Den juridiska paradoxen : Vilka faktorer är avgörande vid hedersrelaterade LVU-omhändertaganden?

The legal paradox. Which factors are decisive in honour-related cases for compulsory care of young persons? Previous studies have shown that honour-related violence and oppression has grown to become a major problem in Sweden. The municipal social service is obliged to help and support all people who become victims of violence. Yet, several municipalities in Sweden have been criticized for their actions in cases concerning honour-related violence and oppression. It has also been possible to see a general restriction among social workers, in terms of applying for compulsory care of young persons in these types of cases. The aim of this study was therefore to analyse verdicts regarding compulsory care for children who is suffering from honour-related violence and oppression. To further see which factors that are of decisive importance in court, if the child welfare investigations are defective according to the administrative court, and how it in such cases affects the decision they make. The chosen method for this study was a qualitative document analysis with 20 different verdicts, which contains applications that both been approved and rejected by the court. In analysing my results, I applied a gender theory in order to understand the patriarchal structures that underlie honour-related problems. I also used an organization theory, to illustrate the power of bureaucracy and its influence on operations such as the administrative court. Apart from the fact that the investigations must achieve the criteria for compulsory care of children, the verdicts shows that there are three main factors that the administration court consider in their decisions. These three main factors are the child’s attitude to compulsory care, the credibility of the various parties, and the committee’s risk assessment. The results also show that the social welfare committee’s investigations in many cases is only based on the information from the child. This is problematic since some children take back all their information. The investigations have then been left without further evidence and the administration court must reject the social welfare committee’s application for protecting the child