Family law 1990-1992

From August 1990 to October 1992, I worked intensively with family law in Sweden. The economic crisis had struck Sweden, and more or less all funding for the purchase of children’s performances had been cut.

During half a year in 1992, I worked as a legal representative for clients. In several cases, I replaced lawyers with whom the clients were dissatisfied. My approach entailed, among other matters, the Code of Conduct of the Swedish Bar Association being followed – for example, no evidence would be used without a written verification that supported the veracity of the evidence. In court, the paragraphs in the Code of Judicial Procedure – that is, the rules of the game – would be followed.

According to Swedish legislation, lawyers do have a monopoly in criminal cases but not in civil cases, which is also supported by the legal aid act.

In my opinion, a settlement reached between the parties concerned is “in the best interests of the children”. I managed to achieve this on some occasions when I entered the process sufficiently early on. My invoice was then sent to the Legal Aid Authority in Sundsvall. In every case, I received a rejection without a reason being provided. With the same hourly rate as the lawyers, my fees to the courts and to the state were considerably lower than those of the lawyers - primarily due to my involving my clients in the work.

I was appointed as a legal advisor with legal aid on two occasions, in the County Administrative Courts of Malmö and Örebro. The cases concerned the enactment of access rights, and I won both cases. However, in the District Courts, my applications to be appointed as a legal advisor with Legal Aid were rejected without a stated reason - including for the client on whose behalf I had won in the County Administrative Court in Örebro. The client from the County Administrative Court in Malmö did not have any case running in court.

I finally managed to have the matter tried in the Supreme Court. See the attached rejection.

According to my contact at the Supreme Court, the matter of appointment as a legal advisor with legal aid had been tried twice before at the Supreme Court. The one occasion had been when the wife of the espionage-accused Bertil Ströberg, without legal training, had wanted to represent him in a criminal case. Rejected. The other occasion concerned a lawyer who first took full payment from the client and then requested the same payment via legal aid. Rejected.


During the period 1990-1992, I did not encounter a single child custody investigation that was correctly carried out, that is, one that neutrally presented the relevant facts and allowed the court to decide.

In my opinion, there is a need for a quantification and a description of what I call “institutional violence” against children in Sweden, which has been taking place for several decades. The source of this violence against children is the family law departments of the social welfare services. It is, for example, the same people who write the child custody investigations who initiate and control the compulsory care of children. A quantification and description of the harm that the children have suffered should also, in my opinion, be made.