jaxx
2009-03-08, 21:14
I would like to bring up a very important point of discussion which may be of interest to your readers. I am a foreigner to Sweden, currently working as a senior lecturer in neuroscience and molecular psychiatry in The United Kingdom, and I am very concerned about a law which is currently being actively used in Dalarna to allow extreme and terrible abuse within families, especially in those families suffering from undiagnosed mental disorders.
The law I am concerned with is that which allows a family member who owns a part of a property, regardless of how small or large that portion is, to take the entire property to auction without allowing the family living in the house the first option of buying out the leaving owner. The auction may result in a larger bid being accepted, or the property may be tied to another unaffordable though separate piece of land, making purchase complicated. This effectively risks that they are kicked out of their own home because of an argument, although they may have both the means and the resources to stay in their home.
The reason this law needs to be reviewed is because it currently allows for a legal way for family members to abuse and harass other members in a way that is disproportionately damaging and destructive. There is no justification for taking someone’s home from them out of anger, yet this law allows just that to happen.
In the specific example I have in mind, a mother who has been abusing her family for more than 30 years (since her children were young), is now choosing to escalate her attacks against one of her sons and his two young daughters after years of perpetually harassing him in other ways. Because of a relatively insignificant disagreement, she has vowed to take everything he has from him. Unfortunately it appears so far that she has managed to accomplish this. The first property she sold did not even belong to her. We have proof that she did not own the property, yet she has kept the money for it and given the key to the “new owner” who had been under the impression when he made the purchase that he had paid for it in a fair deal. The ease with which she was able to do this says something about the Swedish system which is currently in place. She did not need to show any proof that she owned the property, and the family who actually owned the property are now having to undergo a difficult struggle to regain rights to their own house, which is more difficult than one would ever have imagined! But it is what she did next which involves the law of which I am most concerned.
The son who she wants to punish lives in a house that is part of a property that he partially owns (25%) together with other family members. His mother has taken the house to auction in order to get him to lose his home (she admits no other family member wants the property), however the son does indeed have the means to buy the rest of the house. Unfortunately, however, the house is attached on paper to other land (a forest) which does not lie in the vicinity, and which he cannot afford to buy. Although the law allows for partitioning of properties prior to auction, experience in practice shows that the courts are ignoring this provision. At least in this current example I mention, they have so far ignored this provision. For the son to remain in his house it would be imperative that this property be partitioned, as is his legal right. However despite explicitly pointing out his rights to the courts, he has not yet received fair justice.
The mother’s concerted and long-term abuse of her children in this particular case represents a pattern which should be taken into account in this situation. As a specialist in development of psychiatric disorders, I am very concerned that the level of abuse potential inherent in this law has not been more thoroughly assessed. The mother in question obviously suffers from an undiagnosed disorder for which I have ample supporting evidence, and there should be a legal means available to stop her continued abuse against her son so that he does not lose his home. He has young children who live there as well and the consequences would be devastating. This is particularly distressing because these problems would be easily preventable in a just system which protects victims of abuse.
I am, as I mentioned a researcher, not a lawyer, however I believe I have important points to make regarding the current problems associated with this law. I believe both the law, and the courts’ interpretation of the law needs to be reviewed in order to prevent hideous abuses of justice, as in the case I have outlined above. This law should not allow for seizure of homes from those who have the means to buy out owners who wish to leave, and every effort should be made to support the rights of partial homeowners who are living in the home, especially those with small children, to remain when they have the means to do so. Moreover, the abuse record of those who are attempting to remove the current occupants should be taken into account.
I sincerely hope that for those who read this, if you are not in a position to review this law, that you will pass this message and information on to someone who is able to look into the shortcomings therein. This law is dangerous and needs to be assessed.
The law I am concerned with is that which allows a family member who owns a part of a property, regardless of how small or large that portion is, to take the entire property to auction without allowing the family living in the house the first option of buying out the leaving owner. The auction may result in a larger bid being accepted, or the property may be tied to another unaffordable though separate piece of land, making purchase complicated. This effectively risks that they are kicked out of their own home because of an argument, although they may have both the means and the resources to stay in their home.
The reason this law needs to be reviewed is because it currently allows for a legal way for family members to abuse and harass other members in a way that is disproportionately damaging and destructive. There is no justification for taking someone’s home from them out of anger, yet this law allows just that to happen.
In the specific example I have in mind, a mother who has been abusing her family for more than 30 years (since her children were young), is now choosing to escalate her attacks against one of her sons and his two young daughters after years of perpetually harassing him in other ways. Because of a relatively insignificant disagreement, she has vowed to take everything he has from him. Unfortunately it appears so far that she has managed to accomplish this. The first property she sold did not even belong to her. We have proof that she did not own the property, yet she has kept the money for it and given the key to the “new owner” who had been under the impression when he made the purchase that he had paid for it in a fair deal. The ease with which she was able to do this says something about the Swedish system which is currently in place. She did not need to show any proof that she owned the property, and the family who actually owned the property are now having to undergo a difficult struggle to regain rights to their own house, which is more difficult than one would ever have imagined! But it is what she did next which involves the law of which I am most concerned.
The son who she wants to punish lives in a house that is part of a property that he partially owns (25%) together with other family members. His mother has taken the house to auction in order to get him to lose his home (she admits no other family member wants the property), however the son does indeed have the means to buy the rest of the house. Unfortunately, however, the house is attached on paper to other land (a forest) which does not lie in the vicinity, and which he cannot afford to buy. Although the law allows for partitioning of properties prior to auction, experience in practice shows that the courts are ignoring this provision. At least in this current example I mention, they have so far ignored this provision. For the son to remain in his house it would be imperative that this property be partitioned, as is his legal right. However despite explicitly pointing out his rights to the courts, he has not yet received fair justice.
The mother’s concerted and long-term abuse of her children in this particular case represents a pattern which should be taken into account in this situation. As a specialist in development of psychiatric disorders, I am very concerned that the level of abuse potential inherent in this law has not been more thoroughly assessed. The mother in question obviously suffers from an undiagnosed disorder for which I have ample supporting evidence, and there should be a legal means available to stop her continued abuse against her son so that he does not lose his home. He has young children who live there as well and the consequences would be devastating. This is particularly distressing because these problems would be easily preventable in a just system which protects victims of abuse.
I am, as I mentioned a researcher, not a lawyer, however I believe I have important points to make regarding the current problems associated with this law. I believe both the law, and the courts’ interpretation of the law needs to be reviewed in order to prevent hideous abuses of justice, as in the case I have outlined above. This law should not allow for seizure of homes from those who have the means to buy out owners who wish to leave, and every effort should be made to support the rights of partial homeowners who are living in the home, especially those with small children, to remain when they have the means to do so. Moreover, the abuse record of those who are attempting to remove the current occupants should be taken into account.
I sincerely hope that for those who read this, if you are not in a position to review this law, that you will pass this message and information on to someone who is able to look into the shortcomings therein. This law is dangerous and needs to be assessed.