The Social Welfare Committee in Svedala Municipality and the SiS special residential home for young people in Eknäs are severely criticised for unlawfully providing care under the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act in a secure unit. The Administrative Court in Malmö is also sharply criticised

Summary of the decision: The Social Welfare Committee in Svedala Municipality applied for a child who had been taken into care on an emergency basis under Sections 3 and 6 of the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act (SFS 1990:52) to be cared for in a secure unit at the Swedish National Board of Institutional Care (SiS) special residential home for young people in Eknäs under Sections 2 and 3 of the same act. In its verdict, the Administrative Court in Malmö decided that the child should be taken into care based solely on Section 2 of the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act. This means that the child is no longer receiving care pursuant to Section 3 of the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act, and can therefore not be confined to a secure unit. However, neither the Social Welfare Committee nor the residential home noticed the omission when they were notified of the decision and the child was confined to the secure unit for a further 13 days without legal grounds.

In their decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that there are obviously serious gaps in the knowledge of the committee regarding the application of the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act, and that the committee has not shouldered its responsibility for the care of the child. The committee is therefore severely criticised by the parliamentary Ombudsman.

According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the special residential home in Eknäs should have checked whether, in light of the verdict, there were still legal grounds for caring for the child in a secure unit. As there were not, the residential home should have taken immediate measures. This did not occur until several days later, for which the residential home in Eknäs is also severely criticised by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
The Administrative Court in Malmö does not escape criticism in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision, as the court’s verdict stated where the child was to be placed.