Friends of Domenic Johansson

HSLDA: Swedish Pol to Social Services Minister: Take Homeschooled Kids!

2012-01-18T18:04:00.000-08:00

Swedish Pol to Social Services Minister:
Take Homeschooled Kids!

	The Challenge from Edholm’s blog/ Lotta Edholm
“The law should be amended so that social services are able to intervene when children are kept away from school by their parents.”

In a controversial opinion article in Aftonbladet, a prominent Swedish newspaper, Lotta Edholm, one of the leaders of Sweden’s liberal party, has called for a change in the country’s social services law to encourage social workers to take children away from homeschooling families.

Edholm writes in her blog “That the Deputy Minister of Social Affairs, Maria Larsson … should take an initiative to change the social services act so that the social authorities can intervene when children are kept away from school by their parents.” Read more...

Custody Case

2011-12-20T05:40:00.000-08:00

Gotland Court Refuses to Hear Transfer of Custody In the Case of Domenic Johansson

We've received news today that Gotland Courts have refused to grant a hearing on the transfer of custody of now 10 year old Domenic Johansson from his parents and to foster parents. During a December 9th preliminary hearing, the Johanssons and representatives of Gotland Social Services were asked to present evidence supporting or refuting the need for custody transfer. After reviewing all the evidence, news was recieved today that the presiding judge has determined there was not enough evidence suggesting Annie and Christer Johansson should permanently lose the custody of their son. To the best of our knowledge, this is the very first time in the 2.5 years of this battle, where the Johanssons were finally allowed representation in court by an attorney of their choosing, Ruby Harrold-Claesson.

While this latest court decision does not lift the ongoing LVU order, it is a very bright star in an otherwise bleak journey through the Swedish Social Services system. Now that a judge has finally heard and weighed evidence from all sides and has found the side of Gotland Social Services to be wanting in their case against the Johanssons, it is our hope that the dissolution of the LVU case will soon follow with Domenic placed back into his rightful position within the bossom of his family.

Click HERE to read background on this case.

Click HERE to read an open letter from Christer Johansson, Domenic's father.

Open Letter & Timeline

2011-12-19T05:16:00.000-08:00

Open Letter From Grieving Father

by Christer Johansson

I've read the Discrimination Law, the Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention, the Swedish Government Third Wave of Implementation of Human Rights and I have no other option but to conclude that our family is being gravely discriminated against by the Social Service on Gotland.

My name is Christer Johansson and I am the father of a bright, beautiful boy that has been broken into millions of pieces by the Social Services in Gotland Kommun. As perhaps you know, Domenic was taken from us in 2009 as we were on our way to India. This happened after a year of harassment and disputes over our right to educate Domenic at home. Once they took Domenic from us, we started a process of hearings and appeals to determine if we were fit parents and if Domenic was to live with us or with a foster family.

What follows is an account of some of the miscarriages of justice and blunt discrimination with which the Social Services approached our case from the very beginning. The social workers presented reports based on inventions and untruthful statements and they were not challenged by the lawyers that were supposed to defend us. Pure gossip was elevated to the status of science while sound statements by psychologists and doctors on the mental and physical health of the family were dismissed.

Just as an example, the Social Board asked the social workers at the beginning of the process about the grounds for taking custody from the parents and placing Domenic in foster care. Social worker Caroline Palmqvist stated that it was "on account of Christer's mental health." This was the first time any of us heard that my mental health was an issue. On no occasion before the moment they took my son from me had anybody within the system mention this. Now, I have proved twice and with sound reports from experts, that I do not have a mental health problem. I did suffer the trauma of suffering an earthquake and a robbery that almost took my life and took everything I had. That is different than having a mental disorder.

When mental health could not be pressed harder as a reason for justifying taking my son from me, they accused me of being a drug addict. I said, “Let me go and test myself.” Now in Sweden, to go and test yourself a Social Worker has to make the request. In this case it was the responsibility of Sofie Rosenquist to make such request. She did not do it, and she did not do it repeatedly forcing me to plea with the laboratory in charge of the testing to do it anyway. They did and it came back clean. I sent the results to Sofie Rosenquist who later on testified that I had not taken the test. Despite my complaints nobody in the court system followed up on her statement or on the laboratory.

All of a sudden I ceased being an issue and they focused on the fact that Domenic had been educated at home. It did not seem to matter that we won the case regarding homeschooling before Domenic was taken from us. It did not seem to matter that we have, in fact, registered Domenic in public school in Havdhem. It did not seem to matter that I was also invited to work there as I have been working as a teacher for many years.

The social service did not accept that. Instead, they registered Domenic in a different school far away from us. This together with the draconian rules for visitation of our own son which included not taking pictures, not speaking about the case, not bringing food with us, especially not Indian food, and not bringing gifts, is a carefully designed plan to force isolation and it goes against the law.

To further complicate matters, once my mental health or supposed drug use could no longer be established, they decided to discuss Annie’s mental health. Now Annie has never been examined for any kind of psychological issue. All comments regarding her mental health were made by social workers with no training in the field. These social workers took upon themselves to elaborate a scientific explanation for what they deemed "inappropriate grieving" after being forcefully separated from her only son. Social workers declared that Annie did not know what was best for her son and such a comment stood in court as evidence that she in fact did not know how to care for Domenic. It did not matter that Domenic was healthy for 7 years and that he was an intelligent well adjusted kid. They examined him for everything, his physical health and his intellectual and emotional development. They found nothing and now we are denied access to these reports by the Gotland Social Services.

While all this is taking place in court, we were still having very short visits every 5 weeks and at the time of his 8th birthday we were told that Domenic did not want to see us. We were told once we have arrived to the center, with my mother and father hoping for a nice celebration. There was no communication between the Social Services and us and no discussion on Domenic’s reasons. We had to turn around and go home, devastated. I have never seen my father so unhappy and disappointed. On the next occasion we saw Domenic I asked him about this and he denied having said that he did not want to see us. He was very sad and disconcerted. I confronted Sofie Rosenqvist and Caroline Palmqvist and demanded an explanation and their response was that Domenic had a better life now and that they have already made the decision of keeping us apart.

In this same conversation I brought up the issue of my supposed mental health problems and the fact that I had proof of not having any to which they first replied that they could not comment but then went on saying that I have a “personality disorder and Asperger’s Syndrome.” To add to their gruesome picture of me and my family, they commented upon the "distressing fact" that Domenic tends to hug other kids when he is happy and how such conduct is evidence of a deviant tendency that needs to be corrected.

New hearings in court kept bringing up new questions about my mental health and now it was this assumption of me having Asperger’s Syndrome. This was again denied by the reports after exhaustive examination and yet the lawyer Rickard Ploman continued in court to call me mentally ill and that I have a personality disorder. He has done that every time in every hearing. He is the lawyer appointed to me by the court. Now, why would my own lawyer continue referring to my mental health knowing first, that it is not true, and second, that it damages my chances of winning the case? I leave that question open because I truly do not have an answer.

The character assassination continued with reports on our house, the lack of furniture and a certain degree of messiness on the second floor. It is not noted, however, that we were at that point planning to move back to India and that we were in the process of selling all our furniture and doing some renovations before closing the house definitely.

Before I go, we have done everything we were asked to do in order to proof that we are fit parents while social services have proven shown that we are not. We have made every effort to show the circumstances of our family and the importance of us staying together after suffering two very traumatic experiences. Professor Trevor Archer, Swedish expert in Trauma, testified in our behalf and warned the court about the harm it will create to separate the family unit both for Domenic and for us.

Our future is in your hands, especially Domenic's. As Professor Archer said, Domenic can never heal from the trauma unless he comes home. And he was home for a few hours and he said to me “Daddy, what I fear the most is to go back to that family."

My son Domenic does not even cry when he hurts himself. He cannot cry anymore, which is more than enough proof that he is severely damaged him. The law is there to protect our family against violations such as this, but still after two years, the socials services continue to harm both Annie and me and Domenic. They have told him already, "You are going to stay here until your 16 years old." Domenic told me in November 2010. And now, they are telling us that they want to withdrawal full custody and give it to his foster family.

Christer Johansson

TIMELINE

Fall of 2008: The Johansson’s (Christer and Annie) contact the Ministry of Education and after being told that they could homeschool and start the process amidst the obstruction of local school officials. They make the decision of homeschooling base on their plans to move to India in a few months and consider that this will ease Domenic's (born 2002) transition and adjustment.
January 2009: After being fined and visited by social services on many occasions, Christer Johansson calls for meetings to discuss this matter, to no avail. The authorities decide that Domenic has to go to school.
February 11. 2009: The Child and education department orders the family to pay a fine of 250 SEK per day that Domenic is not at school. The Social Services intensify their pressure on the family. Homeschooling is still the only issue.
May 27th 2009: An action is taking to enforce the payment of the fine (Now 15.000 SKr). The court refused to enforce it because the school year is over - an implicit recognition of the right of the family to homeschool under the law at that time (it became illegal in July 2011). Christer Johansson informs the court of the family intention to move to India on June 26th. There is no court order or any other legal action taken to prevent the Johanssons from moving to India as was their plan.
June 25, 2009: Domenic and his parents are seated on the flight to India. Swedish police take Domenic from the plane. They alleged that there has been an anonymous report on the family (this has never been confirmed). The family cooperates. They are told that some social workers are going to talk to Domenic for a few minutes, they agree to let him go. The social worker takes Domenic from the airport. Annie collapses.
The Social Services agree to place Domenic with his uncle, Christer's brother, Mike. The parents are told that they will be able to have Domenic back the following Monday. When they go to pick him up, they are told that they have found two cavities, that Domenic seems to be extremely shy and not behaving like a normal kid of his age, and they consider this to be evidence that there is a developmental problem. From here on there is reference to Domenic's mental health. This time both Annie and Christer collapsed. Due to their physical and emotional reaction the social services decide to not allow them to see Domenic. They finally see Domenic 6 WEEKS later. In Christer's words "he (Domenic) was broken in small pieces"
August 4th, 2009: First hearing.
August 13th, 2009: The court upheld the decision of removal of physical custody without any medical or psychological report stating abuse or neglect.
The parents are not allowed to visit Domenic on his birthday and new conditions are imposed on the visits:
    No toys- Domenic cannot receive any kind of gift from his parents and definitely nothing that he could take with him to his foster home.
   No taking pictures or filming- therefore no evidence can be provided about the attitude of the Social Workers and their impediments to allow the family to bond.
   No speaking about the case- there is no possibility for the parents to speak freely with Domenic, explain the situation and comfort him.
November 30th, 2009: Court of appeals upholds decision largely based on a psychiatric report of Domenic that suggests he was “developmentally delayed”. This report was performed after Domenic has been months separated from his parents with limited, closely supervised visits .
January 27th, 2010: Swedish Supreme Administrative Court denied the appeal exhausting the domestic appeals in this case and making it possible to present a petition on the family's behalf in European Court of Human Rights.
In Sweden, the system allows for a revision to see if the child should remain in State's custody or can go back to his family. This happens every 6 months more or less. These are some of the actions taken to that effect:
May 13th 2010: Johansson's Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson (Nordic Committee for Human Rights) is dismissed by the court in Gotland upon request of Domenic's court appointed lawyer complaining that she took the parents with her in an unscheduled visit to Domenic at school. Domenic was not allowed to see his parents in this occasion.
November 2010: Christer takes Domenic home the 22nd of November (without permission) when they are supposed to have a supervised meeting. Domenic stays with his family over the weekend and then Christer phones the police and tells them where they are. Police appear (again) uniformed and armed and drags Domenic away even without letting him put his outside clothes on. Christer and a friend of his that helped to take Domenic home are charged and Christer spends some time in jail and goes through a psychiatric evaluation. That analysis, completed and submitted to the courts, found Christer to be psychologically sound. Christer requested representation by Trygve Emstedt (a lawyer), but is denied his request in direct defiance of Swedish and European Union laws. Christer sits in jail until 21th of January 2011 when he is finally released.
April 17th 2011: A case number is assigned by the European Court of Human Rights .
April 23rd/27th 2011 (?): Meeting between the Johanssons and the Social Service to respond to inquiries regarding Domenic's deteriorating health. The social services insists that the actions of the parents are to blame for his health issues.
May 2011: The petition to the ECHR concludes, "Insofar as has been communicated to the family through official court orders, Domenic is to remain in the custody of the Swedish officials on what appears to be a de facto permanent basis."
September 2011: Proposal to remove legal custody from the parents.

Christian Voice

2011-11-27T20:20:00.000-08:00

Miscarriage of Justice Continues
in Johansson Case

Domenic photographed by his father only weeks before the abduction.

The fate of Domenic Johansson is still uncertain following a court hearing on 11 May. A new hearing has been scheduled for the end of the month due to Christer being unable to attend the one on 11 May.

A few weeks after the hearing a verdict will be issued determining whether Domenic is allowed to return to his parents.

Humanly speaking, it is unlikely that the hearing will change the status quo. Such meetings have been occurring every six months since Domenic was first snatched from his parents two years ago by the Swedish Social Services. So far each of these hearings have culminated in a negative verdict.

Once Domenic has been in state custody for three years, the review hearings will end and Domenic can be put up for adoption.

Neither of the parents have...Read More

WND ARTICLE

2011-11-03T02:59:00.000-07:00

Son taken from parents to be shipped overseas?

Dad reports social workers' talk has referenced Thailand

Posted: November 02, 2011
9:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Social workers who had police troopers storm a jetliner on which a family was attempting to emigrate to India, to take custody of a young boy over his homeschooling, now have discussed sending him to a family in Thailand, the boy's father has told WND.

WND reported only weeks ago that the social workers responsible for removing Domenic Johannson from his parents had called for a court hearing to consider moving custody permanently away from the family and to the government.

That word had come from officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association, which along with the Alliance Defense Fund already has elevated the dispute involving Christer and Annie Johannson and their son, Domenic, of Sweden to the European Court of Human Rights.

Domenic, now 9, has been in the custody of social services and in foster homes in Sweden since 2009, when as a 7-year-old he was snatched from a jetliner he and his parents had boarded to move to India, his mother's home country.

Michael Donnelly, director of international relations for HSLDA, told WND when the social services workers sought the court hearing, "The only way I can think of describing the way the Swedish social and judicial systems have treated the Johansson family is barbaric – the harm done to them is beyond comprehension.

WND ARTICLE

2011-10-08T09:21:00.001-07:00

THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

Social services threaten homeschooling parents

Hearing to target family whose son taken by police

Posted: October 07, 2011
8:57 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

Annie and Domenic Johansson

Social services workers who had police snatch a 7-year-old boy from his parents while they were aboard a jetliner preparing to move to the mother's home country of India because he was being homeschooled have called for a court hearing where they apparently will seek to terminate the parents' rights completely.
That word has come from officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association, which along with the Alliance Defense Fund already has elevated the dispute involving Christer and Annie Johannson and their son, Domenic, of Sweden to the Europe Court of Human rights.
Find out why classes seem so different these days, in "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools"
Christer Johannson told WND by email this week that he got a letter from the court explaining social workers wished "to move custody of Domenic to the foster family."
Domenic, now 9, has been in the custody of social services, and in foster homes, in Sweden ever since 2009 when he was snatched from a jetliner he and his parents had boarded in order to move to India.
(Story continues below)

Michael Donnelly, director of international relations for the HSLDA, told WND, "The only way I can think of describing the way the Swedish social and judicial systems have treated the Johansson family is barbaric – the harm done to them is beyond comprehension.
"Their most basic of human rights have been....Read more: Social services threaten homeschooling parents http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=352733#ixzz1aCxCSg7t

Sweden's Utopia

2011-05-16T08:38:00.000-07:00

Sweden’s Big Government ‘Utopia’ Unmasked

by Alex Newman for Crisis Magazine

The Kingdom of Sweden has been revered by supporters of big government around the world for decades, cited by statist college professors and policy makers everywhere. It started with the myth that its “socialist” system could simultaneously provide freedom, prosperity, and generous welfare benefits to all. But now, the illusion is beginning to crumble.

The Swedish government has become notorious worldwide in recent years: Its blatant and sometimes brutal suppression of...READ MORE.

New American: Appeal Draws Supporters

2011-05-11T13:21:00.000-07:00

Appeal For “Kidnapped” Swedish Homeschooler Draws Supporters

Written by Alex Newman for The New American

Wednesday, 11 May 2011 14:42

As the now-infamous case of Swedish homeschooler Domenic Johansson (at left, with his parents) — seized by authorities because of homeschooling almost two years ago — continues to drag on through the judicial system, a group of the family’s supporters turned out at an appeal in Stockholm on May 11 to express their hope that the family would be reunited soon.

The story of the Johansson tragedy has caused an international uproar, attracting the involvement of numerous prominent human-rights groups in Sweden and around the world. At least hundreds of thousands of homeschooling activists, particularly in America, have been outraged by the case. And now, some Swedes...read more.

Daniel Hammarberg's address: State of the Swedish Child Welfare

2011-05-11T04:23:00.000-07:00

Below is a video compiled by Daniel Hammarberg, author of The Madhouse: A Critical Look at Swedish Society. As a teen, Mr. Hammarberg found himself an unwilling partaker of Swedish child welfare services. While all he wanted was to be left alone, social workers would forcibly involve themselves in his life over several years, even to the point of attempting to institutionalize him against his will. This experience left a lasting impression upon Hammarberg. Since then, he has endeavored to learn as much as possible about Sweden's child welfare laws, LVU, and other aspects of such laws that allow government workers much overreaching involvement in every aspect of one's personal life. While this video gives a detailed look at Sweden's child welfare state, Hammarberg's book provides a broader look at Swedish life under rapidly expanding social engineering laws and serves as a warning to Americans as we see our own government embracing more and more socialistic practices.

Visit Daniel Hammarberg's site.

European Court Case Advances

2011-04-18T04:54:00.000-07:00

NEWS OUTRAGE!

Abducted homeschooler's case finally advances

Police took child from his parents only because of education at home

Posted: April 17, 2011
5:54 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Christer and Domenic Johansson

It's been some nine months since family advocates pleaded with the European Court of Human Rights to look into the case of a Swedish child taken by police from his parents and isolated with government-sponsored foster parents because he was being homeschooled, and now a case number has been assigned.

The move in Domenic Johansson's case is significant, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association, because once a file number has been assigned, the case can begin to move forward.

The HSLDA had joined with the Alliance Defense Fund, an international civil and religious rights organization, to seek help from the ECHR.

"The ECHR is the Johanssons' only remaining recourse, since their case has been heard at every level of the Swedish court system," said Michael Donnelly, the HSLDA's director of international relations. "It was strange...

Next LVU Court Hearing Set for May 11

2011-04-17T05:14:00.000-07:00

Domenic, during his November 2010 time away from scocials and with his father.

While the Swedish Family Court plans another hearing on the Domenic Johansson kidnapping case, many observers ask, "Why bother?"

Don't get me wrong. I believe the Johanssons should be in court fighting tooth and nail until their son has been rightfully restored to them, and I will support them to the best of my ability until that day finally arrives. As far as I am concerned, they've never had a real court trial in this case. Instead, these dear, gentle people have stood tried and convicted as guilty since June 25th, 2009, months before ever setting foot into an LVU court room.

As far as close observers of this case are concerned, the Johanssons have never been before a legitimate court. Every "trial" this innocent family has suffered since armed Swedish police swept onto an India bound jetliner and abducted their son, has been nothing more than what a Kangaroo Court of justice can deliver. Harsh words? Yes. Unwarranted? A resounding NO! Consider the following questions:

In what court, in this day and age, is it considered justice to deny the accused their choice of legal counsel, and the chance to offer witnesses and testimony supporting their claim of innocence?

In what court is justice served when a sitting judge is presented written testimony as evidence from doctors and psychiatrists stating the mental health of the accused to be sound, yet this same judge ignores the expert testimony and instead accepts as gospel truth the testimony of child welfare workers, who are neither doctors nor psychiatrists, but who "diagnose" the defendant as having a narcissistic personality disorder?

In what court is justice served when Eva Ernston, who is paid by the state of Sweden to "represent" Domenic's interests in court, publicly and indiscriminately boasts to friends and strangers alike, that "Domenic is better off without his weird father"? So much for keeping secret the reason Gotland Social Services has destroyed a family. According to Ernston, it is because Christer Johansson is, in her own words, "weird."

In what court is justice served when Domenic's foster mother tells little Domenic that he will stay with her regardless of what the judge decides, essentially telling the little boy she will break the law, if she has to, to keep him with her?

In what court is justice served when this same foster mother tells child welfare workers what she told Domenic: that she will not give him back to his parents no matter what the court decides; and upon hearing this declaration, rather than reprimand, correct or otherwise protect Domenic from a foster mother untrustworthy enough to break the law rather than relinquish a child not hers to keep in the first place, the child welfare workers put in an official Gotland Social Services document, word for word what the foster mother told Domenic, then send this document to the Johanssons to further demoralize them?

Folks, the only courts in which I am aware such perverted justice is practiced is in the kangaroo courts of the Swedish LVU system. And of what crime are the Johanssons guilty? Surely, for so much trouble and distress, they must have beat or otherwise abused or neglected their son and surely all of this abuse and neglect has been documented in the three court cases the LVU system has already entertained on behalf of the Johanssons....

In fact, no. There is no such case.

Instead, in court documents the Johanssons are accused of home schooling their son at a time when home schooling was still a legal option in Sweden. It is for this reason alone Gotland Social Services employed armed police to charge onto an airplane, upon which this family were passengers on the last leg of their journey back to India, where Christer and Annie were married and where Annie had always lived until a few months prior to Domenic’s birth.

After Gotland Social Services abducted the boy from the plane, they conducted a fishing expedition hoping to find more cause to keep Domenic. Their findings? Incomplete vaccinations (parents have the right to delay or deny vaccinations in Sweden) and a cavity in one of Domenic’s baby teeth. It was at this point that Domenic should have been immediately returned to his parents.

Not so, however. As is customary in many LVU cases in Sweden, it was time to pull out all the stops rather than admit Gotland Social Services acted erroneously on Domenic Johansson’s behalf. Parental character assassination is always the remaining weapon in the working toolbox of Gotland Social Services and apparently it is also their deadliest. The first accusations against the Johanssons is that Christer Johansson is a narcissist. This is not an official diagnosis. It is simply the opinion of the social workers. Even so, if narcissism is reason enough to destroy a parent/child relationship, I can think of hundreds of Hollywood celebrities whose children should be removed immediately. Next, he is accused of being overly obsessed with health, health foods and healthy living. Apparently health gurus should have their children forcibly removed as well? Next is the accusation that Christer Johansson is obsessed with human rights. After what his family has been through, who wouldn’t be? Even so, as Eva Ernston has so aptly deduced from all of Gotland Social Service’s findings, Christer Johansson is obviously “weird,” thus Domenic is much “better off without his weird father!”

Looking at Annie, who is a very soft spoken, loving, kind and gentle person, Gotland Social services found it more difficult to assassinate her character. Therefore, rather than attack her directly, they simply suggest to the court that Annie lives in the shadow of her husband. Yes, this is Annie’s crime. This is why Annie had her then 7 year old son ripped from her loving arms.

While all of these character “flaws” are enumerated in court records against the Johanssons, even more concerning is what is missing from court records. The court records fail to mention Christer’s accomplishments in music and the visual arts. They also fail to mention the very close and loving relationship Domenic and Christer enjoyed before Gotland Social Services disrupted it. They fail to mention how Christer was nurturing a love for animals and nature in Domenic. They fail to mention how Christer was passing on to his son a passion for capturing the beauty of the Swedish landscape in photographs, teaching him the art as they went on photo shooting expeditions, sharing these experiences side-by-side.

As for Annie, the court records fail to mention the fact that Annie holds a Master’s Degree in English, and that Domenic was fluent in both Swedish and English on the day he was taken. Ironically, Annie is more qualified to educate Domenic than the average Swedish classroom teacher. However, the court record fails to mention such things.

And so we ask, what can we expect from yet another court hearing within Sweden’s LVU walls of justice? Can we expect more of the same or will truth and justice finally be served in the now notorious case regarding the custody of Domenic Johansson? Will the Johanssons be allowed to bring in the defense attorney of their choosing? Will the judge act independent of the child welfare workers, allowing the Johanssons to have their entire and complete defense heard and fairly weighed?

PLEASE CONSIDER HELPING:

As this next court date fast approaches, please consider donating to the Johanssons. A donation button is located at the upper right of the Friends blog. If you decide you'd like to donate and you do not read Swedish, there is a little drop-down menu on the upper right of the Paypal page (where you go after pressing the yellow Donate button) that gives you the option to translate the page to the language of your choice. Thank you for you support!

Socials at work AGAIN

2011-02-04T05:04:00.000-08:00

Snatching children for no good reason is far too common in Sweden!

LifeSiteNews

2011-02-03T14:10:00.000-08:00

Pro-family group puts pressure on European Court over notorious homeschooling case

by Hilary White

Christer, Domenic, Annie

February 3, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Alliance of Romanian Families (AFR) is intervening in the case of Domenic Johansson, the Swedish boy who was abducted by Gotland social services in 2009, asking that he be returned to his family, as international pressure increases on the Swedish government.

The AFR, a Christian pro-life and family advocacy group based in Bucharest, is calling for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to move forward in the case, noting that lawyers representing the Johannson family filed a complaint against the Swedish government six months ago. The AFR lobbies for the rights of parents, including the right to home school, at the international level.

In a letter addressed to the ECHR, the AFR said...READ MORE

WND: Father Set Free

2011-01-22T08:02:00.000-08:00

Father jailed for visit with son set free

'Released today, after 2 terrible months!'

Posted: January 22, 2011
12:40 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

A Swedish father who was jailed by authorities for taking his son, in state custody because social services workers worried he was being homeschooled, home for a visit has been released from his incarceration.
Word came to WND tonight via an e-mail from Christer Johansson, who said, "I was released from jail today, after 2 terrible months! … When the judge read the verdict, he said...

Home

2011-01-21T13:08:00.000-08:00

Johasson Released from Custody Today
Court Ordered Forensic Psychological Evaluation finds Johansson Psychologically Healthy

An obvious confident and happy child before Social Services

We've received word that Christer Johansson was released from police custody today immediately following a court hearing which was held as a continuance of the previous hearing of December 20, 2010. The original December 20th hearing was held as a result of an impulsive act on behalf of Johansson when on November 22, 2010, he took his son Domenic home, without permission, from a state supervised visit. According to Chapter 4 section 2 of the Criminal Code, this is punishable with prison for a minimum of one and maximum of ten years. Removing a child under fifteen years of age from the social services can constitute a crime against freedom or the promotion of escape and is punishable with fines or a prison sentence of up to one year.

During the December 20th hearing, the presiding judge, Lagman Mikael Mellqvist, withheld sentencing until Johansson had undergone a lengthy forensic psychological analysis. That analiysis, completed and submitted to the courts just this week, found Mr. Johansson to be psychologically sound.

An obviously stressed and less confident child months after living with strangers in foster care.

This psychological finding is in direct opposition to the accusations made against Johansson by Gotland Social Services during both the December 2009 and September 2010 hearings to determine if Domenic should be returned to his parents or remain a ward of the Swedish state. In both court hearings, the Johanssons provided psychological reports stating Mr. Johansson was without a psychological diagnosis. However, Gotland Social Services continues to insist that Mr. Johansson suffers from a narcissistic disorder, while independent psychological assessments find him psychologically healthy. And now, in today's criminal proceedings the lengthy forensic psychological assessment, has found Mr. Johansson free of any psychological disorder.

Based upon those findings, Judge Mellqvist found it within reason to release Mr. Johansson, who went home today. We will receive more information as we receive it. In the meantime, the Johanssons continue to need your support and prayers as they continue their fight against Sweden for the freedom of their son.

Annie, Christer and Domenic Johansson's nightmare began in 2008 while the family made plans to move to India, Annie's home country and where her entire family still resides. Rather than enroll their only child in the Swedish public school, only to be interrupted in the middle of the school session due to the impending move, the couple decided to home school then 7 year old Domenic and await their arrival in India to enroll him in school there. However, the local school principal, who holds a hostile attitude toward home schooling, as well as Gotland Social Services would not agree to the family's educational plans for their son and a legal fight ensued throughout Domenic's first school year, culminating in hefty fines for each day Domenic was not in school.

Domenic's mother, Annie, holds a Master's Degree in English, as well as several other degrees and diplomas. Mrs. Johansson successfully home schooled Domenic during his first grade even while the legal battle swirled around them. In April of 2009, the family was taken to court for the unpaid fines. The judge in that hearing found in favor of the Johanssons and Visby Social Services were ordered to stop fining the family.

In a June 2009 published article regarding the Johansson matter, chair of Sweden's department of Children and Education Lena Celion made it perfectly clear that Annie and Christer's parental right to manage the education of their child was not to be granted. Instead, Celion said it is Domenic's right to be enrolled in school, and the municipality is exercising its duty by forcing the family to enroll the boy, even though the family clearly communicated their intentions to leave the country.

Celion said, " It's his right. We are doing this for the boy's sake." For "the boy's sake" Swedish social services ripped a happy, healthy and cherished child from the arms of loving parents. Why? To force him to sit daily in a building behind a desk in a Swedish school when just a few short months later he would have been doing the very same thing in Indian public schools, less the trauma caused by what has been almost an entire year separated from his parents.

Finally, on June 25th of 2009, as the Johanssons waited on an India bound jetliner readying for take off from Stockholm's international airport, uniformed and armed Swedish police, at the behest of Visby Social Services, swarmed the plane and removed Domenic from his parents’ custody. Social Services managed to rip this child from the arms of his loving family without a warrant and without reasonable cause to believe that he was being harmed. Their supposed crime? They chose to home school Domenic and to delay or decline certain immunizations. After the seizure of Domenic, Visby Social Services went on a fishing expedition and found that Domenic had two untreated cavities in his baby teeth and used those two cavities as reason enough to place the boy in the home of strangers where he has languished ever since.

Link Fixed

2011-01-19T06:48:00.000-08:00

The Link to Yesterday's Story has been Fixed.

The link taking you to the rest of the WND story that was posted tot eh blog yesterday has been fixed. Our apologies for any inconvenience. Go back here to read the beginning of the story and then to finish reading the story, the Read More link now works. A thank you to those who brought this problem to our attention!

WND: Judges blow off plea

2011-01-18T03:54:00.000-08:00

Judges blow off separated family's plea

Christer and Domenic Johansson

Judges at the European Court of Human Rights for more than six months have ignored a separated Swedish family's plea for justice and reunification, and advocates for Christer and Annie Johansson say now it's time for the citizens of the world to demand action.

"It is quite concerning that this court has not responded to the pleadings filed – it has been rumored that there may be a court official who is...Read more: Judges blow off separated family's plea for justice

Christer Johansson's rights

2010-12-20T10:52:00.000-08:00

Christer Johansson has less rights than thieves, rapists and murderers

Domenic and Dad, a close, loving relationship.

On Monday, November 22, 2010, a distraught Christer Johansson left a social services state supervised visit, taking his only child, Domenic, with him. Johansson did not have permission to take his son home, but did so in response to 18 months of pleas by Domenic to be allowed to go home to the family he loves and misses. After calling authorities on Wednesday, November 24th to turn himself in, Johansson now sits in a Visby, Sweden jail cell. All of the citizens of the Swedish island of Gotland have been breathing a sigh of relief ever since Johasson's incarceration. And rightly so! The lives of Gotland's citizens are much safer now that this loving, caring, gentle and sensitive father and husband is safely locked behind bars.

Today, December 20, 2010, Christer Johansson was brought before a Swedish judge to face trial for his crimes against Sweden. While we do not yet know the outcome of this "trial" what we do know in leading up to today's legal circus is that Christer Johansson has less rights than Swedish thieves, rapists and murderers.

Since November 24th, the behind-the-scenes legal battle has focused on securing the best possible defense for Johansson, who has requested representation by Trygve Emstedt, Gävle, a lawyer with 30 years experience specializing in human rights. Incorporated into Sweden's constitution in January 1995, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), under Article 6, guarantees every Swedish citizen the right to choose their own representative and the right to a fair trial as provided within the foundation of a legally secure process.

Father and son, a strong, loving bond.

In direct defiance of Swedish and European Union laws, Gotland City Courts have refused Johansson's guaranteed rights by rejecting his appeal for of a defense by Emstedt and has instead continues to maintain Shantu Brahmbhatt as his public defender. Apparently, everyone in Sweden enjoys the guarantee of ECHR Article 6 except Christer Johansson.

There two very good reasons why Johansson has rejected Brahmbhatt as his counsel. First, having only recently been accepted to the bar in June 2010, Brahmbhatt has only negligible and even questionable experience before the court. Naturally, Johnasson desires, and is guaranteed, to exercise his right to obtain the best defense available while he defends his right to liberty.

Secondly, Johansson is only too aware of Brahmbhatt's inept legal counsel, for it is Brahmbhatt who was appointed by Gotland City Courts to defend Annie Johansson's rights as Domenic's mother. All who have been following the Johansson case since 2009 realize Brahmbhatt, as Annie Johansson's defender, has done little more than appear before Gotland's courts and has simply followed the edicts of Gotland Social Services. To date, Brahmabhatt has never forged an independent defense of Annie Johansson's rights, therefore it is not to be expected that she would forge an independent defense of Christer Johansson before the Gotland bench today. Earlier this year, Annie Johansson appealed to the courts to have Brahmabhatt removed as her public defender. Her appeal was met with a thumbing by the Swedish courts, as well.

In addition to fact that Article 6 of the ECHR, ratified in Sweden's constitution, guarantees Christer Johansson the choice of legal representation, the aforementioned reasons should have been enough for Gotland City Courts to grant Johansson new legal counsel. However, as we've witnessed since June 25, 2009, when armed police swarmed an India bound jet just before it taxied the runway at Sweden's Stockholm-Arlanda Airport removing then 7 year-old Domenic without a warrant and without ever charging Christer and Annie Johansson with a crime, Sweden's courts, especially those on Gotland Island, seem to operate under their own laws of justice, ignoring the rights of this family under Sweden's constitution and the ECHR.

Below is translated text from a story out of Sweden regarding Christer's trail today

Dad on trial for kidnapping
I only wanted to see my son. That's how the man in his 40's explained it who was today on trial for illegally having abducted his son placed into foster care.

It was last November, when the man was meant to have had a supervised meeting with his son, that he pulled his son into his car and drove away. For a couple of days he kept his son with him before the police could arrest him.

Today the main proceedings took place at Gotland district court. The prosecution against the man was charged as kidnapping, or possibly illegal deprivation of liberty.

The man explained his actions with having to see his son, but he doesn't feel he's committed any crime.

The court considers it proven that he's committed the acts he's been indicted for, but before a sentence and sanction is delivered, he's to go through a major investigation by forensic psychiatry.

Hence the main proceedings won't end for another four weeks. Until then the man remains in jail.

********************
In another news account from Sweden, we've learned that Domenic gave a video testimony regarding the time he spent with his father and family after Christer took him home for a few days. According to the news account, Domenic told the court that when his father took him, he was scared at first but then he thought it was really great to be with his father and other relatives. He described his time away from state care as an adventure and had nothing negative to say about the experience.

This story can be found here:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=94&artikel=4250998

Guest Writer: Daragh McInerney

2010-12-19T18:59:00.000-08:00

Be outraged

by Daragh McInerney, home educating parent, Spain.

Be outraged.

Do.

Feel angry.

If you don’t, something’s wrong.

Read about what has happened to Domenic. Put yourself in his shoes, those of his parents. Still feel nothing? Then I’m sorry, you’ve been too long in the system. Get out before you die from stupor.

Or maybe it’s just me. I home educate my children. I live in a foreign country. There are cases of persecution of parents by social services in Spain, too. Maybe someone might not like my accent, my hair, the clothes my children wear, the way they look, how well they read. It could happen to me, so it’s natural I empathize, right?

It could happen to you.

My children used to go to school. They weren’t happy, so we took them out. Everyone can have children. The same thing could happen to anyone, where you make a decision to do what is best for your children, what you think is the right thing to do, that you see in front of your eyes, that you’ve learned from nights being up with your child when your child is ill, being with them in moments of joy and sorrow, developing the strong, deep connection that is natural between parent and child.

Then imagine someone decides that they know better than you, that some soon-to-be-disproved theory on how many exams children should do per term or how important it is for children to learn to sit still for long periods of time should take precedence over what you think to be best. Imagine this person is backed by a whole system that would take your child from you, not allow you to comfort him, would imprison you if you wanted to spend more time with him.

There’s something rotten in the state of Sweden.

But it’s not only there, it’s around the corner, in your country, in mine, in the mind of someone who believes that the state should interfere in the lives of people who aren’t from the right background, the right class, the right country. When a happy child is taken from his parents ‘for his own good’, when a man is imprisoned for putting his child’s happiness above rule 502, and a woman is left without her husband or her son, something is rotten.

"If You Tolerate This Then Your Children Will Be Next"
-Manic Street Preachers.

HSLDA Video

2010-12-17T19:23:00.000-08:00

Homeschoolers are persecuted across the globe. Among others, this video includes the Johansson family.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED

2010-12-15T07:47:00.000-08:00

URGENT ACTION NEEDED:

Dear friends and supporters of Domenic Johansson,

As you might have heard and/or read, Domenic’s father, Christer Johansson, is in prison awaiting trial on the 20th December 2010. He was arrested after bringing Domenic home after a supervised meeting. These extremely rare meetings of 1 hour every 5 weeks and under close watch of authorities have been torture for this family, who have suffered unimaginable psychological stress and pressure. Imagine only being allowed to see your young child for this limited time over the last 18 months. They have not even been allowed to see Domenic on his birthday and holidays.

Christer has also been denied his right to choose his own legal representative twice.

We really want to bring this issue into focus and show our support for Christer in the upcoming trial on the 20th. Because travel ticket prices are high to the island of Gotland due to the impending holiday season, our initial thought of getting a group of supporters to go to Gotland in person and hold a peaceful demonstration outside the court, sadly had to be scrapped.

We have come up with another idea for which we need all the support for we can get.

We would like YOU, wherever you are in the world, to please print or copy the Swedish text FOUND BELOW and post this as a letter or postcard to the judge who will lead the trial on the 20th.

His name and address is:

Lagman Mikael Mellqvist
Gotlands tingsrätt
Box 1143
SE-621 22 Visby
SWEDEN

Or email the text to the courts with as many emails as you and your friends and family members can: gotlands.tingsratt@dom.se

If you can, send both the postcard/letter and email for greater impact.

We are hoping that if we bombard the Gotland courts and judge with letters and emails of support it will show them the strength of feeling regarding this case.

Time is of the essence, so please send this as soon as you possibly can.

Please sign your name and country if possible to lend more credibility to your letters/emails (or if you want to/need to stay anonymous that will be fine too). What’s important is that we get as many people to do this as possible.

SWEDISH TEXT:

Till Lagman Mikael Mellqvist

Jag är mycket oroad över hur svenska myndigheter och domstolar har behandlat Christer Johansson och över LVU- omhändertagandet av hans son Domenic Johansson.

När Christer måndagen den 22 november 2010 tog med sig Domenic gjorde han en överilad handling.

Han är en kärleksfull far som inte längre kunde stå emot sin längtan efter sonen Domenic, som han bara har fått träffa 1 timme var femte vecka och då alltid övervakad av någon myndighetsperson.

Christer är ingen brottsling, men han har levt under oerhörd psykisk press och stress sedan 1,5 år tillbaka när de sociala myndigheterna beslöt att på ytterst tveksamma grunder tvångsomhänderta hans barn.

Jag vädjar till Er att låta Christer Johansson slippa straff och att ni respekterar de mänskliga rättigheterna som stadgas i Europakonventionen.

Vänligen, ________________________________

BELOW IS FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY. Below is the Swedish text translated into English for you to know what you are sending. PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE USING THE SWEDISH TEXT and NOT the English text below. The below text is simply for your information.

Swedish text translation in English:

To Judge Mikael Mellqvist

I am extremely worried about how the Swedish authorities and courts are treating Christer Johansson and the circumstances of the forceful abduction of his son Domenic by Gotland Social Services.

When Christer decided to bring his son home on Monday 22 November 2010 it was the action of a man who had been driven to desperation.

Christer is a loving father who could no longer bear to be apart from his only son Domenic. A son who he had only been able to see for 1 hour every five weeks and then always under close supervision by authorities.

Christer Johansson is not a criminal but he has had to endure huge psychological stress and pressure for the past one and a half years,
ever since the Social Services took away his son on the weakest of pretexts.

I entreat you to please respect Christer Johansson's Human Rights in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Please ensure that justice is served and that Christer Johansson is released without further punishment.

Kindly,________________________________________________

Please read more on http://friendsofdomenic.blogspot.com/

Thank you for your support.

Blessings to all and best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

--Friends of Domenic Johansson

ADF VIDEO: Swedish government's 18-month-long seizure of 9-year-old boy pushing parents to emotional brink

2010-12-13T20:02:00.001-08:00

Below is a recently produced and released video by the Alliance Defense Fund regarding the Johansson case.

Update on Christer - 2

2010-12-09T15:58:00.000-08:00

Christer Johansson Denied Human Rights Attorney, Again!

While he strives to defend himself for taking Domenic home for an unapproved visit with family late last month, Christer Johansson has yet again been denied representation by an attorney specializing in human rights. Astonishingly, the public defender assigned to Christer's "criminal" case is Shantu Brambhat, the same attorney who has been representing Annie Johansson since 2009 in her fight to retrieve custody of Domenic from Gotland Social Services.

As you might imagine, Christer hasn't much confidence in Attorney Brambhat's ability to defend his best interests, nor the best interests of his family. Therefore, Christer has requested the representation of Human Rights Attorney Tryggve Emstedt of Gävle, Sweden. Not surprisingly, Gotland's courts just today rejected Christer's request for defense by Emstedt. Hence, Brambhat will be Christer's defender whether she is capable of a worthy defense or not. It appears to us that Gotland desires no outsiders within her "halls of justice." From what we understand, formal charges will be made against Christer on December 20th. We are not sure why his date before a Gotland judge continues to change.

We've also received word that Human Rights Attorney Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who is president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) and represents the Johanssons in their appeal against Sweden to the European Courts of Human Rights, has finally been given permission to speak with Christer while he sits behind bars. Harrold-Claesson was removed from the Johansson's Swedish case against Gotland Social Services last spring after Eva Ernstson, the court appointed "representative" for Domenic, complained to the courts about Harrold-Claesson's involvement on the case. Emstedt is also associated with the NCHR.

For those of you new to the Johansson family's battle with Sweden, go here to learn how it all began.

For those who may not know, Christer is a very talented and avid photographer. His work stands as a testimony to his artistic eye and sensitivity to beauty. Before Domenic was stolen from Annie and Christer's care, they were cultivating within him a special appreciation for the natural things of this world. You can enjoy some of Christer's photography work by visiting his archive here.

Below is a photo, snapped by Christer, of Domenic enjoying early spring flowers shortly before he was stolen by social services.

Update on Christer

2010-12-07T07:27:00.000-08:00

Update on Christer's Situation/Contact Information

To the best of our knowledge, Sweden continues to hold this father in jail. The original information we received said he'd have some sort of trial on December 10th. However, we are now learning that the trial can be held as late as December 14th or 15th and it seems this might be the case.

Sweden will NOT take Christer to trial until they have a psychiatric finding assigned to him. This is typical in child dispute cases such as these. Most parents who object to what has happened to their family are almost universally given a psychiatric diagnosis to which the socials can subsequently point claiming they were right all a long for taking and keeping the child. We've read this script over and over in many cases such as these in Sweden. You can dig through this huge pile of documented cases to learn more.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, although one of Christer's attorneys in the EU Human Rights case, has been denied access to Christer while he is in jail. The Swedish authorities claim the EU case has nothing whatever to do with Christer's actions of two weeks ago. We, and many others, beg to differ. We believe Christer's current incarceration has everything to do with the merits of the EU case and thus, Harrold-Claesson should have access to Christer while he is jailed.

Aside from what we've shared in this post, we are not aware of any further developments at this time.

If you'd like to send notes and letters of encouragement to Christer (he is fluent in English) while he is held in prison, you can do so by following these instructions:

First, place your letter/postcard in an envelope. On that envelope write:

To Christer Johansson, 690615-3231

Next, place this envelope into another envelope and on this outer envelope write this address:

Kriminalvården

Klient och säkerhetsenheten

SE–601 80 Norrköping

SWEDEN

Once received, Kriminalvården will send your letter to Gotland and will see that it is delivered to Christer.

Annie (holds a Masters Degree in English) can be contacted at:

                         Annie Johansson
                         c/o Rune Johansson
                         Alva Gudings 363
                         623 46 Hemse
                         Sweden

Distraught

2010-11-29T13:26:00.000-08:00

Distraught father takes son home

A boy and his father during state supervised visit July 2010.

After a year-and-a-half of disappointing court cases and state-supervised one hour visits once every five weeks with his only child, an understandably distraught father accused of no crimes against his son, took his 9 year old son, Domenic, home for an extended visit with family on Monday, November 22nd. Christer Johansson had no apparent motive other than to have more time with his son and to allow Domenic's grandparents, who had not seen their grandson in nearly a year-and-a-half, a chance to see their grandchild. On Wednesday, November 24th, Christer telephoned Alva police to inform them he and Domenic could be found at home.

Unfortunately, this visit was not approved by Gotland Social Services. This is the same social services department who took Domenic off of a plane and have held him for a year-and-a-half only allowing the parents to see their only son for 1 hour every 5 weeks. After such inhuman treatment, treatment that some might even call psychological torture, Mr. Johansson now finds himself behind bars with Domenic back in state custody. Eerily similar to what happened on the plane in June of 2009, armed police swept into the Johansson home, and dragged Domenic from his parents and grandparents. He is reported to have cried over and over, "I don't want to go back! I don't want to go back!" into foster care.

This latest event in the ongoing Johansson saga began last Monday when Chirster walked out of a state supervised visit taking Domenic with him. Domenic went happily home with his father. Since the time that armed police seized the boy 18 months ago from an India bound jetliner just moments before take-off, Domenic has pleaded with his parents to go home. However, the Johanssons have been ordered by social services to ignore their son's pleas, and to act as if they do not want him home.

Last Monday, Christer Johansson could ignore his son’s pleas no longer. This family has suffered so much and now the Swedish authorities plan to try Mr. Johansson for taking his own son home. Christer was arrested Wednesday night and he was arraigned and remanded in custody on Friday. He is being held "on suspicion of unlawful detention," alternatively "heavy-handedness with a child." According to Chapter 4 section 2 of the Criminal Code, this is punishable with prison for a minimum of one and maximum of ten years. Removing a child under fifteen years from the social services can constitute a crime against freedom or the promotion of escape and is punishable with fines or a prison sentence of up to one year. Christer will be prosecuted within two weeks during which time he will be subjected to a mental evaluation. Yet, during the visit Domenic was not harmed in anyway and did not want to leave his parent’s custody.

Before Christer telephoned police on Wednesday, Domenic shared a wonderful day-and-a-half with his parents and elderly grandparents. According to his uncle, Domenic was thrilled to be home and did not want to go back into foster care. In response to Christer's telephone call to police, several squad cars descended upon the Johansson home and armed police swept in, dragging Domenic out into the unseasonably frigid temperatures without giving him an opportunity to take his coat.

The struggle between the Johansson family and Gotland Social Services began in the fall of 2008 when the family chose to home school then 7 year old Domenic. Their choice to home school Domenic was predicated on the fact that the family was planning to move back to India, where Christer and Annie had met and married in 2000. Annie is a native of India. The family was living temporarily in Sweden, Christer's native homeland, with plans to return to India in 2009. Home schooling seemed the most logical choice for the family, as Domenic's parents desired to keep disruption of his education to a minimum as the family emigrated back to India.

Domenic on the boat to Stockholm, his last hours of freedom.

Home schooling was a legal option in Sweden at the time Domenic was taken into state custody, but has since been greatly restricted when the controlling Swedish Liberal Alliance passed into law a 1500 page education bill which threatens parents with fines up to $3000 dollars and loss of custody of their children, should they attempt, or continue, to home school, unless granted permission under "extraordinary circumstances."

When the Johanssons contacted their local school administrator, they were met with resistance. The school administrator threatened the family with social services contact if they did not enroll Domenic in school. Even while still legal in Sweden at the time, many people in positions of governmental power and authority are against the practice of home schooling. The Johanssons decided to stand their legal ground in spite of the school official's threats which unfortunately triggered a nightmare for Domenic and his family. While under tremendous pressure by social services to enroll their son in school, Domenic's mother, who holds a Masters Degree in English, continued to educate their son at home through the 2008-2009 school year.

Looking on as police storm plane moments before he's taken.

On June 25, 2009, Domenic excitedly boarded an India bound jetliner in Stockholm with his parents. Just moments before take-off and at the behest of Swedish social services, armed uniformed police stormed the plane and forcibly removed the Johansson family. That was the last time the Johanssons saw Domenic before he was forced into foster care.

To learn more about the Johanssons and their struggle to bring their son back home, feel free to browse the numerous stories published on this blog.

To learn more about Sweden's heavy-handed HVB and LVU laws, the laws used to govern forced treatment and forced foster care, and how they adversely impact her citizens and families, a book and video series have been authored by Daniel Hammarberg. Hammarberg, now in his mid-30s, as a teen was forced into Sweden's state care until he attained the age of 21. In direct response to his experiences with Swedish social services, Hammarberg has studied and written about the ever increasing role Swedish government is playing in the intimate lives of it's citizens. In his book The Madhouse: A Critical Study of Swedish Society, Hammarberg covers diverse segments of Swedish society, including HBV and LVU. In his 25 part video series The Socialist Utopia, Hammarberg painstakingly details the rise and devastating results of socialism in Sweden. Hammarberg has also authored a video on the LVU law, the law used to regulate foster care in Sweden which clearly demonstrates the trap of hopelessness in which parents and children find themselves once social services becomes involved in their lives. As Elin, the desperate 13 year old, penned in a Swedish orphanage just hours before taking her own life, My life is ruined, thanks to the Linköping social services. The only thing they do is destroy other people's lives, so stay away from them. If your parents need help, just tell them to ignore getting help, because that's the safest.

A Series of Excerpts Examining Outcomes of Swedish LVU Laws

2010-11-23T12:26:00.000-08:00

This is the first in a series of excerpts we will share from Daniel Hammarberg's book: The Madhouse: A Critical Study of Swedish Society Mr. Hammarberg writes from first-hand experience with Sweden's LVU laws as executed by Swedish Social Services "for his good" while he was young. In direct response to his experience, Mr. Hammarberg has taken a close look at the ever increasing role Swedish government is playing within the intimate lives of it's citizens. In his book, Mr. Hammarberg has concluded Sweden, in many ways, has become a madhouse. While his book covers many diverse subjects and segments of Swedish society, the excerpts we will examine are specific to Sweden's LVU law. This first excerpt begins with Mr. Hammarberg's introduction to the LVU section of the book, followed by the harrowing story of Elin. All Elin ever wanted, as written in her diary, "was allowed to return home to mom." Links to media stories regarding Elin can be found at the end of today's entry. Will the reality of the lives of the unfortunate children we will examine over the next few weeks one day become Domenic's reality? While Sweden is bent on retaining it's tight grip on Domenic, we pray his story might have a much happier ending.

Suicides as a consequence of institution placement
By Daniel Hammarberg, human rights activist and author of The Madhouse: A critical study of Swedish society
In most of the Western world, the idea of placing children into orphanages takes people back to the time of Charles Dickens' early 19th century London. Not so in Sweden, where in 2010, orphanages are seen as an essential part of the arsenal the government has at its disposal for coming to the rescue of "vulnerable children." Yet the question is - are these children vulnerable because of their environment, or due to living under a government that wants to care for them? I'm personally more inclined to suggest the latter.

Troubling statistics concerning the mental wellbeing among the growing generation in Sweden today do indeed exist. During the summer of 2009, Gothenburg newspaper Göteborgs-Posten had conducted a survey sent to all ninth-graders in this metropolis, where they found that one in five girls had already at that age inflicted harm on themselves - what's commonly described as self-cutting. As can be expected, Swedish society has extensive public facilities available for helping these troubled children, but can the government really offer anything of value to them? Can these vulnerable children find proper support from taxpayer-financed counsellors and staff? These coming vignettes will have you thinking otherwise; the common theme among all of them is that the children ended up at modern Swedish orphanages, what's called HVB-hem or HVB homes, from its acronym. Hem för vård och boende, "homes for care and living."

Elin, begging for mercy, dead at 13

In her youth, a woman named Susanne had suffered a traffic accident and was left disabled - moving around on a walking frame, with a disability pension already at age 20 from not being able to work. The next couple of years, she has three children - two daughters and a son. The first years of the lives of these children would be very happy, though soon the father disappears from the picture and the mother is overwhelmed by the burden of raising her family with her disability.

When her middle child, Elin, born in 1994, is six years old, the social services becomes involved in family life and Elin is relocated to a foster family, something Susanne agrees to since she admits she's not capable of being a mother at this point in time. Elin isn't treated very well by this new family, however, becoming the target of frequent insults thrown at her by her foster parents. She attempts to get the social services to listen to her when she tells them that everything isn't alright, but they don't give her the time of day, in spite of Elin showing up for school malnourished and with discarded clothes. According to her records with the social services, everything is just fine with the placement.

After a couple of years, Susanne starts feeling she's fit to take over parenting again, and Elin also has a great desire to return to her mother, but the social services isn't very interested in interrupting the placement - it's gone from entirely voluntary to thinly veiled coercion. Eventually, when Elin is twelve years old, the authorities launch a new investigation, and both Elin and Susanne want to be reunited.

The social services has other plans, however, deciding to place Elin with a new foster family. Susanne is told that if she doesn't agree to this placement, they will go through with a forced placement under the LVU law. Elin isn't happy in the new foster family and spends as much time as she can on the phone with her mother and sister. On the other hand, she's not very interested in socializing with her foster family, and when the social services learns of this, her phone is taken away from her. As she writes in her diary:

"If you hate life, you have to be able to talk to someone... And then I don't mean psychologists, but someone you can trust."

"The only thing that gets me up when I'm sad is mom and Linda. But now the social services has decided I'm only allowed to call them once a week."

"The only thing that could make me feel good was if I was allowed to return home to mom."

Elin tells the social services she's being battered in this family. She implores her caseworker not to tell her foster parents, but they are told in spite of her pleadings. At this time, Elin starts cutting her arms.
Before too long, this foster family decides they don't want Elin with them anymore, and once again Elin hopes she can be reunited with her family. This time around, the social services actually pulls out the LVU law, forcibly placing Elin at an HVB institution some 200 km away from her mother. Now it's 2008 and her short life would soon come to an end.

26 March	Placed at Carl Bobergsgården as a single girl at age 13 with up to 10 boys, ages 11 to 20, most of them placed there for conduct problems.
30 March	Elin is physically assaulted by one of the boys.
3 April	She's assaulted again.
7 April	Elin is once again badly assaulted and her wrist is radio-graphed due to a possible fracture.
10 April	She runs away from the orphanage and spends the night in the nearby forest.
13 April	Elin is assaulted by six older boys at the orphanage. At around 15:00, she tells the boys at the orphanage that she's going to go hang herself. Then she walks out and spends the night in the forest again, never to return.
14 April	Elin is found dead hanging from a tree - an obvious suicide - 18 days after having been placed at the orphanage.

Elin had told friends at school that she was both assaulted and sexually harassed at the orphanage, but refused to tell the authorities since she knew from experience she couldn't trust them. Among other things, she was forced to 'entertain' one of the boys sexually with her hands.

Her family was not briefed on any of the fights she had been in. During the autopsy, evidence of 19 punches and kicks is found on her body, with 43 bruises. Initially, criminal charges would be filed against two of the boys, but these didn't lead to any prosecutions, since Elin was dead and couldn't testify. During police investigations, at least one of the boys pleads guilty to assault, but this didn't make any difference. The staff remained skeptical of there having been fights at all at the orphanage. "Neither I or the staff ever saw them punching each other or anything like that," one of them said.
In her room, a farewell letter is found along with her diary. As she writes during her short stay here:

"Let me go, let me run away from Boberg. Let me run off and get out, I can't take this any more."

"Please, I can't deal with this. I'll let go of my knives and fly off to heaven."

"My life is ruined, thanks to the Linköping social services."

"The only thing they do is destroy other people's lives, so stay away from them. If your parents need help, just tell them to ignore getting help, because that's the safest."

Elin had apparently intended to become a writer and was in the process of composing a memoir entitled My Sad Life, but this life became simply too much for her to bear.

About a year later, during the summer of 2009, Elin's little brother Simon is allowed to return to Susanne from his foster home - now the social services feels she can take care of her children again. Alas, if only they had made that decision a little more than a year earlier...

(All of the names in this story have been replaced and are those used in mass media articles written about her case.)

The following links will take you to many news stories about Elin's tragic story. You will have to use Google Translate if you do not read Swedish.

Sveriges Radio: Om fallet Elin - "Mitt sorgliga liv"
AFTONBLADET: Hennes dotter orkade inte leva, Elin, 13, blev slagen på hemmet – mamman fick inget veta

To read more on Elin, simply copy the following Swedish text into your net search engine:
Carl Bobergsgården Elin

Watch this video to obtain a better understanding of the overreaching power of Sweden's LVU laws, watch this video.

Donations

2010-11-01T10:20:00.000-07:00

While family resources come to an end, the battle for justice rages on

After 15 months of legal battles, the Johanssons have found themselves in dire financial straits. To this point, they've not accepted financial help, instead relying upon personal means and savings, as they've battled for the return of their only child, Domenic, who is now 9 years old. As you can imagine, such a battle against a government entity having endless resources has taken its toll financially, emotionally and physically on the family. As a result, the Johansson's resources have come to an end, while the battle for their son rages on.

Help this family by using the Donate button at the top right of Domenic's blog today. While your donation is not tax deductible, 100% of the funds go directly to the Johansson family. This is a worthy cause, that of restoring family dignity, independence, justice and human rights in Sweden. When justice finally prevails for the Johansson family, the happy consequences will have potential to be felt and enjoyed around the world.

For those just learning of the case: On June 25, 2009, armed police stormed an India bound airliner and forcibly removed then 7 year old Domenic, separating him from his parents. Their crime? Home schooling.

In preparation for their impending move to India, the family chose to home school Domenic in an effort to reduce disruption to his schooling as they relocated. Domenic's mother, Annie, was born and raised in India, living in Sweden with her Swedish husband, Christer, for approximately 8 years before the family finally sold all they owned and began what they thought would be a journey back to Annie's home and large, extended family.

At the time Domenic was seized by Sweden, home schooling was still legal in the country, but legislation had just been introduced in the Swedish parliament outlawing the practice, emboldening those in authority who are opposed to educational freedom. Home schooling is now illegal across the Swedish landscape and fines of $3000.00 for home schooling were just announced by the Swedish government last week.

Domenic has languished in foster care since he was forced off the India bound airliner moments before take-off. He is allowed to see his parents only one hour every five weeks and has been forced to sit in a public school classroom in Sweden, when he rightfully should be living with his parents and extended family in India.

Ironically, Domenic's mother holds a Masters Degree in English, yet her high level of education has meant absolutely nothing to Swedish authorities. A once very close bond between father, mother and child has been forcibly destroyed by powers in Sweden purely for ideological and arbitrary reasons. To learn more about this travesty of justice, please spend time browsing this blog.

Guest Writer: Daniel Hammarberg

2010-10-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

The Domenic case is far from unique
By Daniel Hammarberg, human rights activist and author of The Madhouse: A critical study of Swedish society

Since Sweden introduced barnavårdslagen, "the child welfare law," in 1924, the act which enabled the state to take children into custody without their parents' consent, quite a few Swedes have faced relocation into foster care on dubious grounds. As the supply of foster homes wasn't nearly enough to meet the new demands of the grandiose plans for solving societal ills through foster care, the state swiftly established orphanages where sometimes upwards of 30 children were brought up. In the mid 20th century, at the peak of the days of unbridled foster care, no less than one in 30 children at any given time resided in foster care - half of them in actual families, the other half in orphanages. Since then, the proportion of the total population has gone down somewhat, but these dreaded child institutions are still around, now referred to as HVB-hem - treatment homes.

Two opposite developments have taken place; on the one hand, the poverty that afflicted early 20th century Sweden was nearly eliminated during the 1950's and 60's. On the other hand, as the original reasons to take children into state custody were disappearing, social workers created new reasons to seize children. While before, children could be taken due to their parents not being able to afford their sustenance or outright physically abusing them, now questionable psychological theories on the development of children see the light of day, instead. Delusional Freudian beliefs are now used to justify separating a child from his or her family. As the legislation upon which the foster care system was based has progressed, not only is actual harm to the child used to make a case, but now also projections of psychologists on the future development of the child are heavily considered.

While the early incarnations of barnavårdslagen, "the child welfare law," were fairly specific on the grounds upon which to take a child into custody, these later developed into general clauses which in today's LVU law lets the government seize children if "... any other condition in the home" warrants it as per §2, or as far as the conduct of the child goes - "... any other socially destructive behaviour" as per §3. What is considered to meet these conditions is for the social workers as a profession to decide, and the administrative courts that try the cases rarely question the opinions of the social workers.

Any use of naked force and oppressive measures will eventually meet resistance, and in Sweden as a possible counter, we've witnessed the use of Newspeak for what was previously a blatantly controversial use of state authority. The 1924 law didn't mince words when it laid down the rules, and here children could be described as "degenerates." An orphanage was still called an orphanage, and society didn't need to disguise its aims to any noticeable degree.

In today's society, the same public authority circulates such phrases as barnens bästa i centrum, "the best interests of the child," and similar. The government insists it's only doing what's right for the child these days, with little regard for birth family bonds which are so very critical for a growing human being, without which a person has little hope of becoming a well-adjusted adult. Children can be mercilessly torn from families where an independent observer will have little understanding for the state's actions. Perhaps "the best interests of the child" is merely Newspeak for the state's willingness to seize children from families that refuse to conform and cooperate with the state. The "care" it's felt that the children "need" is rather the oppressive measure of a covertly totalitarian state that's ensuring that society won't have to deal with functional families independent of the state, with the strength that's inherent in an intact nuclear family.

Over the years, several horror stories have emerged from the Swedish foster care system; in the 1970's, Sweden's political elite made use of girls placed at orphanages as prostitutes, some as young as 14 years old, in what was called the Geijer affair. In 1983, German magazine Der Spiegel published an extensive article entitled "Kinder-Gulag" im Sozialstaat Schweden on the state of foster care at the time, likening it to the Soviet system of Gulags. Back then, Europe still enjoyed good investigative journalism as well as a European Court of Human Rights that still had the ability to influence the way public authorities operated. Not so today, when mass media is oh so silent on the topic of foster care abuses, and the ECHR is virtually useless as an institution for the individual families to seek redress for their grievances due to being flooded with cases.

There have been other cases recently, similar to the Domenic one. During the summer of 2009, an Iranian man named Esmail and his Swedish wife Susanne, who have three children together, found these taken at the airport as they were leaving for Iran after having only made a brief stop in Sweden. An anonymous report about alleged child neglect had been made against them, and still today they've not been able to get their children back.

The future looks even more bleak. In a parliamentary bill the other year, 2008/09:So555, the Left Party of Sweden wanted to make it a crime attempting to leave Sweden with children who had legally been taken into state custody, and the authorities were going to be alerted whenever anyone with a LVU order on them attempted to leave, just like criminals. To support the bill, they quoted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the CRC. The bill was voted down, but overall when one browses the bills that have been written on the LVU law, they all have one thing in common - the call for greater jurisdiction and possibly more spending as well.

To learn more about the state of contemporary Swedish society, feel free to have a look at my new book "The Madhouse" where I cover all the things above in greater detail; for now only available as an E-book but soon to be available in print as well.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0046ZS2PA

Or take a peek at my new blog at

http://www.danielhammarberg.com/

Swedish court ignoring family

2010-10-20T21:03:00.000-07:00

OneNewsNow: Swedish court ignoring family
Swedish Official at European Court may be blocking potentially embarrassing Johansson Hearing

A Swedish home-schooling family has been trying to get their son back from foster care since he was taken away by authorities more than a year ago, but an attorney for the family believes the courts have turned a deaf ear to their situation.

A judge recently upheld the decision of Swedish social service officials to keep Domenic Johansson in foster care and away from his parents. Mike Donnelly, director of international relations and staff attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), tells OneNewsNow Domenic's parents have argued that they are a.....read more.

HSLDA Analysis of Sept 2 court opinion

2010-10-06T22:03:00.000-07:00

HSLDA: Government’s Claws Dig Deeper in Johansson Case

On September 21, 2010, Swedish Administrative Court Chief Judge Peter Freudenthal handed down his decision in the case of Domenic Johansson of Gotland, Sweden, dashing the hopes of his parents for reunification with their son, who has been kept in foster care for over one year. Dominic was seized by Swedish authorities from the plane he and his parents had boarded as they were moving to India, his mother’s home country. Authorities cited untreated cavities in the boy’s teeth, failure to vaccinate, and homeschooling as reasons for taking him into custody.

After multiple appeals, Judge Freudenthal has upheld the decision of Swedish social services officials, who are the engineers behind the case. Domenic has been kept from his parents since June 25, 2009, and has only been allowed to visit with them once every five weeks with a supervised 15-minute telephone call once every two weeks. It has become increasingly apparent that the social workers have no real intention of reuniting this family, and that they have simply transferred Domenic from the Johanssons to the foster family. Domenic is now in the public school system.

Friends, family, and a university professor of psychology testified that the Johanssons are more than capable of parenting Domenic and caring for him. Despite this testimony, and the willingness of the family to do whatever the state wants them to do, Judge Freudenthal decided to go along with the assertions of the social workers that Domenic was better off in the care of the state. Meanwhile, Freudenthal spent almost as much time discussing the fees the appointed lawyers would collect as he did explaining the rationale for the state’s continued custody of Domenic.


About six months after Sweden took him hostage, and where he remains as such today.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a noted international human rights lawyer and president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (nkmr.org), represented Christer Johansson before being removed from the case on the motion of Eva Ernston, Domenic’s appointed attorney. Harrold-Claesson has developed a practice of fighting Swedish social services, a system she calls increasingly “evil.”

“Held Hostage”

“I have never in 20 years of practice seen a case more badly handled,” says Harrold-Claaesson. “This family has been so traumatized that they may never recover. The Swedish government has grossly violated this family’s human rights, both under Swedish law and under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Under the ECHR people have the right to leave their country. But in this case the social services took this poor little boy and...READ MORE

Guest Writer: Helen E. Lees

2010-10-05T15:02:00.000-07:00

Yesterday we announced this blog open to guest writers who have been following the Johansson case. Today, we are happy to introduce Helen E. Lees, a graduate student at the University of Birmingham, UK. Her PhD thesis "considers what happens to the self of parents and other adults upon discovery of the possibilities of elective home education." Due to her research, she brings interesting insight to the tragic story of the Johansson family. We continue to accept articles from guest writers. Send your submissions for consideration to: returndomenic@aol.com

Domenic and the New Paradigm

By Helen E. Lees

http://bham.academia.edu/HelenLees

Domenic and his father in happier times.

The case of the parents of Domenic looks as though it is an unfolding brutal tragedy of misunderstandings. This is backed up and informed by doctoral research that I have been conducting at the University of Birmingham in the UK between 2007-2010. This research highlights empirical data on the discovery of home education and other educational alternatives, suggesting that in order to understand such a lifestyle and way of seeing education and the upbringing of children, one needs to have undergone some kind of 'conversion' experience. As a result, those in favor of home education who have, it seems from my research, experienced this kind of conversion, are living in 'a different world' from people who believe in mainstream schooling.

The philosophical understanding that underpins this idea comes from Thomas S. Kuhn, who wrote 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' in 1969. Kuhn says that when people discover a new way of doing things, they change paradigm and what results is an incommensurability of understanding and communication between those in the old world/paradigm and those in the new. My research shows home education is a 'new' paradigm and also that consequently- involved in education as a field with diverse options - is the problem of incommensurability: although people are talking about essentially the same thing (education), different ways of doing things means that when people have an understanding coming from a particular paradigm or 'worldview', they cannot easily understand other people in an alternative paradigm and with another 'worldview'. It requires effort for people in the 'old' paradigm to see - literally - from the point of view of those in the 'new'.

It seems that social services have a lack of understanding and an inability to understand home education practice and choices. They are, it seems, only seeing the situation from their own point of view. My research suggests why they might be so intractable in their views with regard to Domenic being in the care of his 'alternative' parents. Kuhn also talks about the strong resistance from those in the 'old' paradigm towards those in the 'new' paradigm. If we apply this to Domenic's case, it makes some sense of the strong and continuing resistance that social services seem to have displayed against Domenic's parents: if social services give in and return Domenic, it threatens their belief that their worldview and opinions are the 'correct' ones. This is a strong and world-shattering threat that must be guarded against at all costs at the level of their personal self; although it is likely to be dressed in professional language and rationale.

In the UK, there are many examples of social services having a very weak grasp of the basic concepts of home education and seeing it, as a result, as poor education. The problem of incommensurability is a global one. Of course, home educating has been highlighted through various academic research to constitute another (personally and socially positive) way of life, so it is not just about education. It is also about lifestyle. If a mother wants to follow natural medicine practices for example (a very Indian and Vedic attitude), this is a life view. It is also a life view that is valid on its own terms. If it is seen from a medical/scientistic perspective it loses validity. From following the case of Domenic Johansson being taken and kept from his parents it strikes me forcibly that what is happening is not fact based on sound judgment, but facts based on a determination to maintain validation of a particular worldview that is not and - in a democracy - cannot be allowed to be seen as the only valid worldview.

Gotland social services do not have all the answers and are not in possession of the truth. Their worldview is not the only valid one. Their facts can be seen differently. A child has the right to be brought up in the worldview of its parents and parents have the right to bring up their child in their own worldview. Using this argument, the only clause that would substantiate violation of respect for a particular worldview or paradigm of living would be substantial and substantiated profound harm to the child. I do not see any evidence of such harm having been perpetrated against Domenic by his parents. They seem, from what I have read, heard, seen, felt and personally judged, to have a solidly loving attitude and a valid worldview.

My research backs up the Johansson's claims that the situation they are experiencing is unfair. Why is their son away from and out of their care? It doesn't make sense from any worldview, actually. Whilst this non-sense is unfolding, Domenic, of course, is changing his worldview... Domenic's parents are having to agree to change theirs. A dominance in perspective creates totalitarianism at the level of personal choice. A democracy is founded on personal choice. Adherence to a worldview - for anyone - is not secured by taking children from their parents.

Helen E. Lees

http://bham.academia.edu/HelenLees

Seeking Guest Bloggers

2010-10-04T12:25:00.000-07:00

Seeking Guest Bloggers

Since it's inception more than six months ago, the Friends of Domenic Johansson blog has been written anonymously by one person, with the gracious help of a team of people volunteering behind the scenes with translations and editing. At this juncture, we would like to open the blog to other writers who are passionate about what is happening in Sweden and through it's LVU system and specifically with the Johansson family.

Guest bloggers can choose to write anonymously or use a by-line, if they prefer. Submissions made by guest bloggers will not be compensated, as this is a worldwide, volunteer effort to help Domenic return home and to help educate the world, as well as Swedes, of the dangerous pitfalls in Sweden's LVU system. If you would like to write an article for publication on the Friends of Domenic blog, or on the Swedish version, Vanner till Domenic, please contact us privately at:

returndomenic@aol.com

Thank you for your interest in Domenic's plight and for caring enough to help!

Going Public

2010-09-10T06:32:00.000-07:00

Socials Not Happy Family Has Gone Public
Johanssons Ask: What Would You Do For Your Children?

While employees of Gotland Social Services cloak their deeds behind a wall of secrecy, Annie and Christer Johansson have opened their entire lives to the world for scrutiny. "We have no choice. The world must know what is happening in Sweden. We've walked through fire for our son, and will continue to do so until he is returned to us," remarked Christer Johansson, as the September 2, 2010 court hearing challenging the Social's right to keep Domenic approached. "This is how much we love our son. What would you do for your children?"

Gotland Social Services are not happy with the Johanssons for making their story public. Yet, the Johanssons believe they have no choice but to bring their plight to public awareness, as it seems abundantly clear that Gotland Social Services has absolutely no intention of returning Domenic to his parent's care.

This writer is not related to the Johanssons, as some would believe. As a matter of fact, until the Johansson's story became public, spreading across the globe into the United States, this writer had never heard of Domenic, Annie and Christer. Instead, this writer has become interested in the Johansson case because of her own children, a sibling group of 4, whom she and her husband adopted three years ago.

Our adopted children's birth father is in jail for 30 to 50 years for the crimes he perpetrated against these children. The initial goal for our children was reunification with their birth mother. She had never personally harmed her children. Instead, she neglected their needs by not protecting them from their birth father. Even so, Child Protective Services were prepared to reunite her with her children once she completed one demand: attendance of parenting classes. Their birth mother was not asked to walk through fire. She was simply asked to better equip herself by attending parenting classes prior to reunification.

Curiously, our children's birth mother attended all required parenting classes but the very last. For two years, while her children languished in foster care, birth mom provided every excuse as to why she could not finish the classes, fully knowing she needed to do so for reunification to take place. While their birth mother was not required to walk through fire, for some reason she chose not to complete the required parenting course in an effort to have her children restored to her. After two years of waiting, the children were made available for adoption and now reside with us, their new family.

Annie and Domenic, mother and son.

Reunification Never Offered

In contrast, Annie and Christer have not been charged with any crime or neglect. They've also not been given the opportunity for reunification with Domenic. They've not been offered parenting classes as a possible means of restoration. We are certain if they were, Annie and Christer would have taken the classes expeditiously and would have been star pupils, perhaps among the best to ever pass through such classes.

Annie and Christer have stated repeatedly in court their willingness to do anything, follow any program, and agree with every suggestion from Social Services, if only their child would be restored to them. The shocking fact is: Gotland Social Services has no interest in helping the Johansson family to be reunited. The health of this family is not Social Services' goal at all.

Instead, it appears Gotland Social Services' main intention is to permanently remove Domenic from the care of his parents. Why? Of what crime have Annie and Christer been accused? They've been accused of home schooling the boy - at a time when home schooling was legal in Sweden. They've been accused of delaying or forgoing immunizations - while such a parental decision is legal in Sweden. They've been accused of neglecting two cavities in his baby (milk) teeth - yet the existence of the cavities was not known until after the Socials snatched the boy. (Incidentally, Domenic had received regular dental care in the past, thus proving his parents were not neglecting him in this area. And even had he not, has the existence of cavities in baby teeth become a crime?)

The only requirements laid upon the Johansson family by Gotland Social Services has been total and complete acquiescence to the loss of Domenic. The Johanssons have never been offered a plan for reunification.

The Johanssons refuse to acquiesce to the loss of their child. Understandably so! Domenic is their son. They've loved and tenderly cared for him his entire life. No crime was ever perpetrated against the boy by Annie and Christer, nor anyone else. The only crime this writer, and thousands of others, see is a crime perpetrated by Swedish authorities. Whether purposefully or by mistake, the separation of Domenic from his parents for the aforementioned arbitrary reasons is criminal.

It is this writer's conclusion, and that of many others, that Annie, Christer and Domenic have fallen victim to a troubling movement in the halls of child protective services worldwide. It appears in many places the priority is not the aiding of citizens, families and children who are endangered or hurt. Instead, the priority is the forming of children according to the social engineering theories of powerful entities in government. The goal is, in fact, arbitrary power and control.

When child protective services remains centered upon their mission of actually protecting children from abusive and neglectful parents - as in the case of this writer's adopted children - children and parents are justly served. However, in the case of Domenic Johansson and - troublingly - a rising number of families across the globe, when child protective services removes a child from the home of loving and capable parents for arbitrary reasons, children and their parents are permanently traumatized, neither parent nor child is served, and the freedom of society is called into question.

Socials Drop Psychological Bomb One Day Before Next Court Battle Begins

2010-09-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

Domenic Denied Birthday Wish, Again

For the second time since armed Swedish police stormed an India bound airliner and violently removed then 7 year old Domenic Johansson from his parent's custody, Gotland Social Services has refused to allow the young boy a visit with his parents for his birthday on September 9th. Last year, Domenic spent his 8th birthday in the company of strangers, as he will again this year if Social Services are allowed to continue in this ruthless vein.

Just one day before the Johanssons head back to court in their battle to secure custody of their son, Gotland Social Services has served the Johansson family yet another psychological punch by denying them a visit with Domenic for his 9th birthday next week. With plenty of time after the September 2nd court appearance to deliver their hurtful message, one wonders: Why have the Socials chosen to unveil their cruel birthday plans now?

After suffering horrific psychological trauma last summer at the hands of Swedish police and Social Service workers, Domenic was further tortured by Swedish authorities when they denied him a visit with his parents on his 8th birthday. When the Johanssons were finally able to see their son, Christer asked Domenic why he did not want to see them on his birthday. Domenic responded with dismay to his father's question. Christer went on to explain that Gotland Social Services had told them that Domenic "does not want to see you on his birthday." When Domenic heard this charge, he retorted, "That's the cruelest thing I've ever heard!" Interesting that a boy so young can discern such cruelty. It is a pity he has had to suffer so much cruelty at the hands of Gotland officials, under the guise of "protection."

You can be sure that Annie, Christer, Domenic and his elderly grandparents are devastated by this latest act of Social Services cruelty, just as they have been devastated time and again over these last 16 months. It seems as if Gotland Social Service's inhumane game of playing with the Johanssons lives will never end. Even so, Annie and Christer must collect the strength to fight for their son once again in Gotland's LVU courts tomorrow.

As Their Rights Are Trampled, So Are Yours....

2010-08-11T10:51:00.000-07:00

While Myths and Fantasies Abound, Truth Quietly Awaits Those Willing to See

An ongoing debate continues across the web regarding the validity of the Johansson Family's claim of human rights violations at the hands of Swedish Social Services. One need not look far to find assertions regarding this case; assertions rooted in myth and fantasy, yet held up as the Holy Grail for why a little boy was stripped of his basic human right to be loved and cared for by his family.

It seems people would rather remain comfortable in their suspicions than seek the truth. Many seem content to acquiesce in being part of the problem, rather than working hard to become part of the solution. Could it be the truth is simply too horrific to face? Is it just easier to believe there were valid reasons to strip this family of their rights, than to confront the insanity occurring within the borders of Sweden?

Domenic, in happier times, flourishing under his parents care.

There are two sides to every story. The Socials have their side, as do the Johanssons. As for the Social's side, the public is provided their reason for taking Domenic in an article published in the Swedish press in June 2009. (Use Google Translate if you need the article in English.) In this article Lena Celion, chair of Sweden's department of Children and Education, emphatically states it is Domenic's "right" to be enrolled in school, and it is the "municipality's duty" to force Domenic to attend Swedish public schools, even when the family had clearly communicated their intentions to leave the country and raise the boy in his mother's native land of India. Celion concludes her argument in support of removing the boy from his family by stating, "It's his right. We are doing this for the boy's sake."

The "boy's sake" and the "municipality's duty" are the reasons the Socials have publicly stated for taking Domenic, and the court documents this writer has read clearly support the Social's public claims of the boy's "right" to a public school education as cause for his removal. Yet, while many will not accept as truth the Johansson's side of the story, many of the same people also do not accept the Social's publicly stated side of the story. Why? Is it because such an abuse of power by a government entity is too difficult to believe? Is it easier to dismiss the Socials' reasons for taking the boy than it is to face the reality of their reasons? Is it easier on the minds of the populace to turn a blind eye to the truth than to believe a child's life and rights can be destroyed for the sake of a public school education? And when we consider the Social's "concerns" for Domenic's rights, we should also consider what Domenic's answer would be if he were asked. Surely, this same little boy who is reduced to tears at the end of each state supervised visit with his parents, if asked, would beg for his right to be home with his family!

Yes, there are two sides to this story. You've just read the social's side, now consider both sides in context. You have a unique opportunity to do so because the human rights attorneys aiding the Johanssons have made legal documents available for you to read.

Domenic today, suffering under state care, with all his rights removed.

If you are one of those who does not believe the Johansson's version of the story and who also dismisses the Social's public statements, then we ask you consider the position of the attorneys defending the Johanssons. These attorneys are privileged to all court documents from both sides of the argument. Therefore, it is fair to say that these same attorneys have read all the claims made by the Socials, yet they continue to stand by the Johanssons. The fact that the attorneys have read and seen all complaints, yet have still pressed on with this case is an indication to any reasonable person that something on the Social's side is seriously amiss. All one need do to learn both sides of the story is read the appeal to the European Courts on Human Rights.

As for this writer, I will trust those who have the unique privilege to information from both sides of the story and who, after reading and legally considering all the information, continue to press forward in the effort to see Domenic restored to his family. For as the rights of Domenic and his parents are trampled, so are yours and mine. And as their rights are restored and protected, so are yours and mine.

Catch 22: Cruelty at its Utmost

2010-07-28T10:38:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from the December 2009 Court Decision analysis article


Late 2009, about 6 months after Domenic is stripped of his parents.

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 plan devised by the Socials 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?

Add caption

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.

Read entire article here.

Excellent article out of Sweden on how families suffer due to state policies.

2010-07-19T05:53:00.000-07:00

English translation below

Framtidens familjepolitik

Jonas Himmelstrand om Framtidens familjepolitik

Är Sverige en familjepolitisk sovjetstat?

Publicerad: 2010-07-02, Uppdaterad: 2010-07-02

Rubriken antyder att denna artikel har ett obehagligt budskap. Det är riktigt, så sluta gärna att läsa redan nu om du inte vill bli upprörd. Men för mig är det ännu obehagligare att inte skriva den. Människan måste uttrycka sin sanning, annars blir hon sjuk. Här är den sanning som jag upplevde vid ett besök på Kanadas västkust i månadsskiftet april-maj i år.

Jag berättar, och en kvinna får tårar i ögonen. Hon är inte ensam, jag ser flera fuktiga ögon. Jag ger en presentation på en skol- och familjekonferens med ett 20-tal psykologer och familjerådgivare i Kanada, Nordamerikas mest europeiserade land. Likt USA? Nej, kanadensarna protesterar mot att jämföras med sin mäktige granne i söder med ungefär samma avoghet som en del svenskar känner gentemot USA. En pensionerad psykolog från provinsen Alberta berättar om det kanadensiska inlandsklimatet, om snön som kommer i oktober och kan ligga kvar till april. Flygplatsen i Vancouver, där jag har landat, är i europeisk stil, klart annorlunda än Chicago O'Hare där jag mellanlandade. Det är lätt att få kontakt med kanadensarna, de är både öppna och uttrycksfulla.

Varför tåras psykologernas ögon? Jo, jag har blivit ombedd att under 15 minuter berätta om barns och familjers situation i Sverige...Read more in Swedish.

Use this link:

http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/07/02/r-sverige-en-familjepolitisk-sovjetstat

The future of family policy

Jonas Himmelstrand for future family policy

Sweden is a family political Soviet state?

Published: 2010-07-02, Updated: 2010-07-02

The title suggests that this article has an unpleasant message. It is true, so please stop reading now if you do not want to be upset. But for me it's even more unpleasant to not write it. Man must express its truth, otherwise he becomes ill. This is the truth that I experienced on a visit to Canada's west coast in late April to May this year.

I speak, and a woman is in tears. She is not alone, I see many moist eyes. I give a presentation at a school and a family conference with some 20 psychologists and family counselors in Canada, North America, most European countries. Like the U.S.? No, the Canadians are protesting against, compared with its powerful neighbor to the south with approximately the same resentment that some Swedes familiar with the U.S. A retired psychologist from Alberta tells of the Canadian continental climate, the snow coming in October and can remain until April. The airport in Vancouver, where I have landed, is in European style, very different from Chicago's O'Hare, where I made a stopover. It is easy to get in touch with Canadians, they are both open and expressive.

Why tears in the eyes of a psychologist? Well, I've been asked that for 15 minutes to tell you about children and families in Sweden....Read more in English.

Court date pushed to September 2nd

2010-07-12T05:38:00.000-07:00

Swedish courts have agreed to postpone the next Johansson court hearing until September 2nd, providing the family and their choice counsel more time to successfully appeal the mid-June decision removing from the case the highly respected human rights lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights. The date for the new series of court challenges was originally fast-tracked and scheduled to be heard July 13 in Harrold-Claesson's absence.

As Friends of Domenic Johansson reported last month, Swedish courts banished Harrold-Claesson from the case after Domenic's appointed public "defender" (a position appointed by the court to represent the state) complained to the courts about Harrold-Claesson's participation. President of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, Harrold-Claesson is a widely known and respected advocate for families in custody disputes with child protective services, and has won many such cases in Sweden, restoring dozens of children to the rightful arms of loving parents. She has since filed an appeal to her court ordered removal.

This new case, challenging the "keeping" of Domenic, was filed on behalf of the Johanssons by Harrold-Claesson just days before she was banished. The previous series of cases challenged the initial "taking" of Domenic. In those series of suits, the Johanssons were "represented" by court appointed counsel, resulting in Domenic's continued separation from his parents. It is for this very reason Christer Johansson has dismissed the original court appointed counsel and sought the hard-hitting Harrold-Claesson to represent him.

June 25, 2010 marked the one-year anniversary of the violent seizure of the then 7-year-old child. So traumatized was Domenic by the acts of armed police on behalf of the Visby Social Services board, witnesses tell us he vomited during and shortly after the shocking scene when uniformed Swedish police stormed an India bound jetliner just moments before take off. We are told the boy's mother, Annie, collapsed during the assault. The family was emigrating to India, Annie's home country.

By the end of 2009, the Johanssons had lost all their court appeals challenging the "taking" of their only child. In the December 2009 Chamber Court decision, the court sites as justification the fact that Domenic was home schooled (at the time legal in Sweden), that his parents chose to delay or forgo immunizations (also legal in Sweden) and that the boy had two cavities in his baby teeth.

Annie is a native of India. She emigrated with Christer to his native country of Sweden in 2001 after an earth quake hit India and the couple lost everything they owned in an attempt to start a small travel agency. At the time of the quake, Annie was pregnant with Domenic. The couple always planned to return to India where Annie's large family resides, and were finally doing so the day Domenic was seized.

Read Petition Sent to European Court of Human Rights

2010-06-26T22:47:00.000-07:00

Read the Entire Text of the Petition Sent on Behalf of the Johanssons to the European Court of Human Rights

Thank you to all helping in this case and thank you to the rest of you supporting them, spreading the news of their plight and praying for this grieving family. Thanks to HSLDA, ADF and Harrold-Caesson, the entire world now can read legal documents which back all the claims by the Johanssons of maltreatment, severe psychological abuse and grave injustices at the hands of the Swedish government. You will find the document here: Petition to the European Court of Human Rights on Behalf of the suffering Domenic, Annie and Christer Johansson, as well as extended Johansson family in Sweden and Extended Kumar family in India.

Sweden's State-Sponsored "Kidnapping" of 7-year-old Homeschooler Approaches One Year Anniversary

2010-06-24T22:31:00.000-07:00

June 25, 2010
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 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 supposed 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 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?

Mother earns Masters but "lacks ability"

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). Unfortunately, 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 well-being, 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.

Swedish Social Services Rush to Lock Jaws on "Kidnapped" 7-year-old after Family’s Lawyer Inexplicably Banned

2010-06-23T12:24:00.000-07:00

Socials fast-track new case in Harrold-Claesson's absence

The struggle continues for little Domenic Johannson, seized by police from his agonized parents because he was briefly homeschooled, stayed home with his mother as a preschooler, and was reportedly too affectionate and outgoing. Close observers of the Johansson state-sponsored "kidnapping" case believe the Visby Social Board is pushing Swedish courts to fast-track a new series of court challenges in an effort to have the cases quashed long before Ruby Harrold-Claesson wins her way back as counsel to Domenic's parents, Annie and Christer Johansson.

Earlier this month, Swedish courts banished Harrold-Claesson from the case after Domenic's appointed public "defender" (who is appointed by the court to represent the state) complained to the courts about her participation. Harrold-Claesson, president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, is a widely known and respected advocate for families in custody disputes with child protective services, and has won many such cases in Sweden, restoring dozens of children back to the rightful arms of loving parents. She has since filed an appeal to her court ordered removal.

Word has it the next series of law suits might be heard as early as the second week of July in Swedish courts on the island of Gotland. This new case, challenging the "keeping" of Domenic, was filed on behalf of the Johanssons by Harrold-Claesson just days before she was banished.
The previous series of cases challenged the initial "taking" of Domenic. In those series of suits, the Johanssons were "represented" by court appointed counsel, resulting in Domenic's continued seperation from his parents. It is for this very reason Christer Johansson has dismissed the original court picked counsel and sought out the hard-hitting Harrold-Claesson to represent him.

June 25, 2010 marks the one-year anniversary of the violent seizure of the then 7-year-old child. So traumatized was Domenic by the acts of armed police on behalf of the Visby Social Services board, witnesses tell us he vomited during and shortly after the shocking scene when uniformed Swedish police stormed an India bound jetliner just moments before take off. We are told the boy's mother, Annie, collapsed during the assault. The family was emigrating to India, Annie's home country.

By the end of 2009, the Johanssons had lost all their court appeals challenging the "taking" of their only child. In the December 2009 Chamber Court decision, the court sites as justification the fact that Domenic was home schooled (at the time legal in Sweden), that his parents chose to delay or forgo immunizations (also legal in Sweden) and that the boy had two cavities in his baby teeth.

Annie is a native of India. She emigrated with Christer to his native country of Sweden in 2001 after an earth quake hit India and the couple lost everything they owned. At the time of the quake, Annie was pregnant with Domenic. The couple always planned to return to India where Annie's large family resides, and were finally doing so the day Domenic was seized.

This story is available here as Press Release to be distributed freely.

The New American: State 'Kidnapping' of Swedish Home-schooler Prompts International Outcry

2010-06-15T17:58:00.000-07:00

State ‘Kidnapping’ of Swedish Home-schooler Prompts International Outcry

The case of eight-year-old Domenic Johansson, separated from his family by Swedish authorities last year over his parents’ decision to legally home school him, has prompted an international outcry from human rights groups, American home schooling organizations, and activists on the World Wide Web. Last summer, armed police seized the boy from an airplane without a warrant just as the family was about to move to the mother’s home country of India. Court documents show the original reason for taking Domenic was home schooling, which currently remains legal in Sweden. Later, the court that upheld the government’s decision cited some unfilled cavities the family was planning to treat in India, and the fact that the boy had not received all of his “recommended” vaccines, which are technically optional under Swedish law.

Domenic has been separated from his parents ever since — with one-hour supervised visits permitted every five weeks. He is being subjected to various “psychiatric treatments,” read more...

Gotland Social Services: No More Cameras!

2010-05-26T10:40:00.000-07:00

We've received word that more restrictions have been placed on the Johanssons. You see, Domenic and his father share a love for photography. Domenic has always played with his father's cameras and the family owns a vast collection of photos Domenic, himself, has taken over the years. As shown in the photo below, which was taken during their last state supervised visit in April 2010, Domenic has enthusiastically continued sharing this kindred love with his dad during his precious one hour state supervised visit with his parents once every five weeks.

Today, the Swedish Socials have said cameras no more! Domenic is no longer allowed to share his love of photography with his beloved father. As you can see by the photos, Domenic clearly finds this activity horrific! No wonder the Socials must protect him from further traumatic incidents such as this!

Special note: Domenic snapped the photo of his father shown above on the left.

Imagine Yourself in Her Shoes

2010-05-26T09:33:00.000-07:00

You are accused of neglecting your only child. Social workers make these accusations against you in writing and in person. However, they are speaking and writing in Swedish. Your first language is English, with your knowledge of Swedish very limited. You want to know and understand the problem. You request translation, but your request falls upon deaf ears. The social workers either do not understand English, or they do not care that your Swedish is limited.

Your husband is Swedish and speaks both languages. Rather than supply you with a translation of the accusations against you, social services appear to expect your husband to translate their complaint for them. However, your husband is also being accused of the same allegations. He is just as upset, confused and alarmed as you.

Even so, because the Swedish workers do not provide translation, your husband does his best to tell you what they are saying. However, he cannot possibly answer all the questions you have of the social workers. Besides, you are due a direct answer from those accusing you. However, your accusers do not provide an answer in a language you fully understand. Instead, you find your needs to understand the accusations to be totally ignored by the social workers.

Eventually, the socials take your only child away, even when they've still not provided any written or spoken communications to you in a language you fully understand. Since your child has been removed, all spoken communications with the socials have been in Swedish, with the exception of two time when a translator was finally provided. Additionally, of the volumes of written communications from social services, it is estimated a mere ten percent have been translated into a language you can understand.

This is the place in which Annie Johansson has found herself. Annie is a native of India with English as her native tongue. Her husband, Christer, is a native of Sweden but understand and speaks English well enough for the two to meet, fall in love, marry and begin a family, only to have it ripped apart without a full understanding as to why. This is only part of the injustice Annie Johansson has suffered at the hands of Swedish social service workers.

Whose children are they, anyway?

2010-05-26T09:11:00.000-07:00

Annie and Christer were moving to India in a few short months. Rather than enroll their only child in the Swedish public school, only to be interrupted in the middle of the school session due to the impending move, the couple decided to await their arrival in India and enroll Domenic in school there. He was just 7 years old. However, the Gotland Social Services of Sweden would have it their way, even while home schooling was a legal option in Sweden at that time, and still is at the time of this writing.

In a June 2009 published article regarding the Johansson matter, chair of Sweden's department of Children and Education Lena Celion made it perfectly clear that Annie and Christer's parental right to manage the education of their child was not to be granted. Instead, Celion said it is Domenic's right to be enrolled in school, and the municipality is exercising its duty by forcing the family to enroll the boy, even though the family clearly communicated their intentions to leave the country. Whose child is Domenic? Is he the child of Annie and Christer Johansson, or is he the child of Gotland Municipality?

Celion said, "It's his right. We are doing this for the boy's sake." For "the boy's sake" Swedish social services ripped a happy, healthy and cherished child from the arms of loving parents. Why? To force him to sit daily in a building behind a desk in a Swedish school when just a few short months later he would have been doing the very same thing in Indian public schools, less the trauma caused by what has been almost an entire year separated from his parents. With rights like these, we think children would be better off with no rights at all!

How the Swedish state forces children into state care against wishes of good parents and family members

2010-05-20T04:59:00.000-07:00

From Vaen.se

Using Google Translate:

A small tutorial of how the Swedish state through the forced social care for children

Published by Network on 2010-05-18

Central to the idea of human rights is that people have adequate protection against state power. The German National Socialism and the Soviet state socialism which has been seen as at any of the archetypes of how a state ideological abuse can be constructed.

An important factor for state control is tipping. In the former GDR genommilitariserade it was common for neighbors to the Stasi state, ie to the institution whose main role was to protect the state against its citizens. Often with devastating results for the stated even though he rarely posed no real threat. The notifier could be anonymous and also no risk of punishment if there was no substance behind the notification. It was essential to protect the state. In addition, following unfounded complaints that too often the victims as well "stuck" in investigating the system due to errors, dislikes, etc.. This thrilling handling with the feeling of complete lawlessness and impotence affected mainly adults but also children.

In Sweden, it is not the military but the social state (Welfare State) has come to play the lead role. This development has a long tradition and represents a complex product of secularism, modernity, socialism and psychologism. A recurring feature has been the State's special interest for the separation of parents and children. The road, which has gone from eugenics to social hygiene, has been punctuated by forced sterilization and tvångsomhändertaganden.

How many children in Sweden had their lives ruined by declarations, pathologized investigations and human rights abusive foster home placements, there is obviously no state funding to investigate but already iceberg peak, ie the scandals and abuses that leaked from the most social state-friendly media gives cause for concern.

Click read more to read the full article or read it on nkmr

New article in Latest Web News

2010-05-18T09:28:00.000-07:00

Please go to Latest Web News to see newest article at top.

New photo and two videos added

2010-05-17T17:26:00.000-07:00

Please visit Because They Loved... to see a new photos and two videos...at bottom.

Outcome of May 12th Meeting ... and What We Do Now

2010-05-15T16:45:00.000-07:00

At their meeting on May 12, Social services informed the Johanssons that Domenic is comfortable where he now lives in foster care and that is where he is staying. If I understand things correctly, this entire issue now goes to court. The Johanssons certainly deserve an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Annie and both Christer's mother and father are not doing well. They need our prayers. Christer, especially, needs our prayers, too, as he is care taking for everyone in his family at this point, as well as trying to fight this mountain of injustice. The family needs the strength only God can provide. Please stay with us, friends. A long fight remains ahead.

May 12 & 14, 2010 Headlines

2010-05-14T05:27:00.000-07:00

Go to LATEST WEB NEWS to read May 12 & 14 headlines

Domenic pulled from school when Harrold-Claesson wanted to meet him prior to social services meeting.

Group letter to Visby Social Services Board President

2010-05-11T17:19:00.000-07:00

This is a copy of a group letter Friends of Domenic Johansson sent to the Visby Social Services board on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, in anticipation of their meeting to decide Domenic's fate the next day. The signatures of over 3200 people who believe this act on the part of social services as a grave violation of the Johansson family's human rights were included with the letter. A copy of the letter was also provided to the defense team.

Click image to enlarge:

The Johanssons Visited Domenic's School Today

2010-05-11T12:58:00.000-07:00

We've received word that Johansson's attorney, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, chair of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, arrived on Gotland today, May 11, 2010. From the airport, Harrold-Claesson accompanied the Johanssons to the school in which social services has enrolled Domenic while in state custody.

No order exists preventing Harrold-Claesson and the Johanssons from seeing Domenic at his school. Therefore, Harrold-Claesson planned to meet the boy prior to tomorrow's social services hearing. Until today the Johanssons had never approached the school.

Upon arrival, they went directly to his classroom, only to find Domenic not present and were informed he was attending a Yoga class, due to return in 20 minutes. They decided to wait. At the expected time of Domenic's return, instead the Johanssons and their attorney were greeted by the school headmaster, who informed the Johanssons he had called Domenic's social worker, and was told his parents could not see him. At that point, Harrold-Claesson said the Johanssons would wait outside while she visited Domenic. Rather than compromise, the headmaster threatened police assistance if they would not leave, explaining he had received strict orders from social services.

When the Johanssons returned to their vehicle, they were informed by Christer's parents, who had also accompanied them but remained waiting in the parking lot, that a truck had arrived at the school and soon after they saw Domenic escorted from the building and into the truck. For the short moments they saw him, Domenic's grandparents were able to call and wave hello to him. Domenic looked, but could do or say nothing before quickly being placed in the truck and driven off.

When the Johanssons arrived home, they were greeted with an email from Visby Social Services informing them the biweekly telephone call scheduled this evening with Domenic has been canceled as a consequence of what occurred at the school today. Ironically, social services signed off their email with, “Kindest regards.”

THERE MUST BE MORE TO THIS STORY!

2010-05-09T21:23:00.000-07:00

We've added a new page to the blog, entitled, THERE MUST BE MORE TO THIS STORY! This page has been added in response to people inquiring into the validity of the Johansson's claim of innocence. After reading the page, feel free to pass it on to your friends, especially those who might have expressed the same questions and concerns.

2010-05-05T19:43:00.001-07:00

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED

SOCIAL SERVICES MEETING scheduled for Wednesday, MAY 12, 2010.

We are assuming this is the meeting that was originally scheduled for April 23rd, canceled, rescheduled to April 27th and canceled again. If you've already written to the Swedish Social committee, please consider doing so again. If you've never written by email to the Social committee, please do so now. Remember, serve Domenic best, we must act with respect. We must respectfully let Sweden know the world is watching and that we believe they've overstepped their power by seizing and holding Domenic and that it is time they rectify the situation. Please click on this text to visit the HSLDA website for all necessary contact information. For ease, you can paste all the email addresses in one email.

If you'd rather send your email to Swedish Social Services as a mass mailing rather than individually, use these addresses. We’ve confirmed they all work. Just cut and paste them in your emails address bar:

gustaf.hoffstedt@gotland.se; kjboberg@hotmail.com; sonia.landin@gotland.se; lindvall.ola@telia.com; stora.vikers@telia.com; gunilla.wigren.dahlin@moderat.se; egil.lyngstad@telia.com; b-lindahl@swipnet.se; ann.gardell@telia.com; 2solbbrsj@tjelvar.org; rolle.o@hotmail.com; hamax@telia.com; lars.akerlund@tjelvar.org

Also, contact Swedish and Indian Embassies (Why India? Annie, Domenic's mother, is a citizen of India) SCROLL DOWN on the Embassy pages to find all necessary contact information.

The meeting will be held on Gotland, in the town of Visby, Sweden. Present will be: Social Services Committee board members, some social workers, all lawyers, including the Johansson's new power house attorney, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, as well as Christer and Annie Johansson. We are told this meeting is to be recorded and filmed. Please write to the Social Services Committee. It matters not that we live in Sweden. If this disgrace against families is allowed to stand, any family can be next.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

June 25, 2010 is Friends of Domenic Johansson Day! June 25th marks the one year anniversary of Domenic's removal from his family. Therefore, on that day, all Friends of Domenic are urged to visit the nearest Swedish Embassy nearest you (and all Friends located in Sweden to gather in Visby, Sweden on the island of Gotland) for a peaceful demonstration in support of Domenic's immediate release. Be sure to take signs with you so people will know why you are there.

Friends of Domenic Johansson

HSLDA: Swedish Pol to Social Services Minister: Take Homeschooled Kids!

Swedish Pol to Social Services Minister: Take Homeschooled Kids!

The Challenge

Custody Case

Open Letter & Timeline

Christian Voice

WND ARTICLE

Son taken from parents to be shipped overseas?

Dad reports social workers' talk has referenced Thailand

WND ARTICLE

Social services threaten homeschooling parents

Hearing to target family whose son taken by police

Sweden's Utopia

Sweden’s Big Government ‘Utopia’ Unmasked

New American: Appeal Draws Supporters

Daniel Hammarberg's address: State of the Swedish Child Welfare

European Court Case Advances

Abducted homeschooler's case finally advances

Police took child from his parents only because of education at home

Next LVU Court Hearing Set for May 11

Socials at work AGAIN

LifeSiteNews

Pro-family group puts pressure on European Court over notorious homeschooling case

WND: Father Set Free

Father jailed for visit with son set free

'Released today, after 2 terrible months!'

Home

Link Fixed

WND: Judges blow off plea

Christer Johansson's rights

Guest Writer: Daragh McInerney

HSLDA Video

URGENT ACTION NEEDED

ADF VIDEO: Swedish government's 18-month-long seizure of 9-year-old boy pushing parents to emotional brink

Update on Christer - 2

Update on Christer

Distraught

A Series of Excerpts Examining Outcomes of Swedish LVU Laws

Elin, begging for mercy, dead at 13

Donations

Guest Writer: Daniel Hammarberg

Swedish court ignoring family

HSLDA Analysis of Sept 2 court opinion

“Held Hostage”

Guest Writer: Helen E. Lees

Seeking Guest Bloggers

Going Public

Socials Drop Psychological Bomb One Day Before Next Court Battle Begins

As Their Rights Are Trampled, So Are Yours....

Catch 22: Cruelty at its Utmost

Excellent article out of Sweden on how families suffer due to state policies.

Framtidens familjepolitik

Är Sverige en familjepolitisk sovjetstat?

The future of family policy

Sweden is a family political Soviet state?

Court date pushed to September 2nd

Read Petition Sent to European Court of Human Rights

Sweden's State-Sponsored "Kidnapping" of 7-year-old Homeschooler Approaches One Year Anniversary

Swedish Social Services Rush to Lock Jaws on "Kidnapped" 7-year-old after Family’s Lawyer Inexplicably Banned

The New American: State 'Kidnapping' of Swedish Home-schooler Prompts International Outcry

Gotland Social Services: No More Cameras!

Special note: Domenic snapped the photo of his father shown above on the left.

Imagine Yourself in Her Shoes

Whose children are they, anyway?

How the Swedish state forces children into state care against wishes of good parents and family members

A small tutorial of how the Swedish state through the forced social care for children

New article in Latest Web News

New photo and two videos added

Outcome of May 12th Meeting ... and What We Do Now

May 12 & 14, 2010 Headlines

Go to LATEST WEB NEWS to read May 12 & 14 headlines

Domenic pulled from school when Harrold-Claesson wanted to meet him prior to social services meeting.

Group letter to Visby Social Services Board President

The Johanssons Visited Domenic's School Today

THERE MUST BE MORE TO THIS STORY!

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED

SOCIAL SERVICES MEETING scheduled for Wednesday, MAY 12, 2010.

If you'd rather send your email to Swedish Social Services as a mass mailing rather than individually, use these addresses. We’ve confirmed they all work. Just cut and paste them in your emails address bar:

Swedish Pol to Social Services Minister:
Take Homeschooled Kids!