It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:08 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Sak N.P. mot Moldova ved EMD
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:41 am 
Offline
Superposter
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 6809
Location: Oslo
  

Sak N.P. mot Moldova ved Den Europeiske Menneskerettighetsdomstol


CASE OF N.P. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Application no. 58455/13
ECHR, 6 October 2015

  
"FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,
    1. Declares, unanimously, the application admissible;
   2. Holds, by five votes to two, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the withdrawal of parental authority;
   3. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the restrictions on visiting rights;"


Dommen er nå også lagret her:
CASE OF N.P. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA


  


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sak N.P. mot Moldova ved EMD
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 7442
Location: Mosjøen, Vefsn kommune på Helgeland.
-rom-
Den nye dommen sier at stater aktivt skal arbeide for å levere barn tilbake til foreldre. Dommen bryter altså med tilknytningsideologien til det såkalte barnevernet som jobber for varig brudd på tilknytningen mellom foreldre og barn. Og dermed ødelegger foreldre og barn.

Som kjent er det en naturlig rettighet - såkalt "negativ rettighet" - å få være familie. (Negativ er her et ord for å få være i fred FRA staten.).

Denne dommen går altså lengre og gjør det til en statlig oppgave (såkalt "positiv rettighet" - rett til statlig innblanding) å aktivt arbeide for å forene foreldre og barn.

Siterer fra Facebook:
Quote:
"Som Marius Reikerås sier, dette som "EMD sier i premiss 70 i dom av 6 oktober 2015 - N.P. v. MOLDOVA - er noe av det viktigste som er blitt stadfestet av EMD i barnevernssaker på lang tid." Dette er hva EMD sier:

"Uansett, en omsorgsovertakelse skal normalt være ansett som et midlertidig tiltak, for å bli avviklet så snart forholdene tillater det.
Det kan derfor ikke rettferdiggjøres uten forutgående vurdering av mulige alternativer, og bør ses i sammenheng med statens positive forpliktelse til å gjøre alvorlige og vedvarende innsatser for å lette gjenforeningen av barna med sine biologiske foreldre og frem til da å muliggjøre jevnlig kontakt mellom dem. "

"In any event, taking a child into care should normally be regarded as a temporary measure, to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit.
It cannot, therefore, be justified without prior consideration of the possible alternatives and should be viewed in the context of the State’s positive obligation to make serious and sustained efforts to facilitate the reuniting of children with their natural parents and until then to enable regular contact between them. "


Fant Marius' uttalelse:
Quote:
Det EMD sier i premiss 70 i dom av 6 oktober i år, N.P. v. MOLDOVA, er noe av det viktigste som er blitt stadfestet av EMD i barnevernssaker på lang tid.

Dette premisset må man alltid henvise til, om man er i en barnevernssak mot det offentlige.

I engelsk språkdrakt skriver EMD følgende:

"In any event, taking a child into care should normally be regarded as a temporary measure, to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit.

It cannot, therefore, be justified without prior consideration of the possible alternatives (see K. and T. v. Finland, cited above, § 166; and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 67, ECHR 2002‑I) and should be viewed in the context of the State’s positive obligation to make serious and sustained efforts to facilitate the reuniting of children with their natural parents and until then to enable regular contact between them (see, mutatis mutandis, Kutzner, cited above, §§ 76-77; K. and T. v. Finland, cited above, § 179, and Saviny, cited above, 52)."

Dette er det motsatte av hva norske domstoler til stadighet hevder; nemlig at en omsorgsovertakelse er av langvarig karakter.

Den er ikke det, den skal avbrytes så rakst som mulig og det er statens ansvar å sørge for at så skjer.

_________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
.
"Vårt" lysebrune-mørkerøde såkalte barnevern stjeler mennesker
> Radikalt forum mot familiedestruksjon: http://forum.r-b-v.net/<


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sak N.P. mot Moldova ved EMD
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 7442
Location: Mosjøen, Vefsn kommune på Helgeland.
-rom-
Her er menneskerettighetsdomstolens egen korte beskrivelse av dommen.

N.P. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 58455/13)

The applicant, Ms N.P., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1986 and lives in Chișinău. The case concerned the withdrawal of her parental authority and restrictions on visiting rights to her daughter.

On 22 September 2011 the police were called to the applicant’s home by a neighbour. The police, finding the applicant and her mother in a drunken fight and her four-year-old daughter dirty, hungry and crying, removed the child from her home and placed her in care. In the ensuing court proceedings, it was decided in February 2012 at first-instance to withdraw the applicant’s parental authority. The first-instance court relied on the police report of September 2011, an inspection of the applicant’s home (found to be unsanitary as it had no running water, electricity or gas) and submissions from the social services reporting that the child was generally neglected by her mother, often had to beg neighbours for food and did not attend school. Before the courts the applicant
submitted that, as a single parent without financial support, she was in a difficult situation but that, whilst the court proceedings were ongoing, she had obtained employment, improved her living conditions and sought to enrol her daughter in pre-school. Ultimately, however, in May 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the lower courts’ decisions to withdraw parental authority.

The applicant’s repeated requests to visit her daughter were refused: initially because the court proceedings were still pending; and then in October 2013, when a guardian – the child’s aunt – was appointed, because she no longer had parental rights. In December 2013 the social services eventually allowed visits on Saturdays in the presence of the child’s guardian.

Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained about the national courts’ decisions to withdraw her parental authority and the restrictions on visiting rights to her daughter. Accepting that it might have been beneficial for her daughter to be taken temporarily into care, she alleged that the authorities could have found a less severe measure than simply withdrawing her parental authority, without taking into consideration the improvements she had made to her situation and without providing support to help her raise her daughter herself.

Violation of Article 8 – in respect of the withdrawal of parental authority
Violation of Article 8 – in respect of the restrictions on visiting rights

Just satisfaction: 7,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,030 (costs and expenses)
-rom-

_________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
.
"Vårt" lysebrune-mørkerøde såkalte barnevern stjeler mennesker
> Radikalt forum mot familiedestruksjon: http://forum.r-b-v.net/<


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Theme designed by stylerbb.net © 2008
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
All times are UTC [ DST ]