Child Welfare in Justice: Only children’s backpacks were in a hurry when the family disappeared

Only Two days after the disappearance of the Ostrobothnian family, the Ostrobothnian District Court dealt with an earlier issue in which one of the family’s child was prescribed a deputy trustee.

Two social workers were heard as witnesses who knew the family’s situation well. They told the court how the children had disappeared from their location in the evening on May 15 last year. The children were in an urgent position in the unit.

The matter is manifested in public trial documents.

According to social workers, the parents had planned to escape with the children. According to them, it was a single blink of an eye during which the children were unattended when the staff was in another room for a short time.

They said that parents and children ran over the adjacent field and drove away by the parents’ car.

Employees’ claims about planning the escape together with the children were based on the fact that the children had packed their backpacks, but in a hurry they stayed in the children’s rooms.

They also reported that the family had been searched and the border authorities were informed.

Police made a home search for the detached house they rented in January last year, a few months before the family disappeared.

Social workers In court, they said about the previous stages of the family that the parents had not cooperated with the social welfare authorities to deal with the urgent investment, and they had not been able to take the child’s interest in mind

The parents, on the other hand, considered in their statement that the children’s schooling was excellent. The social welfare authority considered that the cause of urgent care was not the reason for schooling, but the reason for the children’s home and health care.

At that time, the District Court ordered the lawyer to be a substitute for a lawyer, which the parents opposed.

The court stated that the arbitrary action of the parents showed that they, as guardians, cannot impartially protect the child’s interest in the matter. The court also argued that the lawyer was named as a trustee by the fact that it was a legal complex child protection issue.

The solution does not indicate why it only dealt with the case of one child in the family.

The news is supplemented.