1 I. the PARTIES A. the Applicants 1A. Surname: Johansson 2A. First
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I. THE PARTIES A. The Applicants 1a. Surname: Johansson 2a. First Name: Christer Sex: Male 3a. Nationality: Swedish 4a. Occupation: Eco engineer 5a. Date and Place of Birth: 15 June 1969 1b. Surname: Johansson 2b. First Name: Annie Sex: Female 3b. Nationality: Indian 4b.Occupation: Housewife/mother, Master of Arts 5b. Date and Place of Birth: 17 September 1971 1c. Surname: Johansson 2c. First Name: Domenic Sex: Male 3c. Nationality: Swedish 4c. Occupation: Child 5c. Date and Place of Birth: 09 September 2001 6. Permanent Address: Fam Christer and Annie Johansson; Gudings Alva, 62346 HEMSE, Sweden 7. Tel. no.: +46-498-480458 8. Present Address: 9. Name of Representative: Ruby Harrold-Claesson 10. Occupation of Representative: Lawyer 11. Address of Representative: Övre Ströms Väg 12, SE-424 71 Olofstorp, Sweden 12. Tel. No: + 46 31- 70 20 385 Fax No: + 46 31-70 25 242 1 9. Name of Representative: Roger Kiska 10. Occupation of Representative: Attorney at Law 11. Address of Representative: Landesgerichtsstraße 18/10, 1010 Wien, Austria 12. Tel. no.: +43 1 904 95 55 Fax no.: + 43 1 904 94 54 Co-Representatives: 9. Name of Representative: Michael Farris (Home School Legal Defense Association) 10. Occupation of Representative: Lawyer 11. Address of Representative: P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville, VA 20134-9000, USA 12. Tel. No: + (540) 338-5600 Fax No: + (540) 338-2733 9. Name of Representative: Michael Donnelly (Home School Legal Defense Association) 10. Occupation of Representative: Lawyer 11. Address of Representative: P.O. Box 3000, Purcellville, VA 20134-9000, USA 12. Tel. No: + (540) 338-5600 Fax No: + (540) 338-2733 B. The High Contracting Party 13. Kingdom of Sweden 2 II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Introduction The Applicants, Christer and Annie Johansson, are a married couple. Christer is a Swedish citizen and Annie is an Indian citizen. Their only child, Domenic – a citizen of Sweden– was born on 9 September 2001. For the first seven years of his life Domenic lived in the joint custody of his biological parents. Separation of the Child from his Parents On 25 June 2009, at the age of seven years old, Domenic sat with his parents on board an airplane destined for India. As the commercial jet waited to taxi onto the runway for takeoff, police officers boarded the plane without a court order or any kind of preliminary notification, the Swedish authorities physically removed Domenic from the custody of his parents. He remains separated from his parents to this day. In the months leading up to 25 June 2009, the Applicants had ongoing disagreements with the local school board over the issue of education. The age for compulsory schooling in Sweden is seven years old and the parents had been educating their child at home while taking administrative steps to work with the authorities as contemplated by Swedish law. The right of parents to educate their children was, and remains, legal in Sweden1 and the Applicants believed they had fulfilled the necessary procedures to legally do so. On 11 February 2009 the Applicants were fined by the Child and Education Department for failing to enroll Domenic in school. On 27 May 2009, however, the County Court refused to impose the fines. During the hearing the First Applicant informed the court 1 A school-aged child shall be allowed to fulfill the school obligation in other ways than what is stated in this law, if it appears to be a fully satisfactory alternative to the education otherwise available to the child according to the law. Possibilities [for the authorities] to have an insight into the activities shall be provided. Permission can be given for up to one year at a time. During this time it shall be tried how the operation turns out. Permission shall immediately be withdrawn if necessary insight into the operation is not granted, or if for other reasons it can be assumed that necessary circumstances for permission no longer exits. (Svensk författningssamling (1985:1100); 10 kap. Särskilda utbildningsformer). 3 that the family would be moving to India on 25 June 2009. The judge acknowledged this fact and no court order was issued prohibiting the Johansson’s from moving to India as planned. Placing in Compulsory Care After being taken from the airliner on June 25, 2009, Domenic was placed in temporary residential care. He was placed in a foster home in Väskinde in the Gotland region in late summer 2009, where he remains to this day. The initial justification for removal was that the child was not in school, even though school was not in session. Subsequent reasons for keeping Domenic in compulsory care were “a lack of care in both physical and psychological terms.” Regarding physical care, the courts focused on two issues – Domenic’s lack of recommended but non-compulsory vaccinations and some evidence of cavities in his milk- teeth, both of which were unknown to the authorities until after they had seized him. Regarding psychological care, the courts relied mainly upon the Applicants’ original plans to home-school Domenic during the first year of his education, stating that this would harm the child by preventing social contact with peers even though there was no evidence to support this assertion and in fact evidence to the contrary. The Johansson family had planned on working with orphanages in India, an environment rich and unique in social opportunities for young Domenic to experience. Limitation of visiting rights The Applicants appealed the Swedish authorities’ decision on compulsory care through the domestic court system. On 13 August 2009 the County administrative court in Gotland (Länsrätten), by a 3 to 1 vote, upheld the Gotland social workers’ decision to place Domenic in foster care. On 17 December 2009 the Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeals (Kammarrätten) upheld the decision of the Länsrätten. Finally, on 27 January 2010 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal. On 25 4 June 2010 an application (no. 27370/10) – wholly separate to the present application – was launched with this Court but was declared inadmissible by Judge Nußberger of Germany, sitting in a single-judge formation on 22 March 2012. After the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the situation became intensely worse for the Applicants. Further Restrictions of Parental Rights In January 2010 contact between the Applicants and Domenic was further restricted by the Social Council to one hour every five weeks in the presence of a family therapist, plus a 15-minute monitored phone conversation. On 22 November 2010 the First Applicant took his son from a supervised visit to his parental home where Domenic enjoyed two days with his natural family. Although the First Applicant informed the police of the whereabouts of Domenic right away, he was detained, prosecuted and convicted by the Gotland District Court (Case no. B 990-09, on 21 January 2011) of a misdemeanour of unlawful deprivation of liberty of his son, Domenic. He was fined and received a suspended sentence (a two month prison sentence covered by the time spent in pre-trial detention). In December 2010, the social authorities imposed a complete prohibition of access to Domenic on the First and Second Applicants,2 and in March 2011,3 the prosecutor imposed a complete prohibition of contact with Domenic on his parents, notwithstanding the fact that the Second Applicant was not involved in what the social workers labeled the "kidnapping"4 of Domenic. These prohibitions have been continually renewed. Thus, from November 2010 to the present day, Domenic has not seen his natural parents. 2 Appendix. Social council: Prohibition of visiting rights, Beslut om Umgängesförbud, November 2010. 3 Appendix. Prosecutor: Prohibition of access. Beslut om kontaktförbud, 2011-03-08. 4 Händelseförteckning inlägg 2012-05-09: "Hovrätten har fastställt domen mot Christer Johansson med anledningen av kidnappningen (Min fetstil) av Domenic, två månaders fängelse som anses verkställt under häktningstiden, skyddstillsyn samt skadestånd enligt TR:s dom. /Marie Kransberg" 5 Transferring of Custody On 9 December 2010 the sub-committee of the social council decided to transfer the guardianship of Domenic Johansson from his parents to an appointed guardian.5 The decision was adopted by the social council on 11 January 2011 and the social council initiated the case in the Gotland District Court for the transfer of the custody of Domenic to a specially appointed custodian, pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 7 of the Swedish Parents and guardianship Code, which is equivalent to the termination of the Applicants’ parental rights. In its judgment of 13 June 2012 (Case no. T 1058-11) the Gotland District Court – the chief fact-finding court for the purposes of the present application – dismissed the Social council’s request, finding that transferring guardianship was not in the best interests of Domenic. (i) Social Council’s Submissions The Social council argued that custody of Domenic should be permanently transferred from his parents to a specially-appointed custodian. They recommend an attorney, Margaretha Dufvenmark, who had no previous experience as a legal guardian. The Council mostly cited the Applicants post seizure relations with them to support their position, arguing that visits between the Applicants and their child had not gone well, that the First Applicant’s “abduction” of Domenic violated his dignity and that the Applicants were not able to encourage Domenic to like his foster home. The Council also complained about the publicity of the case on the internet. (ii) Annie and Christer Johansson Submissions The Applicants rebutted all of the arguments raised by the Social Council in the Gotland District Court. 5 Soc beslut om v-överflyttn. Helen Ahlsten. Initially, the choice of guardian fell on the lawyer, Helen Ahlsten, who accepted the appointment, then declined.