This chapter explores what could happen when experiences of lived institutional care is confronted by the present welfare state’s attempt to rightening the past. The chapter demonstrates how the Swedish state’s redress scheme, in operation 2013-2016, aimed at victims of historical child abuse in out-of-home care shifted away from an explicit aim to acknowledge the victims’ unjustifiable suffering, to the limited ways in which the state could be considered responsible. It scrutinises which details were pivotal for why victims of child sexual abuse did not receive the financial redress as adjudicated by a temporary Redress Board. Three possible explanations are identified: a) the Government Bill guiding the Redress Board did not state that all kinds of sexual abuse would count as severe abuse eligible for compensation; b) contemporary tort law came to influence the assessment of the historical redress claims and set the standards for who received financial redress and who did not; c) it proved difficult to combine acknowledging the suffering of victims with assessing the responsibility of the state. If caregivers were unaware of the abuse, or if they took steps to prevent further abuse, the state could not be held responsible. The outcome did not concur with the scheme’s explicit aim to acknowledge unjustified suffering amongst victims of historical child abuse in out-of-home care. Consequently, the chapter explores how a ‘non-apology’ can feature in financial redress for past harms, and how the transformative aspect of a transitional justice framework can vanish during its practical operation.