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!
Oct 4, 2010
Sep 10, 2010
Going Public
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.
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.
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. |
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.
Sep 1, 2010
Socials Drop Psychological Bomb One Day Before Next Court Battle Begins
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.
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.
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.
Aug 11, 2010
As Their Rights Are Trampled, So Are Yours....
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?
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.
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.
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. |
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. |
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.
Jul 28, 2010
Catch 22: Cruelty at its Utmost
Excerpt from the December 2009 Court Decision analysis article
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?
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.
 | |
| Late 2009, about 6 months after Domenic is stripped of his parents. |
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 |
Read entire article here.
Jul 19, 2010
Excellent article out of Sweden on how families suffer due to state policies.
English translation below
Jonas Himmelstrand om Framtidens familjepolitik
http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/07/02/r-sverige-en-familjepolitisk-sovjetstat
Jonas Himmelstrand for future family policy
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.
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-sovjetstatThe future of 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.
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.
Jul 12, 2010
Court date pushed to September 2nd
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)