Syftet med studien är att undersöka om socialsekreterares bedömningar vid orosanmälningar kring unga påverkas av om den unga har en ADHD-diagnos eller inte. Hypotesen var att socialsekreterares bedömningar kring behov av omedelbart skydd, skäl till oro för den unge, om utredning ska inledas eller inte samt identifierade risk- och skyddsfaktorer skiljer sig åt beroende på om den unge har en ADHD-diagnos eller inte. En kvantitativ vinjettundersökning med tillhörande enkätfrågor genomfördes. Två vinjetter utformades med den enda skillnaden att i den ena vinjetten fanns det information om att ungdomen har en ADHD-diagnos. Sammanlagt besvarade 86 socialsekreterare för barn och/eller unga undersökningen, 42 besvarade vinjetten med ADHD och 44 besvarade vinjetten utan ADHD. Resultatet visar statistiskt signifikanta skillnader i socialsekreterares bedömningar gällande fem orosområden (beteendeproblematik hos ungdomen, psykisk ohälsa hos ungdomen, fysisk eller psykisk funktionsnedsättning hos ungdomen, ungdomens förmåga att klara sig själv samt fysisk eller psykisk funktionsnedsättning hos mamman) och en riskfaktor (mammans alkoholanvändning) beroende på om ungdomen har ADHD-diagnos eller inte. Det påvisades inga statistiskt signifikanta skillnader i bedömningarna när det gäller omedelbar skyddsbedömning, förhandsbedömning eller uppmärksammade skyddsfaktorer. Resultaten diskuteras i relation till om socialsekreterarnas kunskap om ADHD, sociala representationer om ADHD och stereotyper om ADHD har påverkat resultaten. Resultatet från denna studien kan bidra till diskussionen om ADHD i social barnavård samt kan användas för att öka medvetenheten hos socialsekreterarna kring hur de hanterar bedömningar av ungdomar med ADHD-diagnos, för att främja att bedömningar fattas på reella grunder. Resultatet skulle också kunna utgöra en grund för vidare forskning exempelvis genom kvalitativa studier på området för att få en djupare förståelse och synliggöra orsakerna till skillnaderna mellan vinjetterna. / The purpose of this study was to examine social workers’ assessments regarding a notification of concern of adolescents are affected by whether the adolescent have an ADHD diagnosis or not. The hypothesis was that social workers’ assessments of need of immediate protection, reason for concern for the adolescent, whether an investigation should be initiated or not and their identification risk and protection factors differ depending on whether the adolescent has an ADHD diagnosis or not. A quantitative vignette survey with associated questionnaire was conducted. Two vignettes were designed with the only difference that in one vignette there was information that the adolescent has an ADHD diagnosis. Altogether, 86 social workers handling investigations of children and/ or young persons, participated in the study, whereof 42 handled the vignette with ADHD and 44 the vignette without ADHD.  The result shows statistically significant differences in social workers’ assessments regarding five areas of concern (behavioral problems in the adolescent, mental illness in the adolescent, physical or mental disability in the adolescent, the adolescent’s ability to cope with herself and physical or mental disability in the mother) and one risk factor (mother's alcohol use), depending on whether the adolescent has ADHD diagnosis or not. There were no statistically significant differences in assessments regarding immediate protection assessment, preliminary assessment or identified protection factors. The results are discussed in relation to whether social workers´ knowledge about ADHD, social representations of ADHD and stereotypes of ADHD may have influenced the results. The results of this study can contribute to the discussion on ADHD in social childcare and can be used to raise awareness among social workers´ about how they handle assessments of adolescents with ADHD diagnosis in order to promote that assessments are made on real grounds. The result could also provide a basis for further research, for example through qualitative studies in the field, in order to gain a deeper understanding and to highlight the causes of the differences between the vignettes.

Swedish property law, when it comes to acquisition of movable property, the transferee does not acquire ownership as such, instead, the sale is considered protected against the claim of the seller’s creditors (borgenärsskydd). This is achieved through the delivery principle (traditionsprincipen), meaning in its Swedish sense that movable property must not necessarily be delivered into the trans- feree’s possession, but rather that the transferor’s possibility to dispose over the movable is severed. This principle has been subjected to considerable alterations, mainly due to allowing situations where the delivery principle would otherwise be practically impossible. These alterations raise the question of how far these legal solutions can be detached from the fundamental principle. Therefore, it is relevant to ponder, if these solutions, which can merely be considered as artificial solutions to satisfy a formal requirement, are like the constitutum possessorium of civil law orders This thesis will attend to this issue, addressing the following three questions: Question (i): how does the concept of ownership apply to legal questions in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference respectively? Question (ii): does Swedish property law grant protection against the transferor’s creditors although the movable is detained with the transferor? Question (iii): is there any systematic compatibility in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and DCFR respectively? Espe- cially when the movable is detained with the transferor. In relation to question (i), it has been found that in DCFR, ownership is closely linked with possession, which means that ownership follows the delivery of possession. This is not necessarily the case in Swedish property law. Question (ii) is answered in connection to a study of Swedish case-law, which results in that the movable can be detained with the transferor, provided that some require- ments are fulfilled, only if it is a result of a physical action and not solely due to a contract. However, case-law has evolved this general rule to be subjected to a propensity of looking past, or creating new, requirements in order not to create unnecessary complications of compliance as far as it concerns honest transac- tions. This has resulted in a kind of peculiar flexibility. In answer to question (iii), due to the new types of solutions created not to complicate certain transactions, the possibility of reaching similar results as the continental principle is more prominent than one might have thought. Despite certain resemblances, the sys- tematic compatibility must be seen as limited, due to the difference in the respec- tive rules’ aim.

Swedish property law, when it comes to acquisition of movable property, the transferee does not acquire ownership as such, instead, the sale is considered protected against the claim of the seller’s creditors (borgenärsskydd). This is achieved through the delivery principle (traditionsprincipen), meaning in its Swedish sense that movable property must not necessarily be delivered into the trans- feree’s possession, but rather that the transferor’s possibility to dispose over the movable is severed. This principle has been subjected to considerable alterations, mainly due to allowing situations where the delivery principle would otherwise be practically impossible. These alterations raise the question of how far these legal solutions can be detached from the fundamental principle. Therefore, it is relevant to ponder, if these solutions, which can merely be considered as artificial solutions to satisfy a formal requirement, are like the constitutum possessorium of civil law orders This thesis will attend to this issue, addressing the following three questions: Question (i): how does the concept of ownership apply to legal questions in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference respectively? Question (ii): does Swedish property law grant protection against the transferor’s creditors although the movable is detained with the transferor? Question (iii): is there any systematic compatibility in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and DCFR respectively? Espe- cially when the movable is detained with the transferor. In relation to question (i), it has been found that in DCFR, ownership is closely linked with possession, which means that ownership follows the delivery of possession. This is not necessarily the case in Swedish property law. Question (ii) is answered in connection to a study of Swedish case-law, which results in that the movable can be detained with the transferor, provided that some require- ments are fulfilled, only if it is a result of a physical action and not solely due to a contract. However, case-law has evolved this general rule to be subjected to a propensity of looking past, or creating new, requirements in order not to create unnecessary complications of compliance as far as it concerns honest transac- tions. This has resulted in a kind of peculiar flexibility. In answer to question (iii), due to the new types of solutions created not to complicate certain transactions, the possibility of reaching similar results as the continental principle is more prominent than one might have thought. Despite certain resemblances, the sys- tematic compatibility must be seen as limited, due to the difference in the respec- tive rules’ aim.