Underhållsbidrag till barn - särskilt om standardtillägg vid växelvist boende

År 2013 fastställde HD att barn som bor växelvis hos sina föräldrar har rätt till underhållsbidrag när den ena föräldern har ett större ekonomiskt ut-rymme. Den föräldern kan då åläggas att betala underhållsbidrag med stöd av FB 7 kap. 6 §. HD:s motivering utgick från principen om barns rätt till en likvärdig ekonomisk standard som sina föräldrar. Samma princip ligger till grund för institutet standardtillägg, som innebär en rättighet för barn att er-hålla ett förhöjt underhållsbidrag då föräldrarna har det gott ställt i ekono-miskt hänseende. Denna framställning syftar till att redogöra för barns rätt till standardtillägg samt att problematisera den rättigheten i förhållande till HD:s ställningstagande avseende barns rätt till underhållsbidrag vid växel-vist boende. Följande frågeställningar besvaras. Vilka omständigheter beak-tas i den bedömning som föregår ett utdömande av standardtillägg? Vem av föräldrarna avgör vilka kostnader standardtillägget ska användas till? Kan en förälder, genom tillämpning av FB 7 kap. 6 §, åläggas att betala standard-tillägg till ett barn som bor växelvis hos båda sina föräldrar? Huvudsakligen tillämpas traditionell rättsdogmatisk metod med utgångs-punkt i det positiva rättskällematerialet. Det redogörs för rättstillämpningen av institutet standardtillägg i hovrättsavgöranden från 2010 och senare. Av-sikten därmed är att belysa aktuell rättstillämpning av institutet. I uppsatsen framhålls att det framstår som mest ändamålsenligt att barn, som bor växel-vis hos sina föräldrar, ska ha rätt till standardtillägg. Problematiken kring hur försummelsekravet i FB 7 kap. 6 § ska tillgodoses lyfts fram. Som lös-ning på den problematiken förespråkas en reglering för fastställande av standardtillägg som bidrar till mer förutsebarhet. Ökad förutsebarhet bör resultera i att en förälder, som har ett stort ekonomiskt utrymme, kan undgå att försumma sin skyldighet att utge standardtillägg. Vidare framhålls att det även finns ytterligare målsättningar, såsom konfliktminimering mellan för-äldrarna, som föranleder att det finns ett behov av mer förutsebarhet avse-ende fastställandet av standardtillägg. Gällande rätt ger ingen enhetlig bild över vilka omständigheter som ska beaktas vid fastställandet av standardtill-lägg. I doktrin har förespråkats en modell för fastställande av standardtillägg som innebär att barnets faktiska kostnader ska beaktas. En sådan ordning ställer krav på att barnets kostnader är etablerade och innebär således en begräns-ning av barnets rätt till standardtillägg. Den modell som förespråkas i upp-satsen innebär att standardtillägget fastställs som en procentsats av föräl-derns inkomstöverskott, efter det att underhåll för barnets grundbehov av-räknats. En sådan modell bör leda till mer förutsebarhet eftersom den är tydlig och enkel för föräldrar att tillämpa. Genom att tillämpa denna modell kan en förälder, som har ett större ekonomiskt utrymme, undvika att agera försumligt genom att själv beräkna det standardtillägg barnet har rätt till och utbetala motsvarande summa.Children are entitled to an economic standard that is comparable with the standard that their parents have. This principle is reflected in the child’s right to receive an addition to the average maintenance allowance, a so-called standard addition. In year 2013, the Supreme Court stated that a child who lives alternately with their parents are entitled to a maintenance allow-ance. By applying article 6 in Chapter 7 of the Swedish Code on Parenthood (CP) the Supreme Court stated that children who lives alternately with their parents are entitled to maintenance allowance if one of the parents has a larger economic capacity than the other parent. The ruling was motivated by the Supreme Court with the principle of the child’s right to an economic standard that is comparable with the standard that his or her parents have. This paper aims to explain the child's right to a standard addition and to problematize this right in relation to the ruling by the Supreme Court regard-ing maintenance allowance to children who lives alternately with their par-ents. In order to do so, the following questions are answered. What circum-stances are taken into account when determining the standard addition? Which parent determines what costs the standard addition is to be used for? Can a parent, through the application of article 6 in Chapter 7 of the CP, be required to pay a standard addition to a child who lives alternately with his or her parents? The methodology used in this paper is classical legal method. Cases pro-nounced by the Courts of Appeal since 2010 and later are presented in order to give the reader an up-to-date perspective on how Swedish courts apply the rules on standard addition. In the analysis of this paper it is found to be most efficient to include the standard addition in the right for children who lives alternately with their parents to receive maintenance allowance. How-ever, there is the issue of fulfilling the criteria of negligence set in article 6 in Chapter 7 of the CP. This issue may be resolved through the use of a dif-ferent method for determining the standard addition, which results in more predictability. Through implementing such a method, one would also ac-complish the objective to minimise conflicts among separated parents. The current established law gives a method that ends in unpredictable results and therefore creates a platform for disputes between parents. Legal doctrine have presented a method for determining the standard addi-tion where the child’s actual costs for recreational activities are being used as a guideline on how much standard addition a child is entitled to. Such a method requires that the child has established costs and therefore limits the child’s right to a standard addition. Instead, another method is argued for which lets the standard addition represent a percentage of the most wealthy parent´s surplus of income, where the basic maintenance allowance has been deducted. Such a method for determining the standard addition would result in more predictability and it would also enable the parent, who has a larger economic capacity, to calculate the standard addition in advance. The parent can thereby avoid neglecting his or her obligation to provide the child with a standard addition

Maahanmuuttajien koulutus- ja työllistymispolut Ruotsissa : Kolmen toimenpiteen kartoitus

Maahanmuuttajien koulutus- ja työllistymispolut Ruotsissa – raportti käsittelee kolmea toimenpidettä, joilla on pyritty parantamaan maahanmuuttajille tarjottavia koulutus- ja työllistymispalveluita. Aineisto kerättiin osana Maahanmuuttajien koulutus- ja työllistymispolut (MAKO) -hanketta ja se julkaistaan erillisenä osaraporttina. Tässä esiteltäviä esimerkkejä käsitellään myös itse hankkeen loppuraportin osana. Ruotsista kerätyn aineiston rooli hankkeessa oli tuottaa aineistoa tutkimuskysymyksiin, jotka käsittelivät 1. koulutus- ja työllistymispolkujen pullonkauloja; 2. eri toimijoiden välisen yhteistyön järjestämistä, 3. kotoutumiskoulutuksen ja muiden työhallinnon palveluiden yhteensovittamista, sekä 4. palvelupolkujen kehittämis- ja systematisointitarpeita. Käsiteltäviä ohjelmia ovat Etableringsprogrammet, joka raportissa on käännetty termillä asettautumisohjelma, Snabbspår eli pikareitti sekä vireillä oleva uudistus Etableringsjobb, jossa valtio tukisi suoraan henkilölle maksettavalla palkkatuella näiden työllistämistä. Toimenpiteissä yhteistyössä toimivat esimerkiksi Ruotsin työvoimapalvelut, sosiaaliturvalaitos, kunnat, työmarkkinaosapuolet ja työnantajat. Toimenpiteet ovat olleet osin onnistuneita, mutta kehitettävää on löydetty edelleen esimerkiksi tiedonkulun vahvistamisen ja kielikoulutuksen järjestämisen kysymyksissä

Developing rights-based standards for children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions: using a collaborative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder approach to build consensus.

Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020-2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.    Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known: • Children continue to experience short and long-term harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. • Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children's procedural care. What is New: • This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. • The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds

New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution.

Body fat distribution is a heritable trait and a well-established predictor of adverse metabolic outcomes, independent of overall adiposity. To increase our understanding of the genetic basis of body fat distribution and its molecular links to cardiometabolic traits, here we conduct genome-wide association meta-analyses of traits related to waist and hip circumferences in up to 224,459 individuals. We identify 49 loci (33 new) associated with waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for body mass index (BMI), and an additional 19 loci newly associated with related waist and hip circumference measures (P < 5 × 10(-8)). In total, 20 of the 49 waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI loci show significant sexual dimorphism, 19 of which display a stronger effect in women. The identified loci were enriched for genes expressed in adipose tissue and for putative regulatory elements in adipocytes. Pathway analyses implicated adipogenesis, angiogenesis, transcriptional regulation and insulin resistance as processes affecting fat distribution, providing insight into potential pathophysiological mechanisms

Developing rights-based standards for children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions: using a collaborative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder approach to build consensus.

Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020-2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds. Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known: • Children continue to experience short and long-termharm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. • Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children's procedural care. What is New: • This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. • The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds. [Abstract copyright: © 2023. The Author(s).

Developing rights-based standards for children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions: using a collaborative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder approach to build consensus

Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020-2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child

NIST Interlaboratory Study on Glycosylation Analysis of Monoclonal Antibodies: Comparison of Results from Diverse Analytical Methods

Glycosylation is a topic of intense current interest in the development of biopharmaceuticals because it is related to drug safety and efficacy. This work describes results of an interlaboratory study on the glycosylation of the Primary Sample (PS) of NISTmAb, a monoclonal antibody reference material. Seventy-six laboratories from industry, university, research, government, and hospital sectors in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia submit- Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993; 22Glycoscience Research Laboratory, Genos, Borongajska cesta 83h, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 23Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacˇ ic´ a 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 24Department of Chemistry, Georgia State University, 100 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 25glyXera GmbH, Brenneckestrasse 20 * ZENIT / 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; 26Health Products and Foods Branch, Health Canada, AL 2201E, 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9 Canada; 27Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama Higashi-Hiroshima 739–8530 Japan; 28ImmunoGen, 830 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451; 29Department of Medical Physiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Michalowskiego 12, 31–126 Krakow, Poland; 30Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, 400 N. Broadway Street Baltimore, Maryland 21287; 31Mass Spec Core Facility, KBI Biopharma, 1101 Hamlin Road Durham, North Carolina 27704; 32Division of Mass Spectrometry, Korea Basic Science Institute, 162 YeonGuDanji-Ro, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju Chungbuk, 363–883 Korea (South); 33Advanced Therapy Products Research Division, Korea National Institute of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro Osong-eup, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363–700, Korea (South); 34Center for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; 35Ludger Limited, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3EB, United Kingdom; 36Biomolecular Discovery and Design Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics (CNBP), Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia; 37Proteomics, Central European Institute for Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, A26, 625 00 BRNO, Czech Republic; 38Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstrasse 1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany; 39Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, 14424 Potsdam, Germany; 40AstraZeneca, Granta Park, Cambridgeshire, CB21 6GH United Kingdom; 41Merck, 2015 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033; 42Analytical R&D, MilliporeSigma, 2909 Laclede Ave. St. Louis, Missouri 63103; 43MS Bioworks, LLC, 3950 Varsity Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; 44MSD, Molenstraat 110, 5342 CC Oss, The Netherlands; 45Exploratory Research Center on Life and Living Systems (ExCELLS), National Institutes of Natural Sciences, 5–1 Higashiyama, Myodaiji, Okazaki 444–8787 Japan; 46Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya City University, 3–1 Tanabe-dori, Mizuhoku, Nagoya 467–8603 Japan; 47Medical & Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd, 2-22-8 Chikusa, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–0858 Japan; 48National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG United Kingdom; 49Division of Biological Chemistry & Biologicals, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158–8501 Japan; 50New England Biolabs, Inc., 240 County Road, Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938; 51New York University, 100 Washington Square East New York City, New York 10003; 52Target Discovery Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; 53GlycoScience Group, The National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training, Fosters Avenue, Mount Merrion, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland; 54Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, 2620 Yarborough Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27695; 55Pantheon, 201 College Road East Princeton, New Jersey 08540; 56Pfizer Inc., 1 Burtt Road Andover, Massachusetts 01810; 57Proteodynamics, ZI La Varenne 20–22 rue Henri et Gilberte Goudier 63200 RIOM, France; 58ProZyme, Inc., 3832 Bay Center Place Hayward, California 94545; 59Koichi Tanaka Mass Spectrometry Research Laboratory, Shimadzu Corporation, 1 Nishinokyo Kuwabara-cho Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604 8511 Japan; 60Children’s GMP LLC, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee 38105; 61Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd., 1–5 Muromati 1-Chome, Nishiku, Kobe, 651–2241 Japan; 62Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, Microweg 22 P.O. Box 7071, 6503 GN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 63Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., 40 Landsdowne Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; 64Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409; 65Thermo Fisher Scientific, 1214 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, California 94085; 66United States Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd. IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Shamirpet, Turkapally Village, Medchal District, Hyderabad 500 101 Telangana, India; 67Alberta Glycomics Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 68Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 69Department of Chemistry, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, California 95616; 70Horva´ th Csaba Memorial Laboratory for Bioseparation Sciences, Research Center for Molecular Medicine, Doctoral School of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, Hungary; 71Translational Glycomics Research Group, Research Institute of Biomolecular and Chemical Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprem, Egyetem ut 10, Hungary; 72Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, 15 Innovation Way Newark, Delaware 19711; 73Proteomics Core Facility, University of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 1G SE 41390 Gothenburg, Sweden; 74Department of Medical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of Gothenburg, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Medicinaregatan 9A, Box 440, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden; 75Department of Clinical Chemistry and Transfusion Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Bruna Straket 16, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden; 76Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Pl. 6 20146 Hamburg, Germany; 77Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2; 78Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry of Interactions and Systems, University of Strasbourg, UMR Unistra-CNRS 7140, France; 79Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Tu¨ bingen, Markwiesenstrae 55, 72770 Reutlingen, Germany; 80Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; 81Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Amsterdam Institute for Molecules, Medicines and Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 82Department of Chemistry, Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street Milford, Massachusetts 01757; 83Zoetis, 333 Portage St. Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Author’s Choice—Final version open access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. Received July 24, 2019, and in revised form, August 26, 2019 Published, MCP Papers in Press, October 7, 2019, DOI 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677 ER: NISTmAb Glycosylation Interlaboratory Study 12 Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19.1 Downloaded from https://www.mcponline.org by guest on January 20, 2020 ted a total of 103 reports on glycan distributions. The principal objective of this study was to report and compare results for the full range of analytical methods presently used in the glycosylation analysis of mAbs. Therefore, participation was unrestricted, with laboratories choosing their own measurement techniques. Protein glycosylation was determined in various ways, including at the level of intact mAb, protein fragments, glycopeptides, or released glycans, using a wide variety of methods for derivatization, separation, identification, and quantification. Consequently, the diversity of results was enormous, with the number of glycan compositions identified by each laboratory ranging from 4 to 48. In total, one hundred sixteen glycan compositions were reported, of which 57 compositions could be assigned consensus abundance values. These consensus medians provide communityderived values for NISTmAb PS. Agreement with the consensus medians did not depend on the specific method or laboratory type. The study provides a view of the current state-of-the-art for biologic glycosylation measurement and suggests a clear need for harmonization of glycosylation analysis methods. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19: 11–30, 2020. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677.L

Content Management Systems – Business effects of an implementation

This thesis was performed at the business areas of Volvo Group where we evaluated the business effects from an out-of-the-box content management system (CMS) implementation. A CMS helps an organization to collect, support, organize and publish information on the Internet, intranet and extranet. Our purpose with this thesis was to evaluate a CMS implementation and to compile a model for CMS evaluation to be able to show the business effects generated to the organization by the CMS. To compile a model we studied literature on CMS and evaluation of IS/IT-investments. Our model was customized and consisted of Observed CMS business effects, CMS business effects and impact, IS/IT-investment evaluation and Additional IS/IT-investment evaluation. The conclusion provided to us by our evaluation model was that the positive business effects from a CMS implementation are “effective work process”, “content policy”, “togetherness”, “reduced hosting costs”, “reuse of content”, “increased web presence” and the negative are “low flexibility”