Civilrättsligt vårdnadsansvar i straffrättsligt ljus - Om vårdnadsansvarets inverkan på den straffrättsliga tillåtligheten i gärningar som vårdnadshavare förövar mot sina barn
(2022) JURM02 20222Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Enligt föräldrabalken (FB) kap. 6 har vårdnadshavare ett långtgående ansvar för sina barn, vilket exempelvis innefattar en skyldighet att tillgodose barnets behov, skyldighet att utöva tillsyn över barnet samt vidtagandet av lämpliga åtgärder för att förhindra att barnet orsakar skada. Därutöver har vårdnadshavare såväl rätt som skyldighet att bestämma i frågor som rör barnets personliga angelägenheter. En fråga som uppstår i sammanhanget är vilken straffrättslig betydelse detta ansvar får i fråga om tillåtligheten i gärningar som vårdnadshavare begår mot sina barn vid barnuppfostran. Vid sökandet efter svar i förarbeten, doktrin och praxis kan dock med enkelhet konstateras att stor oenighet råder i frågan.
I uppsatsen konstateras,... (More) - Enligt föräldrabalken (FB) kap. 6 har vårdnadshavare ett långtgående ansvar för sina barn, vilket exempelvis innefattar en skyldighet att tillgodose barnets behov, skyldighet att utöva tillsyn över barnet samt vidtagandet av lämpliga åtgärder för att förhindra att barnet orsakar skada. Därutöver har vårdnadshavare såväl rätt som skyldighet att bestämma i frågor som rör barnets personliga angelägenheter. En fråga som uppstår i sammanhanget är vilken straffrättslig betydelse detta ansvar får i fråga om tillåtligheten i gärningar som vårdnadshavare begår mot sina barn vid barnuppfostran. Vid sökandet efter svar i förarbeten, doktrin och praxis kan dock med enkelhet konstateras att stor oenighet råder i frågan.
I uppsatsen konstateras, utifrån den rättsdogmatiska metoden, att vårdnadsansvaret kan tänkas få betydelse på flera sätt, om än att påverkansomfånget är svårbestämt. Inledningsvis torde vårdnadsansvaret kunna inverka som ett slags tolkningsfaktor vid bedömningen av om en gärning överhuvudtaget är brottsbeskrivningsenlig. Här kan tänkas att vårdnadsansvarets innehåll får betydelse vid tolkningen av om mer öppet avfattade rekvisit är uppfyllda, vilket exem-pelvis skulle kunna påverka huruvida ett visst agerande anses utgöra ofredande. Vidare bör vårdnadsansvaret, beroende på huruvida FB 6:2 st. 2 eller FB 6:11 anses direkt tillämpliga, få betydelse på såväl A1- som A2-nivå genom att utgöra sådant lagstöd som utesluter brottsbeskrivningsenlighet eller som rättfärdigar gärningar på A2-nivå. Även om direkt tillämpning av FB 6:11 bör kunna uteslutas med säkerhet, framstår det inte som lika givet avseende FB 6:2 st. 2, eftersom det ändå finns stöd för dess tillämpning i doktrin och förarbeten. Samtidigt skall framhävas att bestämmelsen vållar tolkningssvårigheter av sådan grad att det knappast går att avgöra vad bestämmelsen skulle tillåta, vilket i kombination med avsaknaden av tydlig avsikt i förarbetena kring bestämmelsens direkta tillämpning, gör direkt tillämpning högst tvivelaktig.
Därutöver, i analogi med NJA 2009 s. 776, bör vårdnadsansvaret, och då mer specifikt tillsynsplikten, kunna inverka på de försvarlighetsbedömningar som företas enligt brottsbalken (BrB) 24:1 och 24:4, även om omfånget av denna påverkan framstår som högst svårbestämt. Slutligen, och primärt om FB 6:2 inte anses direkt tillämplig, bör vårdnadshavarpositionen och vårdnadsansvarets innehåll få betydelse som en av flera relevanta omständigheter vid bedömningen av om en vårdnadshavares gärning mot dennes barn är tillåten enligt läran om social adekvans. Detta innebärande att utrymmet för oskriven ansvarsfrihet är större för vårdnadshavare än för andra, även om detta utrymme inte kan avgränsas generellt. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Under chapter 6 of the Parental Code (FB), custodians have a far-reaching responsibility for their children. This includes, for example, meeting the child's needs, a duty to exercise needed supervision, and taking appropriate measures to prevent the child from causing harm. Furthermore, custodians have both a right and duty to decide in questions concerning the child's personal matters. A question which arises in this context, is what impact this responsibility has on the criminal permissibility of acts that custodians commit against their children when raising them. When seeking answers in preparatory works, legal doctrine and case law, one can easily conclude that there is disagreement in this concern.
In this essay, using the legal... (More) - Under chapter 6 of the Parental Code (FB), custodians have a far-reaching responsibility for their children. This includes, for example, meeting the child's needs, a duty to exercise needed supervision, and taking appropriate measures to prevent the child from causing harm. Furthermore, custodians have both a right and duty to decide in questions concerning the child's personal matters. A question which arises in this context, is what impact this responsibility has on the criminal permissibility of acts that custodians commit against their children when raising them. When seeking answers in preparatory works, legal doctrine and case law, one can easily conclude that there is disagreement in this concern.
In this essay, using the legal dogmatic method, it is concluded that the custodial responsibility could impact criminal permissibility in several ways, although the scope of this impact is difficult to determine. Initially, the custodial responsibility ought to affect the assessment of whether an act fulfills a crime description at all. In this regard, it is likely that the contents of the custodial responsibility itself could affect the interpretation of more openly formulated conditions in a crime description, affecting for example whether an act consti-tutes harassment. Furthermore, depending on whether one considers FB 6:2 para. 2 or FB 6:11 as directly applicable, the custodial responsibility could impact permissibility on both A1- and A2 level by either constituting such legal support that precludes conditions such as "olovligen", or by constituting justifying circumstances on the A2-level. Although direct application of FB 6:11 ought to be ruled out with certainty, this is not as given regarding FB 6:2 para. 2, since support of such application can be found in both doctrine and preparatory works. The provision does however give rise to substantial interpretational difficulties to an extent that one hardly can conclude what the provision would permit, which combined with the fact that one cannot extract any clear intention for the provision's direct applicability in preparatory works, makes direct application highly doubtful.
Furthermore, in analogy with NJA 2009 p. 776, the custodial responsibility, and more specifically the duty of supervision, could affect the assessments of justifiability which are to be conducted according to the Criminal Code (BrB) 24:1 and 24:4, although the scope of this impact is hard to define. Lastly, and primarily if one considers FB 6:2 unapplicable, the assumption of the role of custodian, and the contents of the custodial responsibility itself, are to be considered as one of several circumstances when assessing whether an act is to be considered as permitted according to the principle of social adequacy. This by making the room for unwritten permissibility larger for custodians than others, although the scope of this permissibility cannot be generally defined. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9104590
- author
- Österberg, John LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Civil custodial responsibility from a criminal law perspective - The impact of custodial responsibility on the criminal permissibility of acts committed by custodians against their children
- course
- JURM02 20222
- year
- 2022
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, vårdnadsansvar, social adekvans
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9104590
- date added to LUP
- 2023-01-24 08:58:32
- date last changed
- 2023-01-24 08:58:32
@misc{9104590,
abstract = {{Under chapter 6 of the Parental Code (FB), custodians have a far-reaching responsibility for their children. This includes, for example, meeting the child's needs, a duty to exercise needed supervision, and taking appropriate measures to prevent the child from causing harm. Furthermore, custodians have both a right and duty to decide in questions concerning the child's personal matters. A question which arises in this context, is what impact this responsibility has on the criminal permissibility of acts that custodians commit against their children when raising them. When seeking answers in preparatory works, legal doctrine and case law, one can easily conclude that there is disagreement in this concern.
In this essay, using the legal dogmatic method, it is concluded that the custodial responsibility could impact criminal permissibility in several ways, although the scope of this impact is difficult to determine. Initially, the custodial responsibility ought to affect the assessment of whether an act fulfills a crime description at all. In this regard, it is likely that the contents of the custodial responsibility itself could affect the interpretation of more openly formulated conditions in a crime description, affecting for example whether an act consti-tutes harassment. Furthermore, depending on whether one considers FB 6:2 para. 2 or FB 6:11 as directly applicable, the custodial responsibility could impact permissibility on both A1- and A2 level by either constituting such legal support that precludes conditions such as "olovligen", or by constituting justifying circumstances on the A2-level. Although direct application of FB 6:11 ought to be ruled out with certainty, this is not as given regarding FB 6:2 para. 2, since support of such application can be found in both doctrine and preparatory works. The provision does however give rise to substantial interpretational difficulties to an extent that one hardly can conclude what the provision would permit, which combined with the fact that one cannot extract any clear intention for the provision's direct applicability in preparatory works, makes direct application highly doubtful.
Furthermore, in analogy with NJA 2009 p. 776, the custodial responsibility, and more specifically the duty of supervision, could affect the assessments of justifiability which are to be conducted according to the Criminal Code (BrB) 24:1 and 24:4, although the scope of this impact is hard to define. Lastly, and primarily if one considers FB 6:2 unapplicable, the assumption of the role of custodian, and the contents of the custodial responsibility itself, are to be considered as one of several circumstances when assessing whether an act is to be considered as permitted according to the principle of social adequacy. This by making the room for unwritten permissibility larger for custodians than others, although the scope of this permissibility cannot be generally defined.}},
author = {{Österberg, John}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Civilrättsligt vårdnadsansvar i straffrättsligt ljus - Om vårdnadsansvarets inverkan på den straffrättsliga tillåtligheten i gärningar som vårdnadshavare förövar mot sina barn}},
year = {{2022}},
}