A Polish court allowed Russian Denis Lisov and his daughters - with whom he fled from Swedish juvenile justice - to stay in Warsaw. The Swedish guardianship became interested in the Lisov family after the mother was admitted to the hospital with signs of schizophrenia. In 2017, Lisov's children were taken away and transferred to a Muslim family - immigrants from Lebanon. Lisov recently took his daughters and tried to flee to Moscow - but on April 1, the family was detained by Polish border guards, as the Swedish authorities put them on the wanted list.
Polish lawyers and representatives of political organizations advocating for family rights came to the aid of Denis Lisov, on their advice he applied to a Polish court for political asylum, and while the appeal was being considered, he and his daughters were allowed to stay in Warsaw.
This is not the first scandal associated with the entrenched Scandinavian practice of weaning children from their parents for completely unfounded reasons, and it is not the first time that Poland, where faith and respect for the family is still strong, comes to the aid of victims of Scandinavian juvenile justice.
From the outside, the situation looks wild - what's the point of taking the children away from the father because of the mother's illness? What is the point of giving them to an Arab Muslim family, creating the inevitable tension due to the difference in religion and customs? What motives might lie behind such strange actions of the Swedish state, and for what crime is it persecuting the father - and the children themselves?
The point is not that Swedish juveniles somehow especially dislike Russians - families of very different origins, including indigenous Scandinavians, are persecuted - the point is that this is how juvenile justice works.
There are several reasons for this. First, uncontrolled powers always lead to abuse. In Sweden, in Russia and anywhere else.
Any government service is made up of people who can commit mistakes and crimes. Worse, even sincerely well-meaning people can screw up. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and Viktor Chernomyrdin formulated the same idea with ingenious brevity - "they wanted the best, but it turned out as always."
Therefore, any legal system presupposes certain checks and balances. Experience has shown that the simple idea of “giving good honest people more authority to deal with the bad ones” turns into abuses by already “good” people. As Cornelius Platinga said, "Evil infects every scalpel with which they try to cut it."
People who get uncontrollable opportunities to eradicate evil very soon fall into evil themselves. Such is human nature. Therefore, the law does not allow a good police officer to simply take and shoot a villain - no, the villain must be arrested, investigated, evidence gathered, an adversarial process held - and, as a result of all these complex and costly actions, send (or not send) him to jail. The villain can take advantage of the complexity of this system to wriggle out - but it is necessary. Otherwise, an honest cop can mistakenly shoot anyone - including you.
Juvenile justice is a system with fundamentally weakened checks and balances. It is, in fact, engaged in persecution of citizens - but at the same time it has much broader and more vague powers than other state institutions.
To subject you to criminal punishment, you need to prove your guilt in court. In order to deprive you of your children (and their parents), all these difficulties are unnecessary. Why is this so?
Because in this case, persecution is presented as a boon.The victims cannot even cry out "for what ?!" because the persecutors will say, “And we do not punish you for any guilt. We are just acting in the best interests of the children.” What is essentially a cruel punishment - deprivation of children - is not formally considered a punishment, and therefore does not require compliance with the procedures required in criminal proceedings.
The second reason is the presumption of family guilt. Caregivers are expected to know better than the parents what the child needs and take better care of the child's interests. In this regard, the situation that arose in neighboring Norway is indicative, where one of the leading experts in determining whether to take a child out of the family fell for the fact that he was a big fan of child pornography - and downloaded hundreds of thousands of relevant files to his computer. The expert went to prison, the guardianship service began to ask questions - how could he hold such a position for a long time and shouldn't the decisions on the weaning of children, made with his participation, be reconsidered? During these conversations, the Norwegian Minister for Children, Linda Hofstad Helleland noted that “when there is a conflict between the interests of the child and the interests of the parents, we will be on the side of the child. Here we will not retreat a single step."
But it is necessary to somehow protect children from criminal encroachments - the reader may argue - including from family members? There are absolutely terrible cases when it remains only to bitterly regret that the police did not break into the house earlier! True, there are. Only the case of Denis Lisov and his children, like many other cases well known to us, has nothing to do with protecting children from cruel treatment or infringement of their sexual integrity. The parents were not even suspected of anything like that.
And here is the time to pay attention to the fact that the Scandinavian forms of guardianship, which have already managed to compromise themselves, are literally and diligently copied here, in Russia. Unjustified withdrawals of children, who were not threatened with any violence, from parents who somehow irritate the guardianship service or are simply poor, are already becoming a custom in our country. You can recall the case with the Kiselev family, or the children of Olesya Utkina.
Moreover, we are launching a campaign to identify “problem” families, and neighbors are actively encouraged to report on “problem” families. Of course, those who are launching this campaign have good intentions and want the best. Swedish and Norwegian juveniles are also, for the most part, not monsters at all. It simply results in the perception of parenting as something suspicious and socially disapproved.
There is an aloud declared anti-family ideology in the world - from the point of view of which the earth is overpopulated, it faces a catastrophic warming up of the atmosphere due to the fact that too many people emit too much carbon dioxide, and parents who give birth to new children harm the environment and deserve censure for their irresponsible behavior.
But Russia is not suffering from overpopulation, but, on the contrary, from depopulation, the authorities are taking measures to encourage the birth rate. The situation when, on the one hand, the state is trying to strengthen the family and encourage parenting, on the other hand, it nightmares parents as suspicious people and puts them in a vulnerable position when they can find something to complain about and take their children away at any moment is absurd.
Parents - and especially those with many children - should be honored, not suspicious. In this regard, we should take a closer look at the example of the Polish conservatives, who proved themselves so worthily in the Lisov case.