Prosecutors’ Indifference – From Victim to Forgotten?
When Justice and Legal Protection Fail: Sweden prides itself on being a champion of children’s rights, yet when children are unlawfully taken to other countries, the state fails time and again. Despite international conventions and Swedish law prohibiting child abduction, affected parents are often left to handle the situation alone. The very authorities that should act – the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs – display a shocking indifference.
Children are taken out of the country by a parent or relative, often under the pretense of a vacation or temporary visit. When it becomes clear that the child will not return, the remaining parent is met with a lengthy, bureaucratic process that leaves them powerless. Instead of taking decisive action, Swedish authorities respond with passivity, excuses, and an unwillingness to pursue these cases, effectively allowing criminals to walk free.
Sweden calls itself a nation of justice, yet when it comes to abducted children, it turns its back on them. Parents are met with helpless officials and a legal system that lacks both to resolve and the will to protect the most vulnerable. Children’s lives are destroyed while authorities hide behind excuses such as “lack of resources”, “complex legal processes”, and “diplomatic difficulties”. This is nothing short of a complete surrender to those who break the law.
Swedish law explicitly prohibits taking a child abroad without the consent of the other guardian. It is a serious crime, yet the law is applied selectively. If a parent in Sweden keeps a child away from the other guardian, authorities act swiftly. But if the child is taken abroad? Suddenly, there is no urgency, and the excuses pile up:
• “It is a civil matter” • “We cannot influence other countries’ legal systems” • “We are Neutral” • “We must act cautiously in international relations”
Meanwhile, children lose contact with the parents left behind in Sweden. Many are subjected to psychological manipulation, coercion, and, in some cases, physical abuse, Swedish authorities stand idly by.
According to the Swedish Penal Code (Chapter 7, Section 4), it is a crime to take a child abroad without consent. Sweden has also committed to the Hague Convention, which is meant to ensure the swift return of abducted children. Yet, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to handle these cases with the priority they demand.
Parents who turn to the Prosecutor’s Office encounter an impenetrable wall of bureaucracy. Reports rarely lead to immediate intervention, and in the few cases where charges are filed, the chances of the child being returned remain minimal. Swedish prosecutors abdicate their responsibility, shifting the burden onto civil legal processes, where the left-behind parent is expected to battle an unfamiliar legal system alone.
On January 20, 2025, Nic. Cheropoulos, victim of child Abduction, received a letter from Prosecutor Sofia Mineur, informing him that the case concerning the abduction of his children is being closed. Since his children were abducted in 2017, the investigation has been characterized by negligence, incompetence, and a clear unwillingness from both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Police to thoroughly and properly investigate the circumstances.
For instance, the case file regarding the abduction of his children was opened for the first time in April 12, 2021. This information was disclosed to him by a case officer within the police. Shortly thereafter, this officer became unreachable, and a new case officer was assigned to the case.
The investigation conducted by the police has been marred by serious deficiencies, particularly during interrogations with Maria Kaberska (now Khatsanovska) in connection with the abduction in 2017. Maria Khatsanovska, formerly Kaberska, was involved in the abduction of Nicolaos Cheropoulos children, an act that was classified in 2021 as “gross complicity in child abduction”.
Despite the fathers repeated and loud statements to the police and prosecutor from day one of the abduction—that it is not possible to purchase same-day airline tickets online—this information was ignored. This was also overlooked by the police’s interrogator at the time, despite their knowledge of the facts.
Maria Khatsanovska, formerly Kaberska, left Sweden in January 2019 and now resides in London, where she works for the company Deliveroo. Her departure from Sweden can be presumed to have been a flight, as she was aware that the father would never cease questioning and seeking to prove the falsehoods she presented during interrogations.
In summary, both the Prosecutor and the Police have demonstrated significant shortcomings in their work. A thorough and serious investigation has, in essence, never been conducted, as the authorities appear to have prioritized maintaining their own comfort zones over ensuring justice and have shown an unwillingness to act beyond their established routines.This is shameful and a moral shortcoming!
However, the father express his gratitude to the case officer who, despite later being removed from the case, provided valuable information and demonstrated a professional and empathetic approach. It is disheartening that such dedication is neither encouraged nor acknowledged.The question that still remains is: WHY?
For left-behind parents, child abduction is more than an emotional tragedy, it’s an overwhelming financial and psychological burden. Lengthy legal battles, exorbitant costs, and endless complications often mar the path to securing a child’s return.
Many parents feel abandoned by a system that should support them, instead encountering unclear procedures, poor communication, and an unsettling lack of empathy from Swedish authorities.
While parents navigate this daunting bureaucratic maze, the true cost is borne by the children. Removed from their homes and stripped of their stability, these young victims experience severe disruptions to their education, social development, and emotional well-being.
Sweden’s system, instead of providing urgent and compassionate assistance, often prioritizes adherence to protocol over the lives it is meant to safeguard.
Parents are left to confront an unresponsive, impersonal bureaucracy, powerless to protect their children from the fallout.
Karolina Andriakopoulou is a lawyer at the Family Court in Athens. She often deals with international child abductions, which she claims are becoming a phenomenon. The bond between the alienating parent and the child in these cases is very strong, but it is not a healthy bond and needs to be challenged by the authorities!
Diplomatic Cowardice –Political Considerations Over Children’s Rights
When a child is abducted to another country, it should be treated as a top priority. The reality, however, is quite the opposite. If the child is taken outside the EU, getting help becomes virtually impossible. Sweden is either incapable, or unwilling, to put pressure on countries that ignore the Hague Convention or where corruption pervades the justice system.
Why? Is it because Swedish authorities do not want to “offend” foreign governments? Is it because taking action requires too much effort? Or is it simply because they do not care?
The painful truth is clear: Children’s rights are not a priority.
One of the biggest problems is that the justice system considers diplomatic and political factors rather than focusing on the child’s best interests. If a child is taken to a country with weak legal structures or to a state with which Sweden has sensitive relations, the will to act seems to disappear entirely.
In most cases, efforts are limited to sending a formal request, when the other country refuses to cooperate, nothing more is done.
The abducted child’s parent is left alone, forced to navigate foreign courts without resources or legal support. The fact that Swedish authorities disregard children’s rights in this way is nothing less than a legal scandal.
Indirect Message to Criminals –Kidnap Your Child and Walk Free
Swedish prosecutors have repeatedly demonstrated that international child abduction is not treated as a serious crime. Charges are rarely filed, extradition requests are delayed, and perpetrators seldom have to worry about legal consequences. The message to those willing to break the law is clear:
“Kidnap your child, take them out of Sweden – Nothing will happen to you”!
At the same time that Sweden proclaims itself a defender of children’s rights, it allows perpetrators to destroy children’s lives without intervention. It is a national disgrace that Swedish authorities permit this.
Inconsistent Law Enforcement and Gender Bias
The majority of child abductions are perpetrated by one of the parents, often to a country with family law traditions that differ significantly from those in Sweden. This exposes a striking inconsistency in the application of legal principles:
Within Sweden, if a parent conceals a child to protect them from alleged abuse or violence, authorities respond with urgency, imposing severe legal consequences. However, when a child is taken abroad and effectively loses contact with the left-behind parent, the response is often characterized by bureaucratic inertia and a lack of decisive action.
Furthermore, Swedish authorities—particularly the police—routinely initiate investigations by scrutinizing the father, even in cases where evidence clearly points to the mother as the perpetrator.
This disparity in legal treatment, particularly within the Prosecutor’s Office, undermines the principles of justice and legal certainty.
It conveys a troubling message: if a woman abducts her child, whether domestically or across national borders, the likelihood of facing legal repercussions is significantly reduced. One must question whether this inconsistency is influenced by Sweden’s broader feminist policies.
Sweden’s commitment to feminist ideals on the global stage became particularly pronounced with the introduction of its “feminist foreign policy” in October 2014, reinforcing its self-image as a humanitarian superpower. However, the practical implementation of these policies has revealed contradictions.
Notable examples include Sweden’s continued export of arms and military technology to conflict-prone regions in the Middle East, as well as the decision by Swedish government representatives to wear the hijab during official visits to countries in the Middle East and North Africa. These actions appear to contradict the fundamental principles of gender equality that Sweden claims to champion.
The Path Forward – Tougher Measures and Real Accountability
If Sweden is to maintain any credibility as a state governed by law, a complete overhaul in the handling of these cases is necessary:
• Automatic Prosecution – The Prosecutor’s Office must be obligated to immediately press charges in every case where a child is taken abroad without consent.
• International Warrants and Diplomatic Pressure – Sweden must apply strong pressure on countries that fail to cooperate. Embassies and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs should aggressively intervene in every case.
• Legal Sanctions – Parents who abduct children must face severe penalties, and Sweden must demand the extradition of offenders.
• Support for Victimized Parents – The state must provide legal and financial aid to parents fighting international legal battles.
Conclusion – Enough is Enough
Sweden can no longer turn its back on the children who are abducted and the parents struggling to bring them home. The indifference shown by the Prosecutor’s Office is unacceptable. It is time to stop blaming external circumstances and start taking responsibility.
Every day that a kidnapped child is forced to live away from their family is a day too many. How many more must suffer before Sweden takes action?
EN 
RU 
UA 
SK 
IT 
EL 
SV