Talerätt för barn. En komparation mellan vårdnadsmål, LUV-mål och brottmål
(2022) JURM02 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Children, just like adults, are legal entities according to Swedish law and
legislation. This implies they have both rights and obligations to face, which in addition means they also have party capacity. Since children have party capacity they can also have the right to litigate in cases where the legal dispute is connected to rights or obligations of the child. It is easy to realize that children do not have the right to litigate in cases about custody matters. It is instead the child’s parents who have the rights to take legal action, refer to evidence and appeal a judicial decision. Instead of giving children the right to litigate in custody matters the legislator has chosen to establish other regulations to secure the perspective of... (More) - Children, just like adults, are legal entities according to Swedish law and
legislation. This implies they have both rights and obligations to face, which in addition means they also have party capacity. Since children have party capacity they can also have the right to litigate in cases where the legal dispute is connected to rights or obligations of the child. It is easy to realize that children do not have the right to litigate in cases about custody matters. It is instead the child’s parents who have the rights to take legal action, refer to evidence and appeal a judicial decision. Instead of giving children the right to litigate in custody matters the legislator has chosen to establish other regulations to secure the perspective of children’s rights in such litigations. This differs from other case categories where the child and its parents possibly can have different interests. The purpose with this exam is to examine the motives to why children do not have the right to litigate in custody matters and compare them to other case categories.
Criminal cases where the child is the victim and at least one of the legal
guardians is the suspect or the suspect is someone standing close to one of
the legal guardians is one example of such categories. In such criminal cases
it is possible for the court to appoint a special representative for the child that also becomes litigation guardian during the proceeding. Additionally, in cases of The care of young peoples (special provision) act (LVU) the children have the right to litigate. In those kinds of cases the court can appoint a public council to represent the child. The public council will also act as the child’s guardian in the legal process. In these kinds of case categories there is an acknowledged conflict between the child’s interests and the legal guardians. Due to this fact the legislator needed to take more actions in order to protect the child’s rights during the processes. This kind of conflict is not acknowledged to the same extent in custody matters. However, the legislator has, by the latest amendment of the Parent Code partially begun to emphasize that conflict of interests between the child and its parents can occur even in custody matters. Even if children’s procedural status differs in custody matters and LVU cases these two case categories have a lot in common and several regulations are based on the regulations in the FN Convention on the rights of the child. This differs from the criminal proceedings. In LVU cases and the examine type of criminal cases the children has a similar procedural status instead.
In conclusion, there are several circumstances that had an impact on the
legislator’s choice to not give children the right to litigate in custody
matters. Children should not be too close the conflict, it would be expensive
and it would not be appropriate are some of the reasons according to the
legislator. However, the subject has previously been discussed in doctrine
where other circumstances have been pointed out to be the crucial. Lack of
admitting conflicts of interests between the child and its parents, the
ideology of the legislator, the concerned parties’ obligations and the
approach to children in general are examples of such circumstances. I do
also, in addition to these circumstances, identify proportionality as a cause. Based on the comparison between the three different case categories it is clear that the legislator do not find it proportional to limit the legal
guardians right to decide over their children to the same extent as in LVU
cases and criminal cases. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I svensk rätt är barn, precis som vuxna, ett rättssubjekt och därmed bärare av rättigheter och skyldigheter vilket i sin tur innebär att även barn är
partsbehöriga. Eftersom barn kan vara partsbehöriga kan de även ha talerätt
för det fall tvisten hänför sig till en rättighet eller skyldighet kopplat till barnet. Det går dock snabbt att konstatera att barn saknar samtliga delar av talerätten i mål om vårdnad, boende och umgänge. Istället är det barnets föräldrar som kan initiera en tvist, argumentera för sin sak inom ramen för tvisten samt överklaga domar och beslut. Som alternativ till talerätt i vårdnad, boende och umgängesmål har lagstiftaren valt att införa en rad andra bestämmelser för att stärka barnrättsperspektivet i denna typ av... (More) - I svensk rätt är barn, precis som vuxna, ett rättssubjekt och därmed bärare av rättigheter och skyldigheter vilket i sin tur innebär att även barn är
partsbehöriga. Eftersom barn kan vara partsbehöriga kan de även ha talerätt
för det fall tvisten hänför sig till en rättighet eller skyldighet kopplat till barnet. Det går dock snabbt att konstatera att barn saknar samtliga delar av talerätten i mål om vårdnad, boende och umgänge. Istället är det barnets föräldrar som kan initiera en tvist, argumentera för sin sak inom ramen för tvisten samt överklaga domar och beslut. Som alternativ till talerätt i vårdnad, boende och umgängesmål har lagstiftaren valt att införa en rad andra bestämmelser för att stärka barnrättsperspektivet i denna typ av mål. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka hur det har motiverats av
lagstiftaren att barn inte har talerätt i mål om vårdnad, boende och umgänge
och jämföra det med andra mål där det kan förekomma motstridiga intressen
mellan barnet och dess föräldrar.
Exempel på sådana mål är brottmål där barnet är målsägande och en av
vårdnadshavarna är misstänkt eller närstående till den misstänkta samt mål
om beredande av vård enligt lagen (1990:52) med särskilda bestämmelser
om vård av unga. I brottmål kan det förordnas en särskild företrädare för
barnet i enlighet med lagen (1999:997) om särskilda företrädare för barn. I
LVU-mål kan rätten också förordna ett offentligt biträde för barnet som
agerar som dennes ställföreträdare för det fall barnet och vårdnadshavarna
har motstridiga intressen i målet. Inom dessa måltyper finns det en erkänd
konflikt mellan vårdnadshavarna och barnet. Det medfört att lagstiftaren
behövt vidta åtgärder för att tillförsäkra barns rättigheter inom processen. En sådan konflikt är inte på samma sätt erkänd inom vårdnadsmål. Lagstiftaren
har dock genom den senaste lagändring i Föräldrabalken delvis börjat
framhålla att det även inom vårdnadsmål kan förekomma intressekonflikter
mellan barnet och dess föräldrar.
Även om barns processuella ställning skiljer sig inom LVU-mål och
vårdnadsmål har dessa måltyper mycket gemensamt och flertalet
bestämmelser grundar sig i Barnkonventionen. I LVU-mål och den
undersökta typen av brottmål har barn dock en snarlik processuell ställning.
Övriga bestämmelser som reglerar brottmålsprocessen skiljer dock från
övriga förfaranderegler i LVU-mål och vårdnadsmål.
Slutsatsen blir att det finns många omständigheter som ligger till grund för
att barn inte har talerätt. Lagstiftaren nämner bl.a. själv att barn inte ska dras in i konflikten, att det vore kostsamt och inte ändamålsenligt. Ämnet har tidigare diskuterats i doktrin. Där har anledningar så som avsaknaden av en erkänd konflikt samt synsättet på barn, lagstiftarens ideologi och de
inblandade aktörernas skyldigheter lyfts fram. Utöver dessa faktorer
identifierar jag även proportionalitet som en faktor. Utifrån jämförelsen som
görs i det slutliga kapitlet är det tydligt att lagstiftaren inte finner det
proportionerligt att inskränka vårdnadshavarnas bestämmande rätt i
vårdnadsmål i lika stor utsträckning som görs i brottmål och LVU-mål. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9080325
- author
- Bachstätter, Madelene LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Children's right to litigate
- course
- JURM02 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- familjerätt, LVU, Lag om särskild företrädare för barn, talerätt, barn
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9080325
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-12 15:33:36
- date last changed
- 2022-06-12 15:33:36
@misc{9080325,
abstract = {{Children, just like adults, are legal entities according to Swedish law and
legislation. This implies they have both rights and obligations to face, which in addition means they also have party capacity. Since children have party capacity they can also have the right to litigate in cases where the legal dispute is connected to rights or obligations of the child. It is easy to realize that children do not have the right to litigate in cases about custody matters. It is instead the child’s parents who have the rights to take legal action, refer to evidence and appeal a judicial decision. Instead of giving children the right to litigate in custody matters the legislator has chosen to establish other regulations to secure the perspective of children’s rights in such litigations. This differs from other case categories where the child and its parents possibly can have different interests. The purpose with this exam is to examine the motives to why children do not have the right to litigate in custody matters and compare them to other case categories.
Criminal cases where the child is the victim and at least one of the legal
guardians is the suspect or the suspect is someone standing close to one of
the legal guardians is one example of such categories. In such criminal cases
it is possible for the court to appoint a special representative for the child that also becomes litigation guardian during the proceeding. Additionally, in cases of The care of young peoples (special provision) act (LVU) the children have the right to litigate. In those kinds of cases the court can appoint a public council to represent the child. The public council will also act as the child’s guardian in the legal process. In these kinds of case categories there is an acknowledged conflict between the child’s interests and the legal guardians. Due to this fact the legislator needed to take more actions in order to protect the child’s rights during the processes. This kind of conflict is not acknowledged to the same extent in custody matters. However, the legislator has, by the latest amendment of the Parent Code partially begun to emphasize that conflict of interests between the child and its parents can occur even in custody matters. Even if children’s procedural status differs in custody matters and LVU cases these two case categories have a lot in common and several regulations are based on the regulations in the FN Convention on the rights of the child. This differs from the criminal proceedings. In LVU cases and the examine type of criminal cases the children has a similar procedural status instead.
In conclusion, there are several circumstances that had an impact on the
legislator’s choice to not give children the right to litigate in custody
matters. Children should not be too close the conflict, it would be expensive
and it would not be appropriate are some of the reasons according to the
legislator. However, the subject has previously been discussed in doctrine
where other circumstances have been pointed out to be the crucial. Lack of
admitting conflicts of interests between the child and its parents, the
ideology of the legislator, the concerned parties’ obligations and the
approach to children in general are examples of such circumstances. I do
also, in addition to these circumstances, identify proportionality as a cause. Based on the comparison between the three different case categories it is clear that the legislator do not find it proportional to limit the legal
guardians right to decide over their children to the same extent as in LVU
cases and criminal cases.}},
author = {{Bachstätter, Madelene}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Talerätt för barn. En komparation mellan vårdnadsmål, LUV-mål och brottmål}},
year = {{2022}},
}