youth during the residential care. This study aims to examine how staff consider themselves to treat the youth in residential care. Furthermore the study aims to examine how the staff consider themselves to ensure youth their right to be heard and have an impact on their own lives, in agreement with Article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of the child (CRC). A qualitative method has been used in order to answer the study's purpose and issues. Five interviews were conducted with residential staff, four of which were environmental therapists and one who was a manager. The results show that the staff consider themselves to respond well to the youth, however, a good treatment is difficult to define and therefore hard to achieve. Furthermore, it appears that the knowledge about children’s rights varies among the staff, which can have negative effects on how they manage to reassure youth their rights to be heard and have an impact on their own lives, in agreement with Article 12 of the CRC.

För att på ett enkelt sätt beskriva det trepartsförhållande som existerar mellan barn, föräldrar och socialnämnd kan sägas att föräldrar har det främsta ansvaret för att barns hälso- och sjukvårdsbehov tillgodoses och ytterst är socialnämnden ansvarig. Nuvarande rättsläge kan ur ett tillämpningsperspektiv beskrivas som en trestegsraket. Den inleds efter att en motiverad vårdnadshavare söker socialnämndens samtycke för att den andre vårdnadshavaren motsätter sig barnets vård. I ett första steg ska socialnämndens utredningsarbete bestå av att ta hänsyn till huvudregeln i föräldrabalken som stadgar att vårdnadshavare har gemensam bestämmanderätt. Socialnämnd ska i och med huvudregeln försöka få vårdnadshavarna att enas i frågan. I andra hand sker ett övervägande om undantagsregeln i 6 kap. 13 a § FB ska användas. I det här läget ska nämnden bedöma vilken förälders inställning har godast skäl för sig, i förhållande till barnets bästa. När den vårdnadshavare som samtycker har goda skäl för sin inställning och barnet har ett påtagligt och tydligt behov av vård kan nämnden istället för den motsägande föräldern samtycka. I sista hand om ingen av vårdnadshavarna samtycker till behövlig vård och förutsättningarna i övrigt är uppfyllda, är det tvångslagen LVU som aktualiseras. Efter att nämnden ansökt hos förvaltningsdomstol kan barnet få vård enligt LVU. Om en av föräldrarna är att anse som lämplig vårdnadshavare kan socialnämnden även väcka talan om ändring av vårdnaden enligt 6 kap. 7 § FB. Som flera av remissinstanserna påpekat i förarbetena till 6 kap. 13 a § FB är det i många av fallen så att vårdnadshavarna har mer långtgående och djupa samarbetssvårigheter än att problemet stannar vid oenighet i en fråga rörande barnet. När förhållandena vårdnadshavarna emellan är så dåliga att det inte föreligger verkliga förutsättningar för gemensam vårdnad är åtminstone jag kritisk till vilken egentlig funktion bestämmelsen fyller. Som framgår i framställningen utgör bestämmelsen en risk för negativa effekter på möjligheterna att ensam förordnas vårdnaden i de situationer förutsättningarna är uppfyllda men domstolen väljer att se 6 kap. 13 a § FB som ett verktyg att använda vid gemensam vårdnad. Syftet bakom bestämmelsens införande är delvis att se till att barn ska slippa invänta ett vårdnadsbeslut från en domstol för att få vård och behandling men följderna för det enskilda barnet kan bli mer långgående än ett uteblivet vård- och behandlingstillfälle. Dagens utformning och tolkning av bestämmelsen medför i min mening en stor brist. Bristen grundar sig i inskränkningen av samförståndskravet. Lagstiftaren accepterar att vårdnadshavare är oeniga i vissa frågor och det sänder ut signaler om att huvudregeln om vårdnadshavares enighet nu försvagats. Regeln måste utvärderas närmare för att det ska kunna avgöras om den fyller den funktion som regeln är avsedd att ha.

According to article 8 in the Brussels II regulation a Member State has jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over a child who is habitually resident in that State at the time the court is seised. This includes compulsory care of children by the State. Furthermore, article 20 in the Brussels II regulation states that the regulation should not prevent the courts in Member States to make provisional measures in urgent cases in respect of persons or assets in that State, even if a court in another Member State has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. This thesis examines the jurisdiction of the Swedish social services and courts in cases regarding compulsory care of foreign children in Sweden. An immediate taking into care under the Care of Young Persons Act constitutes a provisional measure under article 20 in the Brussels II regulation. The provision does not require that the child is habitually resident in the Member State that is taking the measures. Some Swedish courts have despite this concluded that the child must be habitually resident in Sweden for social services and courts to have jurisdiction when it comes to immediate taking into care. This is due to a problematic wording in the provision. Sweden has extensive responsibilities for children according to both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The purpose of this thesis is to examine if the Swedish social services and courts, in making decisions of immediate taking into care of foreign children in Sweden, are meeting those obligations. The methods used in the thesis are the legal dogmatic method, the empirical method and the European legal method. The findings in this thesis demonstrate that it is possible to interpret the provision regarding the immediate taking into care of children in two different ways. In as far as the Swedish social services and the courts make the most favourable interpretation for the child Sweden meets its obligations under the convention and the charter. However, compulsory care is a huge interference in a child’s life and it is of great importance that legislation of that kind charter the power of the authorities in a clear and unambiguous way. This is particularly important in cases regarding compulsory care due to the risk of what a negative decision could mean for a child’s health and safety. Therefore, the conclusion of this thesis is that it is necessary and urgent that the problem is addressed at a legislative level both from a children’s safety perspective and a legal security perspective.

Uppsatsens syfte har varit att undersöka skolans ansvar och skyldigheter vid fall av kränkande behandling och mobbning. Detta har gjorts genom att studera och analysera doktrin och lagstiftning, enligt den rättsdogmatiska metoden. Slutsatser har därefter kunnat dras utifrån uppsatsens innehåll. Det kan konstaterats att bestämmelserna i 6:e kapitlet har sitt ursprung i lagen (2006:67) om förbud mot diskriminering och annan kränkande behandling av barn eller elever och att dagens lagstiftning har påverkats av dessa bestämmelser. Skolans ansvar för barn och elever sträcker sig långt utanför skolans gränser. Vid kränkande beteende på skolan eller via sociala medier har skolan allt ansvar och alla skyldigheter att förebygga och förhindra att det fortsätter. Det är kommunen, skolans huvudman, som blir skadeståndsskyldig om fel eller försummelse i myndighetsutövning funnits. Kommunen blir även skadeståndsskyldig om omständigheter efter en utredning av en anmälan gett anledning till rättegång i mål om skadestånd.

SAMMANFATTNING Nyckelord: barnröntgen, patientinformation, röntgensjuksköterska, barnkonventionen Bakgrund: För röntgensjuksköterskor är det utmanande att informera barnpatienter utifrån barnkonventionens riktlinjer, som är svensk lag sedan 2020.  Syfte: Syftet med denna enkätstudie var att ta reda på vilken patientinformation som röntgensjuksköterskan ansåg var viktig att ge till barnpatienter i samband med konventionell skelettröntgenundersökning samt vilka förutsättningar som var viktiga för att kunna tilldela den informationen. Ett ytterligare syfte var att ta reda på om röntgensjuksköterskan hade kännedom om barnkonventionen och dess betydelse i samband med barnröntgenundersökning samt om det fanns någon skillnad mellan röntgensjuksköterskor verksamma på sjukhus A och sjukhus B gällande deras uppfattning om information till barnpatienter.  Metod: En empirisk kvantitativ enkätstudie genomfördes. Urvalet bestod av röntgensjuksköterskor med erfarenhet att utföra konventionella skelettundersökningar på barn. Totalt 35 enkäter analyserades.  Resultat: Som viktigaste information valdes allmän strålsäkerhet och varför barnet ska ligga/sitta stilla. De viktigaste förutsättningarna för att ge information ansågs vara förberedda föräldrar, förberett röntgenlabb samt att vända sig till barnet vid samtal. Majoriteten svarade att röntgenmottagningarna inte erbjöd en barnanpassad miljö och instämde delvis till att kommunikationen skulle underlättas på ett barnanpassat labb. Röntgensjuksköterskorna instämmer till stor del att de har kännedom om barnkonventionens riktlinjer och att dessa har stor betydelse vid barnröntgenundersökningar. Ingen signifikant skillnad visades mellan sjukhusen. Slutsats: Respondenterna från sjukhusen enades om att viktigast att informera om var strålsäkerhet och vikten av att vara still. Röntgenmottagningarna ansågs inte ha en barnanpassad miljö. Röntgensjuksköterskornas kännedom om barnkonventionen behöver ständigt aktualiseras och diskuteras i vårdsammanhang. / ABSTRACT Key words: pediatric radiography, access to information, radiographer, Convention on the Rights of the Child Background: It is challenging for radiographers to inform pediatric patients based on the guidelines of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Swedish law since 2020.  Purpose: The purpose was to find out what radiographers from two hospitals considered to be important information and conditions for providing it to pediatric patients undergoing x-ray examinations. The aim was also to investigate whether the radiographers carry knowledge of the CRC and its significance regarding child radiographs as well as to compare the perception of radiographers from hospital A and B on what information is of importance. Method: An empirical quantitative survey study was made.The sample included radiographers experienced in performing x-ray examinations of children. In total 35 surveys were analyzed.  Results: Information about general radiation safety and why the patient should keep still was considered most important.  The main conditions for providing information were considered to be a prepared lab, prepared parents and paying attention to the child. The majority replied that radiology clinics did not offer a child-friendly environment. The radiographers broadly agree that they are aware of the CRC’s guidelines and that these are of great importance in x-ray examinations. No significant difference was shown between the hospitals. Conclusion: Respondents agreed that informing pediatric patients about radiation safety and the importance of being still is most important. Radiology clinics were not considered to have a well-adapted environment. Radiographers’ knowledge of the CRC needs to be constantly updated.