frsrdg · H304JO1 · 2015-11-06 00:00:00 — According to Chapter 11, Section 4 of the Act, the board is obliged to complete such an investigation and decide over the case, even when the child has moved to another municipality. This provision is to ensure that the child does not “fall into the cracks” when moving during an investigation. The new municipality is obliged to assist with the investigation when requested to do so. Under certain conditions, an ongoing case can also be transferred to the new municipality. In this case, failed in its investigatory obligation by concluding the investigation concerning the girl without setting out which interventions she was in need of and without making any contact with the new municipality. According to the JO, this gives the im- pression that the district board was more interested in the chance of “getting rid of the problem” when the girl moved than its obligation to ensure that the in- vestigation it had begun was completed. The district board is seriously criti- cised for how it handled this case. Criticism of the Department in Municipality for an unannounced home visit to a parent in connection with the other parent collecting a child they have together (4076-2013) During a childcare investigation concerning a one-year-old girl, two case work- ers from the Department made an unannounced home visit to the girl’s father. The visit was conducted together with the child’s mother and maternal grandmother in conjunction with the mother collecting the child after a visitation. The purpose of the visit was to observe both the handing over of the girl and the girl’s “state and situation at the father’s home by reason of expressed concern”. Representatives of the public must observe objectivity and impartiality in their official activities. A home visit conducted to clarify the situation of a child, and whether an intervention by the authority is necessary, involves such an exercise of public authority that it is usually inappropriate for a party other than the authority’s representatives to participate in the visit. In this incident, the case workers found themselves in a situation where the father obviously perceived the case workers involvement as siding with the mother. This is unacceptable. Department is reprimanded for its actions. Criticism against the Individual and in the Municipality of due to a parent not being offered the chance to participate in a child welfare investigation (2653-2013) Following a report due to concern from a four-year-old girl’s preschool, the social services decided both to initiate a child welfare investigation and to file a report which concerned suspicions that the girl’s father acted violently towards his daughter when she was staying with him. At that time, the girl had, at least periodically, been living alternately with both parents since they had joint custody of her. The father was arrested and put into custody, but was re- leased several weeks later. The child welfare investigation was conducted and concluded without a personal interview with the father. He complained to JO because, amongst other reasons, he did not have the chance to speak during the 2 015 /1 6:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N JO maintains that, when an investigation involves a child’s situ- ation in a parent’s home, the committee will obtain information from the parent as a matter of course. Admittedly, the committee cannot force anyone to take part in the investigation. On the other hand, it is important that the committee makes it clear to the parent that it is important that he or she contributes infor- mation to the investigation. In JO’s opinion, the committee cannot be satisfied with just making one single attempt to make contact; this is something that the committee should be doing continuously whilst the investigation is in progress. Several of the measures that the social services’ investigators state were taken during the investigation in question are not documented in the journal notes. This has led to the committee having difficulties in reporting their processing of the case. Based on that stated by the committee, JO notes however that on no occasion was the father summoned in writing to a meeting with the investi- gators; nor did the investigators in any other way clearly offer him a chance to meet with them. Admittedly it has been said that the father became aware of certain documents and information during the investigation, and that he did not state any views nor make any objections. The results of the completed investi- gation were also communicated without him stating any particular views. if he was given the opportunity to have his say, JO believes that the investiga- tors should also have called him in for an interview or, in some other way, offered him a chance to participate in the investigation. All in all, there have been serious shortcomings in the processing of this child welfare investigation. is criticised for the shortcomings cited above. Criticism of in Municipality, which decided to rehouse 16-year-old unaccompanied minors, without the views of the minors having been heard in the case (4860-2013) Five unaccompanied minors were placed voluntarily in a children’s home. There was a turbulent situation at the home during the summer of 2013 and the social welfare service decided to find new accommodation for the minors, who were at the time. The social welfare service was in discussion about the relocation with the minors’ custodians, who were appointed to repre- sent the minors in place of their legal guardians. The custodians were then in- formed about the planned move. In cases administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act, a minor who has reached the age of 15 has the right to plead their own case. The minor then also becomes party to the Consequently, the custodian no longer solely represents the unaccompa- Accordingly, the social welfare service should also have spoken to the minors before making its decision in order to establish whether they con- sented to being rehoused. is being criticised for hav- ing ignored the basic provisions of the Social Services Act concerning how cases involving minors who have reached the age of 15 are to be administered. T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 015 /1 6:JO1 Report against the social services administration in the Municipality of regarding the processing of a case concerning social assistance; issue concerning the acquisition of information from the Internet (2611-2013) In a case concerned with social assistance, the case worker acquired certain information regarding the aid applicant from the Internet. In JO’s opinion, there are no formal obstacles to prevent the social services, within the scope of their investigating claims for social assistance, from acquiring from the Internet pub- lic, i.e., publicly accessible, information regarding aids applicants. does JO see any formal obstacles to this happening without the applicant’s consent. However, even if no consent is required, the social services should inform ap- plicants that they may acquire or check information via the Internet. The fun- damental principles that apply to the activities of the social services are also to be observed in the acquisition of information from the Internet. The starting point is therefore that the investigation is to be conducted in consultation with the individual in question. Furthermore, the investigation is to be conducted with respect for the individual’s right of self-determination and their integrity. In the light of this, the social services should not, in JO’s opinion, devote them- selves generally, and as a matter of routine to searching for information about an individual aid applicant. The Internet should only come into the equation when, for example, it becomes necessary for some reason to check a piece of information that the individual has submitted. In other words, there should be a definite reason for the searching to take place. The information that is added to the case should, like all other information acquired, be relevant to the pro- cessing of the case. It is to be documented and communicated to the applicant before a decision is made in the case. Furthermore, JO pronounces that the so- cial services may not acquire or attempt to acquire information from the Inter- net that is not in the public domain, i.e., information that is not available to everyone. And of course, nor may case workers or other officials use private Facebook accounts or the like in their professional capacity for the acquisition of information. The more specific circumstances concerned with the acquisi- tion of information in the case in question are unclear. JO has not, however, investigated the matter further as it has primarily concentrated on the principal issue of ’s right to acquire information from the Inter- net. JO therefore directs no criticism at the social services administration in respect of the information that was acquired in the case in question. Complaint against the social services in municipality regarding a conflict of interest in a matter of the use of social media (4436-2014) Authorities must observe objectivity and impartiality in their activities (Chap- ter 1, Section 9 of the Instrument of Government). A conflict of interest is said to exist if there are special circumstances which are likely to undermine confi- dence in the impartiality of a party administering a given case within the social services. In the case in question, the investigation has not found evidence that the social services’ administrator was Facebook friends with the mother of two children during the time she was dealing with investigations into the welfare of the children. The fact that they were friends on Facebook in connection with the administrator later making a minor intervention does not give cause for JO 2 015 /1 6:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N to direct criticism. JO adds: One fundamental point is that requirements for independence and impartiality must be fulfilled with a certain . services cases concerning children involve the exercise of authority in an inter- vening and sensitive against individuals. It is therefore important for social services to maintain trust among involved parties and endeavour to fulfil the requirements of objectivity and impartiality with a good . means that it may be inappropriate for an official to participate in the admin- istration of a case where there are circumstances which can affect confidence in the official’s impartiality, even if the circumstances are not of such a mag- nitude that they would constitute a conflict of interest. According to JO, it seems inappropriate that a person who is Facebook friends or similar with one of the parties involved in an ongoing investigation should take part in the ad- Criticism of in Municipality for the design of a rental contract (4930-2012) A rental contract signed between in Mu- nicipality and a person approved for housing support in short-term housing within the Municipality includes which, among other things, allow the staff to search the person’s room and, if they suspect that a crime has been committed, summon the . The Parliamentary Ombudsman, who ques- tions the design of the contract on several points, finds that the Board appears to have failed to take into consideration the Instrument of Government’s pro- visions regarding protection against searching of premises, the Rental Act or the rules regarding secrecy between government agencies. Ombudsman assumes that the Board reviews the contract and adjusts it to be in line with existing regulations. Complaint against the Department in Municipality regarding inadequate communication in a case concerning a repayment claim for financial assistance; the issue in the case has involved the exercise of authority (2988-2013) After a woman had been granted income support, the Depart- ment received information from the unemployment insurance fund that she had received a higher compensation from the fund than that which had been stated in the application. In light of this information, de- cided to claim repayment of part of the income support. The decision was made without the woman having been given the opportunity to provide a statement regarding this information. ’s decision on claiming repayment of financial assistance is not the exercise of authority. therefore been no obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to inform the woman about the information received from the unemployment insurance fund prior to the decision being made. Although the reclaim decision was not binding, it did concern a measure that is considered to be of significant im- portance to this individual. have informed her about the information from the unemployment insurance fund prior to the reclaim decision being made. T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 015 /1 6:JO1 Care of (Special Provisions) Act Criticism of for delays in providing placement in a special youth home (3359-2014) A report to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen included a complaint that the Na- tional (SiS) in a specific case in early 2014 offered emergency placement at a special youth home two days after had submitted a request for placement. SiS explained that the reason for the delay was the lack of open spots in the youth homes. According to SiS, they had since late 2013 had trouble providing immediate emergency housing, but they had intensified the work with solving the problems in mid- and the queue for emergency placement was eliminated by 2014. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the bottom line in an emergency is that SiS should provide placement more or less immediately. However, there can be situations when a certain delay is inevitable, for example after a fire or another unforeseen incident which requires the placement of a number of per- sons. However, the fact that SiS was unable to provide emergency placement until two days later in this case was due to problems of a completely different nature. Therefore, SiS cannot escape criticism for the delay. Criticism of (SiS) for delays in providing placement in special youth homes (260-2015) In a decision from , JO criticised (SiS) for delays in providing an emergency placement in a special youth home. In the beginning of 2015, JO received new complaints against SiS concerning the issue of a shortage of placement options during the immediate forced custody of young people and abusers. JO decided to re-in- vestigate the issue and requested a statement from SiS. The investigation shows that there is still a shortage of places in the so-called SiS homes. Although SiS has been working intensively and has taken several measures to meet the mu- nicipalities’ growing demand, the authority has not been able to successfully meet the need. SiS has stated that the main reason for the increasing demand for places is the increase in the number of unaccompanied minors. The issue that SiS has brought up raises general questions about the situation of unac- companied minors and their custody and care. However, these questions lie outside the parameters of this matter. In its decision, JO states that it is a point of concern that the situation has been strained for so long and that, in some cases, it has taken as long as six days before SiS could provide a placement. SiS has been criticised for the delays. JO further states that it may have serious consequences for those in need of care if their immediate care needs are not being met. It raises questions about what the municipality can do whilst waiting for a place to become available. According to JO, must not remain passive in the meantime. should, in consultation with the individual, attempt to find a solution, for example, through a tempo- rary placement in an “HVB home” (Home for Support or Living). JO is aware that in many cases it is not possible to resolve the matter in this way and that there is no simple answer to these questions. JO is continuing to monitor the 2 015 /1 6:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N issue of the placement situation at the SiS homes and requests that SiS submits a report by 15 January 2016 outlining the additional measures that have been A copy of the decision is being sent to the Affairs for information purposes. Serious criticism of in Municipality for failings including having “enforced” a court ruling on custody by immediately taking a child into care pursuant to the Care of Act (4983-2013) Following the District Court’s ruling that a father would have sole custody of his 13-year-old son, the father applied for help from the social services to move the boy from the mother to him. After the failure of a few attempts, the Social decided to immediately take the boy into care pursuant to Sec- tion 6 of the Care of and requested the assistance of the to enforce the move. The Care of is a piece of pro- tective legislation that aims to ensure that children and young people, under certain specific circumstances, receive the help and support they need when this cannot take place with the consent of those concerned. care, pursuant to the Care of may not be made in order to fulfil any purpose other than those listed in the Act. The JO directs its serious criticism at because it has, on the one hand, attempted to help one parent “enforce” the custody ruling behind the back of the other parent and, on the other hand, because it decided to immediately take the child into care pursuant to the Care of instead of referring the child’s guardian to apply for enforcement of the custody ruling in accordance with the specific regulations pertaining to this in Chapter 21 of the Children and Parents Code. The JO is also making some pronouncements concerning enforcement such as this, but is not directing any criticism at the Board in this in the municipality of for its processing of a transfer in accordance with the Compulsory Care of (LVU) (224-2013) Two children who were taken into care in accordance with the LVU were to be transferred from an emergency home to a family home. In order to facil- itate a good, safe transition for the children, the Committee deemed a period of acclimatisation to be necessary. The children therefore stayed in the new family home for several days before the decision to transfer them was made. the whole acclimatisation period, the home parents had daily contact with the family home. Not every temporary stay outside of a family home needs to be preceded by a placement decision made by the Committee. Even if the in- tention of the stay in the new family home was that it would precede a perma- nent placement there, the children are in this case considered to have stayed in the emergency home during the period of acclimatisation, as it was only a short period. The Parliamentary Ombudsman therefore does not criticise the period of acclimatisation. On the other hand, the Committee cannot avoid crit- icism for the fact that the decision to transfer the children was made by the T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N B I L A G A 1 0 2 015 /1 6:JO1 chair of the Committee. The right of the chair to make decisions is intended to be used in emergency situations. Here, however, it was the matter of a transfer that had been planned and arranged for some time. The question should there- fore have been taken up instead by the Committee in its entirety. Criticism of an administrator at in Municipality for actions in contravention of Chapter 1, Section 9 of the Instrument of Government (48-2013) Those representing the public shall, in accordance with Chapter 1, Section 9 of the Instrument of Government, observe objectivity and impartiality. This in- cludes acting in a way which means that their impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned. This does not merely concern how a matter has been adminis- tered. It also matters how the actions have been perceived. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has found a number of shortcomings in the handling of a custody investigation for which a Family at has been responsible. The shortcomings have mainly consisted of infor- mation that could be detrimental to the mother having been omitted, the father’s request for information having been handled unprofessionally and the fact that the administrator has drawn up an official letter upon request of the mother, which can be seen as her speaking in favour of the mother. In its decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that, in an overall assessment, the shortcom- ings are enough to reasonably question the administrator’s impartiality. The administrator is criticised for not adhering to the provisions of Chapter 1, Sec- tion 9 of the Instrument of Government. Criticism of Municipality’s social welfare services for the in which cooperation talks conducted by them have been reported to the District Court (4353-2013) in had been assigned by the District Court to arrange cooperation talks between two parents. The results of such talks are to be reported to the Court. The report must clearly show whether the parents have entered into any agreements, or whether the talks no longer serve any purpose. However, since anything stated during such talks is covered by secrecy, the contents of the talks must not be reported. The social welfare ser- vices are reprimanded for including an account of the contents of the talks in their report, along with the family law office’s assessment of the parents’ abil- ity to safeguard the best interests of the children, without such an account being requested by the Court. Criticism of in Municipality for the formulation of a letter in a paternity case (342-2013) In a paternity case, a man, who according to the mother could be the child’s father, received a letter which could give the impression that the man was sum- moned to the Family to submit a DNA sample. The letter did not include the fact that the sample was voluntary. The letter, which was very short, 2 015 /1 6:JO1 B I L A G A 10 T H E S W E D I S H P A R L I A M E N T A R Y O M B U D S M E N was completely misleading in this respect. cised for its formulation of the letter. Support and service for persons with certain functional impairments Criticism of in Municipality for the handling of a matter in accordance with the Act (1993:387) concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments, LSS In February 2013, a woman applied for personal assistance in accordance with LSS from and the []. took some investigative action in connection with receiving the application. After a visit to the woman’s home in , the matter was left untouched until late the same year without any ac- tive investigative measures being taken, as the Board was awaiting a decision by the . made its decision in . The Parliamentary Ombudsman also finds that the Municipality has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all persons covered by LSS also have their needs met. The fact that the woman had also applied for personal assis- tance from the did not mean that the Board could wait on processing her application. is criticised for the long processing time. Criticism of in Municipality for having declined its responsibility as assistance provider without having the legal grounds to do so (785-2014) A woman in had been granted personal assistance benefits in ac- cordance with the Social Insurance Code. in Emma- boda Municipality had undertaken the responsibility of being her assistance provider. After a while the Board terminated the woman’s agreement. The mat- ter in question is whether the Board had legal grounds to decline its responsi- bility as assistance provider in this way.