Criticism of the Social Welfare Committee in Linköping Municipality for its processing of a case involving a girl residing in a home other than her own
Summary of the decision: Child AA lived with her father and his wife, BB, from the age of two until she was 12 years old. During this period AA had limited contact with her mother. The father and BB separated in March 2024, and in June of that year AA began living full-time with BB. In conjunction with this, BB submitted a report of concern and the committee launched an investigation into AA’s residence situation. The investigation was closed in October 2024 without any measures being taken. The decision stated that the committee had proposed a kinship placement with BB, but that AA’s mother refused to consent to the placement.
Several reports of concern for AA’s welfare were received during November and December 2024. It emerged that AA was still residing with BB, and that AA’s mother had still not consented to the placement. The committee did not launch an investigation.
In April 2025, both of AA’s legal guardians consented to AA residing with BB and the committee decided to temporarily place her there. The committee also launched an investigation into placing AA in foster care with BB. At this point, AA had been residing with BB for almost one year.
In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that extensive requirements are placed on a social welfare committee to investigate the reasons why a child cannot continue to reside with their parents, and to clarify the child’s need for protection and support. If, as in AA’s case, the child resides temporarily in a home other than their own, the committee must assess whether the placement can be expected to be short term or permanent. The committee cannot remain passive or await eventual measures on the part of the parents to resolve the matter of residence. If the committee concludes that it is not possible to place a time limit on the placement, there are no legal grounds for allowing the child to remain with, for example, a close relative or anyone else they are close to. As such, the time aspect is critical to how the committee must act.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that, by October 2024, it should already have been apparent to the committee that AA’s stay with BB would not be temporary. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, at this point the committee should have launched an investigation to establish the conditions in BB’s home and the preconditions for placing AA there permanently. The committee is deserving of criticism for failing to do so. In conclusion, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that, as a consequence of the committee’s processing of the case, BB has needlessly been left without remuneration for a very long period of time. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is also critical of this.