Within the framework of an investigation regarding two siblings, a social welfare worker collected the siblings at their pre-school and took them to a venue that belonged to the social services. The guardians had not consented to the measure. Thereafter the social welfare worker contacted the children’s father, but not the children’s mother. The children were then left with their father.

In an investigation on child welfare, a child may be heard without the guardians consent and without them being present, pursuant to chapter 11, section 10 of the Social Service Act.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the provision does not convey that the social welfare board may collect a child and bring a child to a place that the board see as a suitable place to hold a talk with the child concerned. A guardian or a representative of a child need to give their consent before a board collects a child. Pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act, a board is allowed, during some circumstances, to collect a child.

In the current case, the guardians had not given their consent to have the children collected by the board and the children were not subject to an intervention pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act. Accordingly, the board’s measures did not have any legal support.

A child’s guardians hold the right and obligation to decide on a child’s personal matters, e.g. the child´s residence, pursuant to the Children and Parents Code. Thus, it is not up to the board to decide where a child should reside. If a child is under care pursuant to the Care of Young Persons Act, the board shall decide where the child shall reside during the time in care.

In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the occurrence resulted in the children residing with their fathers instead of their mother. If the board had decided that it was not in the best interests of the children to reside with their mother the board should have consulted all guardians to try to find solutions regarding the children’s residence, but this did not occur. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding the management contradicted the statute-regulated requirements on objectivity pursuant to the Instrument of Government.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the board for the processing of the children’s case.