Decision in a case regarding care according to the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act

A youth that exposes his och her health or development to a tangible risk of harm through the misuse of addictive substances, criminal activity or some other socially degrading behaviour shall, where necessary care cannot be provided with consent, be provided care pursuant to section 3 the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act (1990:52). The question in the case is whether self-isolation in the home can comprise such socially degrading behaviour as constitutes grounds to provide a youth care in accordance with the Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act. In the case, a 15-year old boy, had over the last two years progressively isolated himself in the home and had been extensively absent from school. During the last six months before care was provided, he isolated himself in his room and has left the room only when no one else in the family was at home. The Supreme Administrative Court stated initially that the relevant situation certainly is far from the examples of socially degrading behaviour provided in the legislative history, for example presence in addictive environments. According to the Court, the wholesale exclusion of harmful and self-destructive behaviours other than such as are similar to the examples set forth in the legislative history cannot be regarded as compatible with the purposes of the act. In the view of the Supreme Administrative Court, the fact that the young person spends in principle all of his or her time in the home and mismanages school attendance cannot normally be deemed to be such socially degrading behaviour as constitutes grounds for taking a decision on the provision of care. In this case, however, the young person had, for an extended period of time, isolated himself in the home, even in relation to his family. As a consequence of this, he also missed a great deal of his schooling despite being subject to the obligation to attend school. This nearly total separation from the family and society in general is covered by the term socially degrading behaviour. The rulings of the lower courts regarding the provision of care for him were thus correct. Two of the five justices of the Court had a dissenting opinion.