Monday 5 July 2010

Dominic Johansson

I have been following this case closely since last year and I must say that there seems to be more to it than meets the eye. The story as it is being reported in home educating circles is that Christer and Annie Johansson, who live in Sweden, wished to home educate their seven year old son. They were harassed by the authorities and tried to leave the country so that they could home educate their son in peace somewhere else. As the plane taking them from Sweden was on the runway, it was halted and the police took the boy away and social workers then placed him in foster care, where he still remains a year later. And all because his loving parents wanted to home educate him!

Now one of the things which aroused my suspicions was the slick way that this story is being presented by some home educators. We read that 'armed police stormed the plane'. This conjures up images of a SWAT team armed with sub-machine guns bursting in through the windows and grabbing the child. In fact all uniformed police officers are armed in Sweden. They did not 'storm' the plane, simply boarded it with social workers and asked the Johanssons to come back to the terminal. There are a lot of little embellishments to the story of this sort. Another curious thing is that in Western Europe, the fact that the Johanssons are devout Christians and that this was the motivation both for their home educating and also for leaving Sweden, is played down. Sometimes it is not mentioned at all. In the USA though, this is the main line that is being taken on the case. So what is the background?

Christer Johansson is a Swedish man who lived for a while in India. While there, he met and married a woman called Annie who belonged to a very religious Christian family. She became pregnant and the couple went to live in Sweden, where their son Dominic was born on September 9th 2001. Both parents suffer from severe depression. When the boy was two, Christer was very depressed. So depressed in fact that he became addicted to anti-depressants and was recommended for electro-convulsive therapy, which he declined. His wife has also had mental health problems for which she has been hospitalised. Neither parent wished their son to see health workers, possibly for religious reasons, although this is not certain. Both parents also apparently suffer from heart problems;

" Annie has been in bed with a heart condition that was exacerbated by the abduction of their son. (Tonight Christer emailed me that he had fallen into a state of semiconsciousness with an irregular heart rhythm.)"

It is agreed by all sides that the Johanssons did not follow the correct legal procedure for those wishing to home educate in Sweden, which involves submitting a home school plan. Instead, they reached an informal arrangement with the principle of the local school when their son turned seven in the autumn of 2008. At this age, Swedish children start school.

Now things get a little strange. In the summer of 2009, Christer and Annie Johansson disposed of all their belongings. They announced that they intended to go and live in India so that they could minister to the poor; this was in connection with their Christian faith. Two things strike one at once. Firstly, if an individual wishes to sell all that he has, give the money to the poor and then follow Jesus and tend to destitute children in an Indian orphanage, that is a very praiseworthy and good thing to do. I have nothing but admiration for such people. When you have a seven year old son, matters are a little different. Secondly, a person with a history of severe depression who disposes of all his belongings in this way sets alarm bells ringing in professional ears. This sort of behaviour is sometimes a prelude to suicide. When two people with a history of mental health problems and severe depression do this, there can be an awful suspicion that they are on the verge of taking their own lives.

So what actually happened on June 26th last year? Two people, both with histories of mental health problems got rid of all their belongings. They told everybody that they were going to live in poverty in India, tending for children in an orphanage. Their physical health was also poor; both had heart problems. They intended to take their seven year old son with them, a child who had been raised in rather odd circumstances. I don't think we even need to think about home education here. Given this background, I would also be very worried about the child's future welfare. The concern of the social workers in Sweden was not that this child was being home educated. It was that a Swedish child was being taken abroad to an uncertain future in the company of two strange and possibly disturbed people. They acted to protect his welfare, but not because he was being home educated. If a similar case occurred in this country, I for one hope that social workers would behave in exactly the same way to protect the interests of a vulnerable child.

As I said yesterday, this case is a bit of a red herring as far as home education is concerned. I think that the Swedish authorities would have behaved in precisely the same way had the child been a pupil at a school. The real question here is one of protecting the rights of a child when those rights conflict with the desire of his parents to live an unconventional lifestyle. It seems to me that social workers were faced with a very tricky problem and made what seemed to them to be a good decision in the interests of the child. We have to ask ourselves one final question. Is Dominic Johansson better off now living a in a comfortable home in a prosperous European country than he would have been had he spent the last year living in poverty in an Indian orphanage?

63 comments:

  1. Why would he be in an orphanage? Annie Johanssen appears to have a large, close family.

    So another question we have to ask ourselves is whether Dominic Johanssen is better off now living with strangers than he would have been living with his extended family in India.

    And another is how much support was given to both parents. Declining ECT, particularly if you have heart problems, appears a wise decision, rather than an indication of poor mental health.

    Interestingly, I couldn't find any 'official' account of this story - apart from a news item in Swedish. Have there been any comments from the Swedish authorities?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Why would he be in an orphanage? Annie Johanssen appears to have a large, close family."

    After they apparently lost all their belongings in an earthquake in 2001, the Johanssons had to return to Sweden practically as refugees. I suppose that if the large, close family had been able to help them then, they would have done so. Since the Johanssons were planning to arrive in India last June, again with no money or possessions, in order to wok in an orphanage, I rather assumed that this would be a residential job with accommodation included. That's why I thought that the child would be living at the orphanage. By the by, this seems to be curious, that they are once again moving continents in this way having shed all their money and possessions. I think this too might have a bearing upon the subsequent social services activity.


    "Declining ECT, particularly if you have heart problems, appears a wise decision, rather than an indication of poor mental health"

    I don't blame the guy at all for not wanting ECT: I wouldn't fancy it myself. However the fact that this was offered, after various anti-deppressants failed to help, suggests that he was seriously ill. That his wife has been in hospital for psychiatric problems is also a factor in the decision to take the child into care.

    In case you're saying to yourself, "What's he know about it?", I suppose I should mention that my first wife was Swedish and I used to live there. I am still in touch and she keeps me in touch with stuff. Apparently a lot of people in Sweden are irritated about this campaign, because the facts are not being presented fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The depression that Christer Johansson had was several years ago and has not been brought up as a cause for the social workers taking Domenic--at least in any accounts I have seen. From what I have read, in both Swedish papers and English language papers it is a clear case of authorities taking a child because they didn't agree with the parents (home education, leaving Sweden.)

    Do you have some links to papers I haven't seen?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "When two people with a history of mental health problems and severe depression do this, there can be an awful suspicion that they are on the verge of taking their own lives."

    I can find nothing about his mother having mental health issues before her child was taken, only after which is hardly surprising. If my child were taken and I were only allowed to see them for once every 5 weeks with supervision, I'm sure I would suffer some kind of mental illness.

    His father suffered depression happened after attempting to help earthquake victims in India in 2000 and emigrating - both known to be stressful situation to put it mildly. I suspect depression is a fairly common outcome for those who attend disasters but he was treated and has been declared to be fit and well now after a psychiatric evaluation by the by Visby Adult Neuropsychiatry Department.

    Were these supposed mental health issues know to the SS before they took the child? If so, why did they not gain a court order for the removal of the child and why did it take them so long?

    Please can you provide links to your evidence about the parent's mental health issues. It's difficult to debate with just bits and pieces of the information you obviously have.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know, I find it strange that Simon takes note of any issue that concerns or interests home educators and automatically takes the opposite view. Very strange. One would almost think that he enjoys winding home educators up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You know, I find it strange that Simon takes note of any issue that concerns or interests home educators and automatically takes the opposite view."

    I might also observe that as soon as home education is mentioned, some people assume at once that the parents are right and the state wrong! I have been interested in this case and because my first wife was Swedish have been getting her views on the case. There is irritation there about the distorted coverage which thei case is receiving.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Do you have some links to papers I haven't seen?"

    As said above, my first wife gives me the gist of what various people are saying about the case. Also, by googling the names I have come up with various contradictory accounts of the circumstances, both about the events in Sweden and aslo in India.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Any chance of a link to the source of you information about the mental health of the parents before their child was taken? A previous depression in the father does not seem adequate grounds for removal of a child, after all, about 20% of the population will suffer from depression during their lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Also, by googling the names I have come up with various contradictory accounts of the circumstances, both about the events in Sweden and aslo in India. "

    I've also googled but have have not seen anything about mental health issues before the child was taken apart from the father about 7 years ago. Unless you have evidence to support your claim you are just gossiping and it's a horrible thing to gossip about when a family is at stake. If people like you gossip enough others will start to think that there is no smoke without fire and support for the family will drop off. Please support your claims with evidence, or stop gossiping.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Is Dominic Johansson better off now living a in a comfortable home in a prosperous European country than he would have been had he spent the last year living in poverty in an Indian orphanage?"

    You obviously haven't seen the pictures of his large, extended family in India then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please dont mind. I am from the same town as Annie. Pune is a good place to live a very good life. It doesnt have to poverty stricken or an orphange. You can get a good job there too. Both Chriter and Annie would have found a good job and apartment in a few months. An average indian is more than happy to share his apartment with needy relatives for some time. I have no doubt that they would be happy in India

      Delete
  11. Comment from Jonas Himmelstrand who is President of Rohus, the Swedish National Association for Home Education.

    http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/sweden.htm

    Homeschooling was not the only issue regarding taking Dominic Johansson in custody by the social services. But having read the court verdict with all the issues, there stills seems to be no reason for this severe action. The young boy has most likely been much more hurt by the custody action than the conditions in his family. One cannot avoid the thought that the prejudices and lack of knowledge about homeschooling, could have been the pivotal reason for the custody action.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "after all, about 20% of the population will suffer from depression during their lifetime."

    True, but few of us become addicted to anti-depressants and are then recommended for elctor-convulsive therapy. Annie Johansson has been hospitalised a number of times for mental health problems. I think that what is happening goes a little way beyond what most of us feel to be depression.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Please support your claims with evidence, or stop gossiping."

    This is absolutely breathtaking! Thousands of people are gossiping all over the Internet about this, claiming all sorts of things about Sweden and it's social workers. As soon as I start asking questions, I am accused of gossiping. Nice try, Anonymous, but I shall continue to speculate about what is really behind this case. I am not forcing you to read my thoughts, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem pretty sure when you talk about the mental problems of Christer and Annie, which, according to you, were present before the abduction. But now you suddenly claim that these "facts" are just your thoughts and/or gossip. Do I understand you correctly?

      Delete
  14. "You obviously haven't seen the pictures of his large, extended family in India then?"

    Of course I have seen them.I know nothing at all about them though. For instance I don't know whether they have spare rooms, if they want the Johanssons to live with them, whether or not they are kind people, that sort of thing. What does a photograph of a bunch of people tell me? Am I to assume that because the family is large and extended that means that they are likely to be more suitable people for the child to live than the foster carers in Sweden. tell me more about both the family and I shall have a better idea about this.

    Obviously, when Christer and Annie Johansson were penniless in India, they did not feel inclined to live with the family. Has something changed since then? How is the family relevant to this?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Somebody asked about the parents' mental health before the child was taken. this is what Christer Johansson himself said;

    "Our son Dominic was to be born soon, and I was determined to be in top form for this welcome change in our lives, and the responsibility that incurs.

    In order to keep on with our plans I decided to, with the recommendation of my doctor whom I sought help with, to go along with his advice and began taking a prescription of the anti-depression drug Seroxat.
    (see youtube.com - taken on trust by Panormama BBC)
    (I was advised to begin with 60mg)

    This is where my story takes a downward turn.

    I found myself in the unusual psychological state of even more heightened depression and angst. Having never suffered from such things I waited to see how things would develop. I figured it may have something to do with what I had experienced and also to be patient with the drugs. I found this to in fact be the opposite of what I had expected. After several months of worsening effects, I again asked for help and I was recommended increasing my dose of medication!"

    He does not mention he that he became hopelessly addicted to Seroxat and that it was felt that he needed ECT. I have no idea about the mother's health before the child went into foster care, but is would be unusual even in those circumstances for somebody to develop a psychiatric condition which would need her to be hopsitalised several times over the course of six months. This, according to her husband is what has happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon Cottingham18 January 2012 at 12:17

      Antidepressants come with advice that they can actually cause a recipient to become worse and to suffer very bad side effects. It is also not a crime for anyone to suffer from depression. Also, it is possible to recover as with any illness. Compassion and kindness and understanding are what people need.

      Delete
  16. "He does not mention he that he became hopelessly addicted to Seroxat and that it was felt that he needed ECT."

    More or less the same happened to my mother when I was 10 (hospitalised and addicted to prescribed drugs) and there is no way that I would have been better off in care! My mother had ECT several times. It help for a week or two each time but never for any length of time.

    A depressive episode and medical treatment that resulted in addiction (not that uncommon - how much room do they have for children in care?) is not a good reason to remove a child 5-6 years after they are well! The future mental illness of the mother is also no reason to take the child.

    You suggest that the mental health of both parents was behind the taking of the child. How could they have known the mother was going to become mentally ill after having her child stolen for no good reason? Are children to be removed in case people become mentally ill in future now?

    Her illness is not just that he's in foster care either. The parents are only allowed to visit their child for an hour every 5 weeks, the visit is closely supervised (the mother cried during one visit and was told that if she cried again the visit would end immediately), the parents are not even allowed to speak freely to their child (they cannot tell him that they are trying to get him back and he is told by SS that his parents are happy for him to be in care, for instance). Who are you to say that her illness as a result is unreasonable? Are you so uncaring? It's not unusual for people to suffer from depression after major life events and I think this qualifies as that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon Cottingham18 January 2012 at 12:25

      I totally agree with the previous comments. How absolutely terrible for Annie and Christer to have had Domenic taken. I have given birth to 3 children and I can't imagine how awful it would have been to have had them taken. We are finely balanced as humanity and outside circumstances can affect us, mentally and physically. Even if an illness emanates from ourself, it is not our fault... good health is not guaranteed for any of us! Kindness, compassion, care and understanding are vital for recovery, certainly not the trauma this family have faced!

      Delete
  17. "Thousands of people are gossiping all over the Internet about this, claiming all sorts of things about Sweden and it's social workers."

    You are speculating from a very great distance using second, third or fourth hand gossip as evidence - the other reports are using court records and direct testimony from those involved, there's a difference.

    "As soon as I start asking questions, I am accused of gossiping."

    You are not asking questions. You state that both parents were mentally ill when the child was removed. You have no evidence at all for this. The father suffered from depression several years ago but is well now (and has medical evidence to prove it). You suggest above that they both have heart conditions - I've only read this of Annie and this is still not a good reason to remove a child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon Cottingham18 January 2012 at 12:28

      I hope "thousands of people" have been discussing this situation! The people to feel sorry for are Domenic, Annie and Christer, not the reputation of Swedish social workers!

      Delete
  18. "He does not mention he that he became hopelessly addicted to Seroxat and that it was felt that he needed ECT."

    Try googling 'accidental involuntary Addiction Prescribed Drugs'.

    ECT is still considered a controversial treatment and it's history and the stigma associated with it can put people off trying it. Should this be reason to remove someone's child several years later? Or do we all have to follow our doctors recommendations to the letter, just in case the state becomes involved in our at some distant point in the future?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon Cottingham18 January 2012 at 12:30

      And, is it our fault if the medicine prescribed for us causes a reaction? We are the innocent victims!

      Delete
  19. "the other reports are using court records and direct testimony from those involved, there's a difference."

    You can't be serious! Some other reports are, but most of the stuff is just people speculating and making assertions.

    You suggest above that they both have heart conditions - I've only read this of Annie and this is still not a good reason to remove a child."

    See this, from a Pastor who is known to both of them:

    "Tonight Christer emailed me that he had fallen into a state of semiconsciousness with an irregular heart rhythm"

    Sounds to me like heart trouble!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Should this be reason to remove someone's child several years later?"

    Not at all. I was pointing out that this man must have been pretty ill in order that ECT should be suggested. When he subsequently dispoed of all his belongings, this could alarm some professionals. This can be a warning that somebody is about to kill themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon Cottingham18 January 2012 at 12:33

      This was a happy family who had a desire to help others. They had each other. They had no reason to end their lives!

      Delete
  21. "the mother cried during one visit and was told that if she cried again the visit would end immediately), the parents are not even allowed to speak freely to their child (they cannot tell him that they are trying to get him back and he is told by SS that his parents are happy for him to be in care, for instance)."

    Everything said by anybody connected with the family is being treated as though it must be true. Conversely, everything said by the Swedish courts and social workers is being regarded as dishonest and part of a plot to attack an innocent home educator. I am trying to see if there is more to this case than we are being led to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "When he subsequently dispoed of all his belongings, this could alarm some professionals. This can be a warning that somebody is about to kill themselves."

    Or emigrate to a different country. It has got to be easier and cheaper to sell up and buy afresh than transport (probably quite cheap) furniture.

    "Conversely, everything said by the Swedish courts and social workers is being regarded as dishonest and part of a plot to attack an innocent home educator."

    Please, please, please give me a link to anything written by the Swedish courts or social workers that would justify the removal of a child. Several people have asked you to do this so far.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "See this, from a Pastor who is known to both of them:

    "Tonight Christer emailed me that he had fallen into a state of semiconsciousness with an irregular heart rhythm""

    So you are qualified as a doctor now and capable of diagnosing someone via a third party whom you cannot question? Amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "So you are qualified as a doctor now and capable of diagnosing someone via a third party"

    Hmmmm, I don't think that one needs to be a doctor to know that if somebody lapses into a state of semi consciousness with an irregular heart rhythm that heart trouble might be indicated!

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Please, please, please give me a link to anything written by the Swedish courts or social workers that would justify the removal of a child. Several people have asked you to do this so far."

    I have no such information. All we have to go on is what the parents have said to various people and the actions of the Swedish authorities. Proceedings in family courts there, as here, are confidential. this is for the protection of the child. I shall be posting tomorrow about this, seeing if there are any more clues which might help us to fathom out precisely what is happening in this cases.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think that the one thing we can grasp is that we don't know all the facts. If this was really just an anti-home schooling move it seems a bit odd to chose a family who were just about to leave Sweden; a few more minutes and they would have been in the air and so out of their jurisdiction. Why not pick on a family that was going to be permanently resident? If the policy is to eradicate home ed that would seem more logical. On the other hand, as a fairly fundamentalist sort of Christian myself, I am hardly happy that the whole faith thing is tied up with this; I am aware that the principles that many of us live our lives by must seem highly odd to a secular state where the mainstream churches are liberal and pretty dead.
    I also don't know anything about the Swedish social services system; certainly here access only every 5 weeks (is that right?) would be very unusual.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Simon, I have been writing and chronicling the Johansson's story for quite some time and your story line cannot be further from reality! What you have written is filled with falsehoods and assumptions on your part. How many hours have you spent personally interviewing this family? I've spent MANY hours and have paid increased telephone bills just to speak with them personally. Also, I am not paid to do this. I am simply motivated to help them due to the in justice they have suffered! If you would like to contact me directly, I would be happy to review your story point-by-point. Your story is a grave injustice to a family already suffering great injustices and you are causing further harm and suffering! One should NEVER write such a story without knowing first-hand what he or she is writing! In the interest of truth, please contact me so we can go over what you've written.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Simon wrote,
    "Hmmmm, I don't think that one needs to be a doctor to know that if somebody lapses into a state of semi consciousness with an irregular heart rhythm that heart trouble might be indicated!"

    Palpitations are not uncommon and are often not serious. If he had a heart condition, don't you think he would have called a doctor?

    "Proceedings in family courts there, as here, are confidential."

    Are you sure? They are here but it may be different there. Certainly Jonas Himmelstrand, President of Rohus, the Swedish National Association for Home Education, appears to think he has read court records.

    <a href="http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/sweden.htm>http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/sweden.htm</a>

    <i>Homeschooling was not the only issue regarding taking Dominic Johansson in custody by the social services. But having read the court verdict with all the issues, there stills seems to be no reason for this severe action. The young boy has most likely been much more hurt by the custody action than the conditions in his family. One cannot avoid the thought that the prejudices and lack of knowledge about homeschooling, could have been the pivotal reason for the custody action. </i>

    Is he mistaken?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Second half of the last message with html corrected (hopefully):

    http://www.freedomforchildrentogrow.org/sweden.htm

    Homeschooling was not the only issue regarding taking Dominic Johansson in custody by the social services. But having read the court verdict with all the issues, there stills seems to be no reason for this severe action. The young boy has most likely been much more hurt by the custody action than the conditions in his family. One cannot avoid the thought that the prejudices and lack of knowledge about homeschooling, could have been the pivotal reason for the custody action.

    Is he mistaken?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "What you have written is filled with falsehoods and assumptions on your part."

    Strong words indeed from the Friends of Dominic Johansson. Could you be a little more specific about the nature of the falsehoods which I have told? Is it a falsehood that Christer Johansson was treated for a psychiatric problem before the birth of his son? That his wife has been hospitalised several times for a psychiatric disorder? Or perhaps it is a falsehood that the couple sold all their possessions and stated their intention to be to minister to the poor in Indian orphanages? Are they really Christians, or is that another of my falsehoods?

    As a semi-official part of this campaign you are ideally placed to answer a few other points. Why was Christer Johansson realy denied permission to home educate? He thinks that it was because of some. to use his words, 'politically incorrect' articles which he woroe for an online magazine. Could you tell us what the nature of those articles was and why it caused local parents to complain to the authorities? What was the nature of the anonymous letters written about the Johanssons? Why did Christer Johansson choose as a lawyer a woman who specialising in working for parents whose children have been taken into care because their parents beat them? Could you explain why the courts have refused to deal with this woman? Is it because she has written so many articles advocating spanking as the only correct method of disciplining children? Or might it be because she is not a member of the Swedish bar?

    You say that I am spreading falsehoods; why not give us the truth about these matters? In other words, if I am a liar, then tell me plainly what lies I have told.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "If he had a heart condition, don't you think he would have called a doctor?"

    Probably not. The Johanssons don't really agree with conventional medicine.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Is he mistaken?"

    I think that there is still a great deal about this cse which we don't know. For example, we don't know why Christer Johansson was really refused permission to home educate. He thinks it was because of some stuff which he wrote for an online magazine. Until we know what this was and why it caused his neighbours to contact the authorities, we can't really say.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi there Simon, there are a lot of gaps in your story, and a lot of errors, as well. It would be so much better if you picked up the phone and gave us a call before you write about us and our story.

    To begin, what you forget is this, there are people working for the system who are corrupt. The world is full of them. With regards to depression, in the sense that we were wacko, is a great error. Annie was not depressed. It was I who was, and it was a result of trauma. I had never suffered depression before or since that isolated, acute episode. The courts know this, as my health record has been submitted as evidence. Like you, the socials are trying to hold one short episode of illness against me. I've lived 41 years and experienced depression only two of those years, Simon. Until the socials began harassing us about home schooling, my wife had never suffered any depression, and never had until AFTER they took our son away. You have very little knowledge about this case, Simon, yet you write very much!

    Parts of our private life is still very private, and you are guessing at what that may be. You are guessing about what we are thinking and what we may plan to do. Top lawyers from around the world have studied this case. If there is anything "secret" about it, the secret would be written into the court's opinion. However, there is no such secrets and the court's opinion is proof as such. If you truly want proper information and details about the reality of this case, I would be happy to take your call!

    Domenics Daddy!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Christer, I am speculating about this case because it is being used by many people as an example of an attack on the whole idea of home education. I do not see it like that at all. It strikes me that this case really concerns parents' 'rights', with less emphasis on the rights of the child. I wonder if you already knew the background of Ruby Harrold-Claesson when you engaged her? The people who are cited as being representatives on the court papers, such as Michael Farris, are very concerned about the supposed rights of parents, particularly regarding things like corporal punishment. I am curious to know whether you share these views or if these people just contacted you out of the blue?

    There has been so much speculation and guesswork about your case all over the Internet, that I am surprised that you should be concerned about a little more. Could you give us a link to the online news magazine which you were involved with and which some think could be the real reason why you were denied the opportunity to home educate?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Simon, in your "speculation" you are using your words to spread more rumor and untruth and to further hurt an already terribly hurting family. If you really cared about the merits of this case, you would seek authentic sources and not other "sources" of speculation. Have you bothered to contact the attorneys involved in this case? Have you bothered to contact the family? NO! You are simply acting as a conduit to spread more rumors and falsehoods. It is irresponsible to do so. You write as if you are "in-the-know" and that is also misleading. It is not enough that you claim speculation in a comment far below your article.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "You are simply acting as a conduit to spread more rumors and falsehoods."

    I have asked before, just what are the falsehoods which you say that I am spreading? The Internet is full of comment on this case, most of it by people like me who are not directly concerned with the matter. Most people seem to be content to assume that the Swedish social workers are villains for the way that they have behaved; I am asking whether they might have had good cause. I am curious to know why you seem so unwilling to answer the questions which I have raised. All that is necessary is for you to say, for example, 'Nobody connected with the campaign knew that Ruby Harrold-Claesson was so keen on spanking. Had we known, we might have chosen another lawyer.' Or you might say, 'Christer Johansson was not involved with an online magazine'. Why are you so reluctant to discuss the reasons that the Johanssons were denied permission to home educate?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "'Nobody connected with the campaign knew that Ruby Harrold-Claesson was so keen on spanking. Had we known, we might have chosen another lawyer.' "

    What does this have to do with the rights and wrongs of the child being taken in the first place? Are people guilty by association? The court has not been told of any issues with physical punishment in this case so bringing this up is irrelevant. If you employ someone, do you ensure that you agree with them on every aspect of rights, politics, childcare, education, etc? If so, you must find it very difficult to employ anyone for any work you require doing. Personally I am against smacking children but using this issue to attack this family is despicable, especially when the SS have not raised it as an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Simon, I am not going to debate you publicly. I've asked you to contact me to go over everything point by point. Thus far, you've not done so. Why will I not debate you publicly? Because this is an extremely sensitive matter and very painful to those involved. It would be insensitive to debate the merits of all the points publicly. If I wrote on every erroneous assumption out there, I would never be finished writing. Instead, we are strictly focused upon the actions and accusations of the social services. We need not defend the Johanssons against public assumptions. Instead, the Johanssons need defense against the accusations of the socials. Let's see. In the December court opinion, they were accused of not sending their 7 year old child to day care or school, even though it is legal to keep your youngster at home in Sweden and at the time it was legal to homeschool a 7 year old child (although Sweden has proved just last month they are bound and determined to outlaw homeschooling). They stand accused of two untreated cavities in the child's baby teeth (they even acknowledge the child had received dental work in the past, just these two were in need of treatment at the time he was seized, but the socials didn't even know it until after they seized him and went on a fishing expedition to justify their seizure). They stand accused of not immunizing the child, another legal option in Sweden and another thing the socials were unaware of until after they took the boy and began their fishing expedition. Simon, this is all the Johanssons are accused of in the court documents. Can you rest in the knowledge of this? I cannot. I cannot stand idly by and watch the suffering of this family based upon these arbitrary reasons. Is it hard to believe? Yes! I would not believe it if I had not seen the documents myself. All other accusations in the documents are a result of the sufferings this family has experienced since after the boy was taken. The Swedish officials on Gotland are DEAD SET AGAINST home schooling. The legislation the Swedish Parliament just passed a few days ago outlawing home schooling was in the works in 2009 and it emboldened the socials to punish this family and to hold them up as examples to all other Swedes. Lena Celion, head Sweden's Department of Children and Education, made perfectly clear the intent behind taking Domenic and enrolling him in school against his parent's will when she publicly stated in June 2009, "It's his right. We are doing this for the boy's sake." This is out of the mouth of those who have taken him. They stated it publicly in the Swedish press. In the American press, they add that it has to do with more than just homeschooling, but refuse to tell what. However in Sweden, they send a clear message: it is about home schooling and you dare not try home schooling yourself or your child will also be taken. Now they've backed this position with a law outlawing home schooling. I don't know how much more of the facts I can give. These are the basic, raw facts of the case. All the other things you've speculated upon are simply that, speculation and very injurious to an already severely injured family.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Because this is an extremely sensitive matter and very painful to those involved."

    The problem here is that so much information on this is floating around on the Internet, that it is hard to claim now that it is sensitive and cannot be discussed openly. Many supporters of the Johanssons both in Europe and America have put all sorts of stuff about the personal lives of the family on various sites and it is qute reasonable of me to discuss what I have read here and try to figure out what it all means.

    It is quite odd for so many people to generate so much fuss about this case and then when somebody starts asking questions about things and trying to make some sense of it to claim that it is too sensitive to be discussed publicly! For instance the bit about Christer Johansson being denied permission to home educate because of 'politically incorrect' stuff in a magazine is to be found on the Home Schooling in Sweden site. I don't understand why all the people connected with this case are making so many public statements like this if they don't wish to discuss them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't aware of this case as it went down, but with the level of paranoia within the American Christian homeschooling movement, and the way they attach themselves to any story of persecution, I don't at all doubt that there were innumerable sources of commentary about it that could've been chosen, but you're the only guy being told to shut up. I'd see that as a sign to keep talking.

      If I live to be a thousand, I'll never understand the mindset that makes protecting the reputation of Christian homeschooling more important than the well-being of the children involved.

      Delete
  40. It is my hope that Simon would contact me directly, that we would discuss everything and then that he would write a new article with his newly gained knowledge. Thus far, he has refused to do so. Instead, he seems to prefer "speculation" and the mounds of attention his poorly researched article has given him. If he were serious, he would make serious inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "It is my hope that Simon would contact me directly, that we would discuss everything "

    Without your email address, this is impossible!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Go to the Friends website and then click Contact Us. I look forward to hearing from you!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Friends of Domenic Johansson,

    Has Simon contacted you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. I certainly hope so! I sent an email this morning, but when you click on 'contact us', a weird screen comes up which asks for email address and so on. I am not sure if my message was sent or not. If I have not contacted them, it is not for want of trying.

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, I haven't received any contact. However, I see there is a contact email on this blog, so I will try to initiate private contact.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Well, after having read through the entire thread and several other websites, etc., I still have NO independent, factual information about the case at all. There appears to be no independent news reporting on this case available online or in news databases.

    All that being said, by judging the RHETORIC rather than the facts (which it appears noone has access to, anywhere), it would appear to me that most of the Johansson 'supporters' are merely home-school advocates and anti-government religious fundamentalists. Simon, my suggestion is to not bother interacting with such folks, they're almost always 'evidence-proof.'

    ReplyDelete
  47. So... Simon... this whole comments thread suddenly went dead in July after you were apparently going to get in touch directly with the Johanssons and their principal publicists. I came here trying to determine whether I ought to send a letter to the judge in the most recent episode as requested by the Johanssons' "friends". What happened - did you find out anything more? And why do you not link to sources for any of your material? Very little of it is on any of the other sites that I have seen.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dear Simon,

    you truly are an irritable man! You say you're just asking questions, but that's not what you do. You're stating the things you don't know for sure! You yourself say that you've found a bunch of contradicted stories about the case, but your text doesn't show that - you just took what you liked from that stories, and presented the whole thing the way you see it, BUT WITH NO EVIDENCE, whatsoever!
    You should be ashamed of yourself, but I guess people like you never are...So sad...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Great article, Simon. Finally a voice above the bleating brigade. This case has absolutely nothing to do with home schooling. Never had. That's merely been seized as a weapon to try and justify the parents breaking the law. Home schooling was never even mentioned until after the parents were told to stop breaking the law and to send their child to school. It just became a convenient excuse to cloud the issue. Even if home schooling was factored in, it is not an automatic right. Home schooling was, and still is, illegal unless approved by government authorities. In pretty much every country around the world. It's all just smoke and mirrors to try and cover for 2 people who failed to provide basic social and educational development environments for the Swedish citizen son as required under Swedish law. End of story. Well done, Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I suspect "Grant" and Simon are the same person. Congratulating yourself? If not, then this "Grant" is ill informed.

    Anonymous, I know many homeschoolers who aren't fundamentalists, and plenty who are non-religious altogether. They homeschool because public schools suck, and they don't want their 5th graders putting condoms on bananas (this IS done in at least New York and California). No kid should be forced to grow up in institutions. Talk about the rights of a child, how many kids just love sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day in a cold classroom? No, the kids don't have rights, and the parents don't have rights. Swedes are Nazis in cute little folk dress.

    Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. And Simon, your avoidance in any further conversation here is very telling.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It doesn't seem to me that Simon has made any decision at all regarding the case, but rather that he's trying to understand it. How in the world can anyone have an opinion on this, when no one anywhere has any actual court documentary evidence? It's all hearsay from every quadrant. Until some actual sources appear, who in the world would be fool enough to claim knowledge here?
    I, for one, respect the job that Simon's doing. He's taking the only evidence available, which is testimony from the parents, and presenting it.
    If anybody has any links to court documents, please post them.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I would agree with Simon. Compare this with the Norway kids case. The Norway case was really about Domestic Abuse and cruel treatment within the home. But propaganda in India played it as "cultural misunderstanding".

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well, it looks as if the Swedes got their way. May the Swedish government responsible for this burn in hell. Or... come clean and admit they're idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The District Court and Court of Appeal documents are available on request. There appears to be nothing 'more' to this case than meets the eye. I think it is shameful to speculate so widely on the basis that 'people in Sweden' are irritated by this case. I live in Sweden, nobody here has ever heard of it. It has certainly never been featured in the mainstream media.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Homeschooling might have started the issue. But that hardly the real issue now.
    The real issue must be something else...something absolutely simple . To solve this problem, please get some outside help from a non-emotional rational person .

    Remove support from famous lawyers or large institutions. These wont work in your case. You need something much much simpler.

    I have 3 fold advice to be followed in the correct order:

    1. Mourn completely, get over the past griefs and trauma of abduction, until you dont feel the need to blame anyone. This step must be fully completed before you do anything.

    2. Be future oriented. Discuss about how domenic will live you he is comes back. Make good mention of the monetary and emotional state of the new environment- which includes non-grieving parents and large extended family support in case any parent experiences any depression ever again.
    Draft this very carefully thought of optimistic plan and share it with everyone. Continue to remain genuine. everything will work out after that.

    3. Whatever activities you take up after this must include community service, lot of social visibility , and the two parents must be seen as a happy couple regularly in public.


    Observe the cycle:

    The more the injustice, the less the mental peace,
    The less the mental peace, the lesser are the chances of your son returning, and hence even more injustice.
    Reverse this cycle in the opposite direction.


    ReplyDelete