Criticism against a school in a custodial dispute

The father, who got sole custody for his two children picked up his nine year old daughter from her school in Piteå, with assistance from the principal and the school counselor, and brought her home to his home in Stockholm. Since the parents was in the middle of a custodial dispute the Parliamentary ombudsman is of the opinion that the school should have remained neutral, and therefore gives it criticism.

The cause of all this is that the parents moved to separate places in Stockholm after their divorce, and the children alternated living between the two parents.

Later on the mother moved to Piteå, where one of the children began school. At the same time the father asked for sole custody, which the district court of Stockholm allowed him in 2003.

During the same year in August he picked up one of the kids, the five year-old boy. And two months later he also picked up the nine year-old girl, directly from school.

The children’s grandmother reported the second pick up to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The grandmother declares that the girl didn’t want to go with her father, but the principal and school counselor helped him to bring her in to the car. The girl told her grandmother that she cried constantly all the way to Kallax airport.

Part of the story is, a few days earlier the father had been denied by Piteå’s social services when asking for help to bring his daughter home to Stockholm.

But the Social Service had instead referred him to request a police escort at the county court, which he also did, but instead of waiting for an answer he took the matter into his own hands. The Child- and Education Committee write in a statement that the school had handled the errand in the best possible way for the child.

The politicians in the committee stated that the father had in advance, before collecting the child, contacted the school and when he arrived he first went to see the school welfare officer and the principal. The principal of the school confirmed that the child opposed it and repeated the words: “I don’t want to come, I want to be with my mother”, but says that the school just completed a commission from their area director. The parliamentary ombudsmen establish that in the parents section it’s clear that the hand over of children in the first place should occur with both parties’ voluntary participation. It’s also established that even a parent who has a court decision on having sole custody can be found guilty of arbitrary conduct with the child, if a hand out takes place without the laws being followed. The parliamentary ombudsmen further establish that the staff of the school must remain neutral in custody disputes.

The conclusion is that the municipality in this current case should have referred the father to the county court and that the school, despite following the instructions from the Child- and Education Committee, can’t evade the parliamentary ombudsmen’s criticism of their actions.

By Amanda W and Olle