"This is one of the most disgraceful abuses
of power we have ever witnessed"
(Mike Donnelly, Home School Legal Defense Association lawyer)
Abducted by the Gotland Authorities in Sweden for Being Homeschooled: Dominic with his mother
A Review of the Egregious December 2009 Court Decision Allowing Social Services to Keep Little Domenic in State Custody
It was one year ago today, June 25, when armed police, at the behest of Social Services of Gotland, stormed an Indian bound jetliner in Stockholm, Sweden, and forcibly removed the Johansson family. Their crime? They had briefly home schooled their only child in a land which looks upon home schooling families with contempt, and just this week passed a new education law making home schooling illegal across the Swedish landscape. This story examines the life of the Johanssons and the December 2009 Swedish Chamber Court Decision which essentially holds a family captive on the Swedish island of Gotland.
When cultures collide
Because his mother is Indian, Domenic grew up somewhat different from the average Swedish child, naturally adopting Indian ways and customs. Annie, the now 8 year-old boy's mother, believes in a simple life where mothers raise their children by hand until school age. Therefore, Annie and her husband Christer never enrolled Domenic in Swedish day care and preschool and were repeatedly harassed by Social Services of Gotland for their choice to raise Domenic at home.
(Click photos to enlarge.)
In Sweden, it is the rare child who does not attend day care soon after birth while mother rejoins the workforce. Domenic and Annie were the exception, and not the rule. Therefore, their way of life attracted attention. Mother and child remained home with each other daily, enjoying the most natural of relationships. Yet shockingly, in the December 2009 court decision to continue holding Domenic in state custody, the fact that Domenic was never placed in day care was held against the family. According to the December 2009 court document, "...the parents have taken a risk with not letting Domenic participate in child care and schooling." When, in the history of humanity, has it been a "risk" for a mother to raise her child at home herself?
"Lives in the shadow"
The court has clearly held Annie's position as a foreigner in Sweden against her. You see, Annie's native tongue is English, yet she has learned to speak and read some Swedish over time since emigrating to the country in 2001. On the other hand, Christer speaks both Swedish and English fluently, as does Domenic. Over the years, Christer has done most of the translating and speaking for Annie. Gotland Socials have interpreted Annie's reliance upon her husband to communicate for her as a weakness, as cited in the December 2009 court document, stating, "Annie Johansson lives in the shadow of her husband." If you moved to a foreign country with your spouse, who grew up in that country, would you not also be heavily reliant upon your spouse if you did not speak the language well? Would such a reliance make you an unfit parent?
Annie received her BA from the University of Poona in 1994 and then her MA from the University of Pune, 1996. She also pursued additional education by earning a First Class diploma in Advertising and Public Relations, also in 1996, from the Bombay Institute of Management Studies, as well as a diploma of Distinction in Information and Systems Management from Aptech Computer Education school in 1998. Yet, Social Services of Gotland managed to convince the Chamber Court judge that while Annie has the "will"to be a good mother, she, a multi-degreed individual, hasn't the "ability." The December 2009 Chamber Court decision states,"Christer Johansson and Annie Johansson have a will to act as good parents but lack ability." Do you have a Masters degree, or perhaps just a Bachelors degree? If so, did your degree take a certain amount of knowledge, self-discipline, maturity and "ability" to obtain?
A bereaved mother's "present state"
According to the Johanssons, in the fall of 2008 Social Services of Gotland began actively investigating and harrassing them after the family notified the local school of their intent to home school Domenic for a brief time prior to their move to India. Compulsory school age is 7 in Sweden. Domenic turned 7 in September of that year. At the time, home schooling was still legal in Sweden. In light of the pending emigration to India, the Johanssons were acting in the best interest of their son by making an educational choice which would naturally minimize disruption to his studies while they moved.
Even though home schooling was at the time legal in Sweden, many in positions of governmental authority are against the practice, as demonstrated just this week when on June 22 the Swedish Parliament approved a new Education Act making home schooling illegal in Sweden. In 2008, the Johanssons were met with resistance to their home school plans from officials at the local Gotland schools, as well as from employees Social Services. Thus, the interrogation and investigation of the Johanssons began. Because it was their legal right, the Johanssons stood their ground and home schooled Domenic through his first school age year.
By the school year's end, the harassment from Social Services took its toll on Annie, but she persevered nonetheless. However, since Sweden has "kidnapped" her son, Annie's health has greatly deteriorated, as noted in the December 2009 decision, "Her present state strongly affects her ability to be a parent."
Let's consider this in context: By December 2009, the Johansson family had been terrorized by the Social Board of Gotland for more than sixteen months; had their home swarmed and searched by armed Swedish police; had been pursued by armed police, at the request of the Social Board, to the very tip of the tarmac at an international airport; had watched helplessly as armed police stormed the jetliner upon which they were passengers; had been forcibly removed from the airplane; once back in the airport had been tricked into allowing the Socials to separate Domenic from them by stating they were simply taking him "to the room next door" only to find out minutes later that he had been wisked out of the airport and was headed back to Gotland and into forced foster care. They had endured numerous meetings with the Socials pleading for the return of their son; were lied to when told he'd be returned in three days; were accused of neglecting him because of two cavities discovered in his baby teeth, after the fact, during those three days in state custody; they'd been through three levels of court cases attempting to have their son returned to them; they'd not been allowed to see their son except for one hour every five weeks. All of this trauma perpetrated by the state, and the Chamber Court judges Annie's fitness as a parent based upon her "present state." How ironic that the same people who created terror and chaos in the Johansson's lives are those who now claim that Annie is unfit to parent in her "present state." The Swedish Social Services of Gotland have violated and torn apart a peaceful and loving family. Now they punish that family for their suffering.
Parent's agony labeled "lack of skill" during supervised visits
The December 2009 decision indicates that Domenic and his parents do not know how to interact with each other during state-supervised visits. Specifically, the document states, "Both Christer and Annie Johansson show a lack of skill...There is a lack of dialogue and interaction from both sides."
Since Domenic's seizure, Annie and Christer have battled the fight of a lifetime against forces with seemingly unlimited power and resources. They are allowed to see their only child for one state-supervised hour every five weeks, and are permitted to speak with him for one state-monitored ten minute telephone call every two weeks. During these times of fleeting interaction with their son, Annie and Christer are severely restricted in what they can say and do in Domenic's presence and they are watched constantly.
During one visit, Annie, overwhelmed by her emotions at seeing her son after such a long separation, began to cry. Instead of understanding and sympathizing with the pain Domenic, Annie and Christer were experiencing, the attending social worker threatened them, telling them if Annie cried again the visit would end immediately. Can you imagine being threatened to lose your one precious hour every five weeks with your child simply because you've behaved naturally, as a brokenhearted mother who is losing her child? Is it any wonder all three of them, Domenic, Annie and Christer, don't know what to say or how to conduct themselves under the ever present microscope of an attending social worker? Yet, in the December Chamber Court decision, this family is accused of having a "lack of skill" in meeting each other under impossible conditions. Again, this family is punished for suffering created by the state.
How far must we stretch our imagination to understand the strain a parent-child relationship suffers once social services removes a child from his home? Since their separation, Domenic, Annie and Christer have suffered great turmoil and impossible adjustments. Looking forward to beginning his new life with his parents and large family in India, Domenic instead was forced to live in a stranger's house in Sweden. At the time he would have begun school in India, he was forced to begin school in Sweden. On his 8th birthday, the heartbroken boy was denied permission to see his parents. When his first Christmas away from home arrived, he was again denied permission to visit or even talk by telephone with the parents he's always loved and adored. Instead, Domenic was forced to celebrate his birthday and the holiday season with strangers while the social workers surrounded themselves with family, friends and loved ones.
There are other restrictions, as well. The Johanssons are not allowed to bring gifts or treats for Domenic. Christer's elderly father and wheelchair-bound mother, Domenic's grandparents, close and dear to him since birth, accompany the family to the state-supervised visits. Unaccountably, at times these gentle people found themselves kept out of the visiting room. No explanation or reason given.
According to the Johanssons, the family has been instructed always to smile when they see Domenic and never to talk about the separation. In essence, they are expected to act as if everything is perfectly fine when they see their son. They are not at liberty to tell Domenic that they do not agree with his living in foster care. They are not at liberty to tell him they are fighting to bring him home. Instead, according to the Johanssons, they are to interact with their son in such a manner that would obviously lead little Domenic to believe his removal from his family is perfectly acceptable to his mother and father.
We have no idea, however, what social workers are telling Domenic. If his mother and father are not allowed to speak of the separation and are not allowed to tell Domenic they are fighting for him, does that not leave Domenic to wonder what his parents are thinking? Doesn't that leave a little boy totally confused about what has happened and at the mercy of whatever message the social workers and foster parents choose to tell him? Children often naturally blame themselves for family difficulties. If Annie and Christer are not allowed to reassure Domenic that he is loved, cherished and wanted back home, isn't this little boy open to very serious and long-term psychological damage? We also wonder what might be happening in Domenic's foster life which perhaps he has been forbidden to share with his parents.
It is clear why Domenic, Annie and Christer do not know what to say or do when they see each other. This family has become nothing more than puppets on the strings of a heartless puppeteer. They've been threatened into doing and saying as little as possible when visiting Domenic. The question remains: what has Domenic been told or gone through which has caused him to no longer interact naturally with his parents? Why does Domenic now suffer huge gaps in his memory, as noted by his distressed parents?
National Health Care - How a man's conscientious efforts to regain health were used against him
Sweden is a socialist country. The country's health care is administered by the government, as opposed to private health care where patients enjoy doctor patient privacy. In a socialist system, your health record is the government's business.
In the Domenic Johansson case, Christer's health records from years previous were eventually used against him. After the earth quake and the family's emigration back to Sweden, Christer suffered a major depressive episode. Yet he did the right thing. He recognized his condition and sought help from the Swedish health system. After a psychiatric evaluation, Christer received the anti-depressant medication Seroxat (also known as Paxil). Unfortunatly, this drug can have severe side effects and Christer fell victim to some of its worst, including dependency.
Once more, Christer did the right thing. He recognized his further deteriorating condition and sought help from the Swedish health system again, at which time he was offered the popular Swedish depression remedy: Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). A well informed and intelligent man, Christer already knew the dangers of ECT and turned the psychiatric clinic's offered remedy down. Christer found he had only one choice: to wean himself off Paxil, which he succeeded in doing over several months.
Unfortunately for Christer, health records of Swedish citizens are not private. Any government agency or employee, it seems, can obtain a citizen's records. As in countless other state child protective cases, Christer's health records were obtained by Visby Social Services and the often conflicting diagnoses of Christer's mental health condition in 2003 and 2004 have been used against him in 2009. In response, Christer requested a new psychiatric evaluation. Dated October 11, 2009, the newest psychiatric evaluation documents the history of Christer's struggles and provides a new evaluation and conclusion by Visby Adult Neuropsychiatry Department. According to the report, which was submitted in full to the Chamber Court, Christer is said to be healthy and completely free of any mental illness or other diagnosis.
Even with this latest psychiatric evaluation demonstrating Christer's depressive illness, as well as the severe side effects he'd suffered from the psychiatric medications are safely in the past, the court continued to insist in its December decision that Christer suffers from psychiatric illness. Surprisingly, the written decision attributes this "diagnosis" as "...according to the social services' understanding a factor that affects Christer Johansson's ability to care." Evidently, the opinion of a professional psychiatrist with Visby Adult Neuropsychiatry Department holds little weight in the Chamber Court at Stockholm over an"understanding" by personnel at Social Services of Gotland.
Terrorized into submission
While Annie and Christer stood their ground against Visby Social Services of Gotland in defense of their parental rights to raise and school Domenic at home, after the boy was seized the Swedish LVU system soon had Annie and Christer terrorized into complete submission. As recorded in the December 2009 Chamber Court decision, Christer was obviously a man brought to his knees.
The Decision records Christer as agreeing to everything Social Services of Gotland demanded. The Johanssons agreed to enroll Domenic in school, to obtain all immunizations, to provide any other health and psychiatric care deemed necessary by the social board for Domenic. They even went so far as to agree with the social board that Domenic was psychologically delayed as a direct result of not attending day care, preschool and the first grade. The Johanssons were exactly where Visby Social Services wanted them: in complete submission. A Court truly concerned with the child’s wellbeing, however misguided, would here have concluded that with full cooperation from the family in every possible therapeutic suggestion, the need to remove the child should no longer exist. But this was not the aim of the Social Services.
Catch 22: cruelty at its utmost
By December 2009, six months after their precious son was ripped from them, Christer was a man willing to cooperate fully with Visby Social Services, in an effort to restore Domenic to his family. In a sworn statement before the Chamber Courts, this father agreed to follow the entire care planned devised for Domenic, with the exception that Domenic's care be provided while he continued to live in mandatory foster care. The Johanssons were willing to do everything and anything Social Services of Gotland demanded, so they might finally have their son restored home.
The most cruel aspect of this case is boldly recorded in the December 2009 Court decision. In a Catch 22 scenario, the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, which includes mandatory foster care; and the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, with the exception of mandatory foster care. In conclusion, the court wrote, "Question is therefore if needed care can be given voluntarily. In the care plan is, among other things, said that Domenic should be placed in a foster home which Annie Johansson and Christer Johansson have not agreed to. Chamber Court can therefore state that needed consent to needed care is not present. In such a case, the Provincial Court’s decision to give Domenic care according to LVU should stand. The appeals should therefore be denied."
In other words, the Johanssons submitted to every demand of the Social Services of Gotland. Those demands included what some would describe as a coerced court admission that they had made wrong choices for Domenic as accused by Social Services. The demands also included that the Johanssons must agree to everything in the LVU care plan, including mandatory foster care for their son. Therefore, they were damned if they submitted to all demands and damned if they did not. The maximum possible compliance was obtained from this suffering family, including denying their own natural way of life. Then, when they were in complete submission, they were denied everything.
How to understand this case?
The plain and simple facts are these: A loved, fortunate and healthy child was taken without legal process from his parents for indeterminate (and faulty) ideological reasons. His family was then punished for the trauma they had experienced, and because they did not simply acquiesce in the loss of their child. There is nothing legal, nothing logical, and nothing just in this scenario. That it could happen in a modern and supposedly democratic nation defies belief. Any free citizen of good will, in any country of the world, should be concerned when a government has the power to act in this way unhindered. This case should concern all of us. All parents, all families, and all who believe in human rights and human dignity.
Article (in Swedish) from the National Daily Newspaper Expressen
Links in Swedish and English to the Johansson story
Help reunite this persecuted family!
By Don Hank
Christer and Annie Johannson are a Swedish couple from Gotland that attempted last year to home school their son Dominic, a bright and happy 7 year old, just prior to their leaving the country to take up residence in India. They made all the right moves, informing the school of their plans.
Home schooling was — and still is — legal in Sweden (there is discussion about banning it) and when Christer asked the principal of the local elementary school if he could supply some teaching materials, he agreed to do so.
But in the meantime, some locals decided that these parents should not be allowed to do this. The reasons for this are no more clear than they are legal, but Christer was once involved in an alternative on-line news mag that expressed politically incorrect ideas and as near as anyone can tell, this was the reason his home schooling plans were opposed.
When Christer went back to the principal to get the materials, he was told that he would not supply any materials and that Dominic must go to school.
The Johannsons insisted that the principal keep his promise. The drama quickly escalated and soon the local social services imposed a fine of 250 kronor per day that Dominic was not in school. This did not intimidate the Johannsons, because they knew they were within their rights under Swedish law.
But the Gotland authorities unanimously stood against them and eventually the court got involved and decided that while the school board had violated some of the parents’ rights, they still would have to send Dominic to school.
The Johannsons were on the plane, which was due to leave the gate in one minute when the Swedish police descended on it. Like commandos, they stormed the plane and took Dominic into custody, without stating any reason for doing so. Dominic was so traumatized he later threw up. Annie later fell unconscious to the floor of the police station. The police did nothing to help. Four days later, she stopped breathing in front of social workers, who also did absolutely nothing to help.
Can you even imagine this insanity?
The full story is given below (NOTE: the English version is below the Swedish version), but please come back after you have read it so you can help get Dominic back home where he belongs:
I called Christer some time after this happened and we had a long talk. He had not seen Dominic in a while, was only allowed short visits and had spent the night before and most of the that day crying. Annie has been in bed with a heart condition that was exacerbated by the abduction of their son. (Tonight Christer emailed me that he had fallen into a state of semiconsciousness with an irregular heart rhythm.)
I was very impressed by what a kind and gentle person Christer was. He told me “ever since I was born I have only wanted to help people.” He described how he had traveled to help earthquake victims in India in 2000. He had, unfortunately, been thwarted by the large unruly crowds and was unable to help. I am not easily fooled, but I knew this was a genuinely good man with a kind heart. We both broke down crying when I ended the conversation telling him that God loves him, Dominic and Annie, that this was part of God’s plan and that everything would be all right.
I promised that because I know my readers and know that you will help.
After this conversation, I wrote an email to the Swedish authorities, and would like you to do the same. Please, if you have limited time, just write in the subject line “Please return Dominic Johannson to his parents. Thanks”
Dear Reader, Christer and Annie are actually giving you a rare privilege to help reunite a frightened little boy with his parents who love him with all their hearts. Remember what Jesus said: inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me.
These words are just as true today as they were 2,000 years ago. God will bless you for just taking a few moments out of your busy day and sending an email to the Swedish authorities pleading their case. Pray that God will give you the words to write and then pray that the icy hearts of the authorities will be melted by reading these words.
Here are the emails of some of the authorities involved. The first two, Sofi Rosenqvist and Caroline Palmqvist, are the ones responsible for the decision to separate Dominic from his parents. The third is Lena Celion, a politician who thinks that kidnapping was the right thing to do. Apparently, according to her statements in the interview, she thinks children have a right to go to school but not necessarily to be with their parents and definitely not to be home-schooled by people who care about them rather than taught by strangers teaching for money.
Please tell them your opinion of their thoughtless actions, but be as polite as you can. YES, THEY ALL READ ENGLISH!
Pattern in Swedish here:
Hej pa er,
var vänlig och ge Dominic Johansson tilbaka till sin föräldrar.
Hälsningar fran USA
The 4th is the address for a politician who may be able to help. To save time you can copy them all into your browser at once.
Here is some contact info for Swedish government officials:
I especially recommend the Swedish Ministry of Education and Research. Send at least one email to the Minister of Education, but there are others too here:
Then if you have time left, please send a few words of encouragement to Christer and Annie:
Finally here is a petition supporting the right to homeschool in Sweden:
Now, there is one more job and it is the most important: Pray that God will have His way here and that this experience, as terrible as it has been for this family, will bring them closer together and will bring them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, who, as you recall, told the stoners “whoever is without sin, cast the first stone,” and THEN said to the woman: “go and sin no more.”
My letter to the Swedish authorities:
I am a friend of Christer Johannson and have seen several documents pertaining to his case, namely, the seizure of his son Dominic by the Socjaltjänst in Gotland.
It is obvious that the authorities have misrepresented the Johannsons’ case to the public and I would like to help shed light on this.
Please consider, for example, the following misleading article:
In an attempt to whitewash perpetrators in a sensational case of child abuse, this article ignores important facts of the case, such as the following.
I remind you that a few years ago, at the time of the great tsunami, it was widely reported that Swedish pedophiles had been flocking to Thailand as a place to have sex with boys, some of them quite young.
At that time many people here in America were outraged that the authorities in Sweden had done nothing to stop these evil criminals.
Now in an ironic twist, the Swedish government is trying to stop good, loving parents from traveling to Asia to give their child a better life and to steep him in a culture that will teach him diversity first hand — something he could never accomplish in Sweden with its rigid attitudes and dictatorial polices. Many of us are starting to see a pattern here: In Sweden, pedophilia is viewed with tolerance, but parents who wish to give their children the best possible life are considered criminals. Do you not see something terribly wrong here?
I am absolutely baffled at these actions on the part of the Swedish government. How can they be justified?
I ask that particularly in view of the fact that, as I understand it, Dominic vomited when the police seized him and separated him violently from his parents. The police apparently did nothing to intervene. From what I have learned about child psychology, one of the most clear-cut signs that a child is being severely abused is vomiting. Clearly, the authorities abused this child.
Now, imagine a child whose loving parents come to school and force him to come home with them for the day. Can you imagine a child under these circumstances being so traumatized by his parents that he throws up? Of course you can’t. Yet the authorities continue to insist that what they did was good for the child.
The fact that the people who made the decision occupy positions of power in government does nothing to mitigate their guilt. Rather it exacerbates the heinousness of the crime they committed.
Further, instead of remedying the severe trauma done to Dominic by quickly reuniting him with his parents, the authorities further traumatize him by banning further contact with the parents and allowing only very short “visits.” It is my understanding that Dominic, who was very close to his parents and had a warm and loving relationship, was so traumatized that he hardly responded to his father’s first words when they were reunited under very strained and difficult circumstances. This is a clear indication that the child was brainwashed to alienate him from his own parents — another instance of cruel child abuse.
Despite the misleading article linked above, there is nothing noble about this act on the part of the officials, no excuse whatsoever. They pose as champions of children’s rights but that is hypocritical. No human being with a beating heart could call their action by any other name except kidnapping and no one who knows the Johannsons’ story will call it “protecting children” or think of these pompous officials as heroes. Through their incompetence, these authorities may well have destroyed this child’s trust in others for the rest of his life! Every one of them deserves to be fired.
What strikes me about this case is that, here, for the first time, a country other than Germany has adopted such an inhuman approach to ‘child protection.’ In Germany, there are several grassroots groups (I am a member of one) that have arisen to oppose these tactics and it is common knowledge that the authorities there (das Jugendamt) began to use these cruel tactics around the time of the Third Reich.
Now my question to the Swedish government is this:
Why are you reverting to the cruel tactics of the Third Reich? Do you not have the imagination, natural kindness and good will to devise a family-friendly and child-friendly way to deal with unique and special families like the Johannsons? Can’t you tolerate a dissenting viewpoint? After all, the Johannsons represent true diversity, not the stultifying politically correct type that is rammed down children’s throats in schools throughout Europe by ideologically indoctrinated teachers, many of whom have never traveled abroad or lived in a foreign culture.
Finally, is Hitler not officially condemned throughout Europe? If so, then why does Sweden — like Germany — now wish to resurrect his cruel policies that led to so much misery in Europe?
We thought we had rid the world of him. But now it seems he is back.
Förespråkare för hemundervisning rasar mot omhändertagandet av sjuåring
Socialtjänsten på Gotland har hamnat i hetluften efter omhändertagandet av en 7-årig pojke i somras. Förespråkare för hemundervisning världen över rasar över beslutet.
äger Marika Gardell, chef för individ- och familjeomsorgen.
Det var i slutet av juni den 7-årige pojken omhändertogs under uppmärksammade former i samband med att familjen skulle flytta utomlands.
Det skäl som i första hand nämndes var att föräldrarna vägrat att låta pojken gå i skola. Men skälen var fler och det framkom också i den dom från den 13 augusti där länsrätten slår fast att pojken ska beredas vård enligt LVU (lag om vård av unga).
I domen nämns både fysiska omsorgsbrister och psykiska omsorgsbrister, bland annat i form av isolering, samt att pojken isolerats från kunskapsinlärning.
- Hemundervisning är i sig inget skäl för omhändertagande enligt LVU, det är dessutom ingen fråga för socialtjänsten, säger Marika Gardell, som blivit måltavla för den storm av protester som strömmat mot Gotland sedan händelsen blivit internationellt känd.
Bland annat har organisationen HSLDA, Home School Legal Defense Association, med säte i USA engagerat sig hårt i fallet. I förra veckan fick såväl Marika Gardell som ett flertal av Sveriges ministrar ett brev som i skarpa ordalag kritiserade "tvångsomhändertagande av barn av hemundervisningsskäl".
- Det har kommit extremt mycket mejl och brev den senaste tiden, från hela världen. Jag har inte en chans att hinna svara på alla, säger Marika Gardell.
Men hon vill gärna tydliggöra att det inte var på grund av hemundervisningen som pojken omhändertogs.
- Det måste finnas andra saker när ett sådant beslut fattas, säger hon.
Det kan handla om brister i föräldraförmågan eller en tillfällig sådan brist.
I brevet från HSLDA skriver man att "godtyckliga" skäl används vid omhändertaganden. Marika Gardell menar att det inte är möjligt att fatta beslut enligt LVU på godtycklig grund.
- Det sker i så många steg och slutgiltigt är det alltid en domstol som tar beslutet, säger hon.
Den 7-årige pojken är fortfarande omhändertagen, men föräldrarna får träffa honom.
- Umgänge med föräldrarna medges alltid, såvida det inte inte handlar om övergreppsproblematik, säger Marika Gardell.
Pojkens föräldrar har överklagat domen om omhändertagande till kammarrätten. Beslut därifrån väntas senare i höst.
Eva Carlsson Daun
En rättighet att gå i skola"
Politiker tar strid för pojke
Barn och utbildningsnä mnden tar strid om den 7-åriga pojke som inte får gå i skolan för sina föräldrar.
Till en början beslutade länsrätten att föräldrarna skulle betala 250 kronor om dagen. När det inte hjälpte, tyckte länsrätten att det inte var någon idé att fortsätta kräva pengar av föräldrarna.
A pretty amazing story about Swedish government social workers targeting a family and taking away a child due to what looks like trumped up charges, but who can really know unless they're involved in the case? Although I work in public schools, I do agree that parents have a right to home-school their children. In fact, if we're not careful, we may see parents completely bypassing public schools because they have access to better technologies and resources than K-12 education facilities.
I slutet av december toppade tv-kanalen CBN News sina tv-sändningar med nyheten om den gotländska pojken Dominic Johansson.
”Polisen kidnappade familjens Johanssons barn på flygplatsen”, sa man i reportaget som tog upp bland annat att Dominic inte fick fira jul hos sina föräldrar eftersom socialtjänsten har infört begränsningar i umgänget.
I inslaget intervjuas även Roger Kiska, advokat, från organisationen Alliance defense fund som arbetar hårt för att återförena familjen Johansson.
– Man behöver mer än vaccination och hemundervisning för att hålla pojken, säger han.
Nyhetsreportern Paul Strand rapporterade från Washington att Alliance defense fund är oroliga över att omhändertaganden liknande det svenska fallet även kan komma att äga rum i USA om landet skriver under FN:s barnkonvention.
– Det är en socialiststat som försöker ge alla familjer en ideologi som många inte delar, särskilt inte kristna, säger Roger Kiska, till CBN News.