<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>

<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>The aim of this study was to describe how the best interest of the child can be constructed in investigations concerning permission for international adopt, where adequate parenthood is investigated. Qualitative research interviews were used as method. Seven investigators from six different sections of the city of Stockholm were interviewed. The information was analysed on the basis of a sociological approach to law and social constructionism.</p><p>The result showed that adequate parenthood is a condition in the interest of the child. Adequate parenthood is specified as the parent’s qualities and possibility to care for an adopted child. It does not depend on material qualifications, it is principally a matter of personal conditions, which can be defined as self-consciousness and the ability to reflect, feel empathy and manage a crisis. An adequate adoptive parent shall also realize the significance of an adoption. Adequate adoptive parents have a stable and lasting relationship and are surrounded by a stable social network.</p><p>The best interest of the child shall mainly be fulfilled by the qualities of the parents, in other words the adequate parenthood. The adoption has to be in the best interest of the child and thereby fulfil the child’s needs. In a family, children need to develop in their own pace and receive support whenever it is needed. In the investigation undertaken by the authorities, the interests of the child can best be looked after with an investigator that possesses adequate knowledge about children, that investigates thoroughly and feel a responsibility towards the child.</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>

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.

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.

The aim of this study was to describe how the best interest of the child can be constructed in investigations concerning permission for international adopt, where adequate parenthood is investigated. Qualitative research interviews were used as method. Seven investigators from six different sections of the city of Stockholm were interviewed. The information was analysed on the basis of a sociological approach to law and social constructionism. The result showed that adequate parenthood is a condition in the interest of the child. Adequate parenthood is specified as the parent’s qualities and possibility to care for an adopted child. It does not depend on material qualifications, it is principally a matter of personal conditions, which can be defined as self-consciousness and the ability to reflect, feel empathy and manage a crisis. An adequate adoptive parent shall also realize the significance of an adoption. Adequate adoptive parents have a stable and lasting relationship and are surrounded by a stable social network. The best interest of the child shall mainly be fulfilled by the qualities of the parents, in other words the adequate parenthood. The adoption has to be in the best interest of the child and thereby fulfil the child’s needs. In a family, children need to develop in their own pace and receive support whenever it is needed. In the investigation undertaken by the authorities, the interests of the child can best be looked after with an investigator that possesses adequate knowledge about children, that investigates thoroughly and feel a responsibility towards the child.

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.

The purpose of this law-sociological study was to, on the basis of the District Court's decree to single custody, analyze the District Court’s comprehensive ideas and fall-oriented interpretations of the concept of the best interest of the child and the way they are constructed in connection with the District Court's application of the new law regulation of 6kap. 5§ FB regarding collaboration between parents. Our empirical data consisted of ten decrees to single custody. The decrees were examined and analyzed on the basis of social constructionism as a theory and the idea-analysis as the study's method. Legal sources such as law and its legislative history and the law inSwedenandScandinaviain general, with both domestic and international previous research, gave us initial knowledge in the area which gradually grew during the study. Results show that sweeping presumptions for single custody, with vague connections between single child's best interest and decisions about single custody based on the parents' lack of cooperation, can be glimpsed in several of the judges' texts. The District Court’s ideas/interpretations of the concept of the best interest of the child reach for the most part in the decrees where an individual assessment has been made.

In der Kinderheilkunde kommt es gelegentlich zu einem ethischen Konflikt zwischen Kindeswohl und Kindeswillen, wenn Kinder eine medizinisch indizierte Behandlung nachdrücklich ablehnen. Kann es in einer solchen Situation gerechtfertigt sein, das Kind zu einer Behandlung zu zwingen? Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage fehlte es bislang an medizinethischen Untersuchungen, die den Gehalt dieser beiden Begriffe sowie ihren Zusammenhang systematisch untersuchen.   In der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde eine solche systematische Analyse der rechtlichen und ethischen Voraussetzungen der Begriffe Selbstbestimmung, Kindeswohl und Kindeswille in der Medizin vorgenommen sowie eine qualitativ-empirische Untersuchung in Form eines Faktoriellen Survey durchgeführt, um die praktische Relevanz der Fragestellung zu prüfen. Dazu wurde in Kooperation mit der Ärztekammer Niedersachsen eine repräsentative Stichprobe niedersächsischer Kinderärztinnen und Kinderärzte befragt. Es wurde untersucht, ob die Problematik in der Praxis der Kinderheilkunde eine Rolle spielt und ob Kinderärzte der Ansicht sind, dass der Kindeswille berücksichtigt werden müsse und auch ausreichend berücksichtigt werde. Weiterhin wurde geprüft, welche Kriterien dafür als relevant angesehen werden.  Es konnte gezeigt werden, dass ein solcher Konflikt zwischen Kindeswohl und Kindeswille in der Praxis nicht selten vorkommt und von Kinderärzten als Dilemma wahrgenommen wird. Die Kinderärzte halten es mehrheitlich für notwendig, den Kindeswillen schon bei Kindern zwischen 8 und 14 Jahren zu respektieren, auch wenn dieser dem Elternwillen widerspricht. Dies wird bisher in der rechtlichen Regelung nicht abgebildet. Auch konnte als problematisch herausgearbeitet werden, dass die Selbstbestimmungsfähigkeit Minderjähriger bisher ausschließlich anhand der kognitiven Fähigkeiten und des Alters, nicht jedoch an Hand anderer Reifefaktoren beurteilt wird. Entgegen der bisher im Recht vertretenen Auffassung, dass Minderjährige unter 14 Jahren einwilligungsunfähig sind, wird es in Zukunft notwendig sein, den Kindeswillen in der Medizin stärker zu berücksichtigen. Dies wird auch gestützt durch das in Artikel 12 die UN-Kinderrechtskonvention festgestellte Recht von Kindern auf eine angemessene Berücksichtigung der eigenen Meinung. Die Achtung vor dem Willen des Kindes ist notwendige Voraussetzung zur Entwicklung zu einem selbstbestimmten Erwachsenen.