Dom mot Norge i Den europeiske menneskerettsdomstol (EMD)
(Judgment against Norway in the European Court of Human Rights (ECrHR))
(Roma woman was denied all contact with her daughter – violation of human rights, says the ECtHR)
Enstemmig dom mot Norge i Den europeiske menneskerettsdomstol (EMD) i barnevernssak.
(Unanimous judgment against Norway in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR))
Dagbladet, 6 September 2018
"Kvinnen er fratatt omsorgen for sin datter som hun fødte i 2011. Hun er seinere nektet all kontakt med datteren, og det er det domstolen i Strasbourg nå slår ned på."
(The care for her daughter, born in 2011, was taken away from the woman. Later she has been denied all contact with the daughter, and this what the Court in Strasbourg now attacks.)
"- Min klient er svært glad og lettet for avgjørelsen, og optimistisk med tanke på å kjempe videre for at hun og hennes datter skal få ha kontakt i framtida, sier romkvinnens advokat Nora Hallén i advokatfirmaet Elden til Dagbladet."
( – My client is very glad and relieved over the judgment, and optimistic about fighting on for her and her daughter to achieve contact in the future, says the Roma lady's lawyer Nora Hallén in the law firm of Elden to Dagbladet.)
"- EMD presiserer den langsiktige negative effekten det kan ha for barnet å miste kontakten med sin biologiske mor, i lys av at staten har en forpliktelse om å legge til rette for en gjenforening mellom mor og barn så raskt det er mulig. Dette prinsippet om å jobbe for gjenforening mellom foreldre og barn - selv om det skal være en omsorgsovertakelse - opplever jeg som advokat i barnevernssaker at verken barnevernet eller domstolen i tilstrekkelig grad tar hensyn til, sier Hallén."
(The ECtHR emphasises the long term negative effect for the child to lose contact with her biological mother, in the light of the state's obligation to facilitate a reunion between mother and daughter as soon as possible. The fact that neither the CPS nor our courts take sufficient account of just this principle of working for a reunion between parents and children – even when a taking into care is to take place – is what I as a lawyer in child protection cases come up against, says Hallén.)
At last! A lawyer who understands that not only are the parents harmed – the child is harmed by being deprived of its contact with its mother! Let us hope that Hallén and her client go ahead now, to at least get extensive visitation practice for mother and daughter, preferably with a plan of proper reunion.
Dagbladet's journalist Asle Hansen then interviews professor of law Karl Harald Søvig and deputy state secretary (next-in-command to Minister Helleland) Tom Erlend Skaug, and elicits some quite revealing statements:
Skaug: "Vi registrerer også at EMD i denne dommen ikke synes å være kritiske til det norske barnevernssystemet som sådan".
(We take note of that the ECtHR in this judgment does not seem to be critical of the Norwegian child protection system as such.)
Skaug about the coming appeal in the Lobben case in October:
"– Vi er spente på avgjørelsen i den saken."
(– We are eager to see the decision in that case.)
Søvig: "- Dette er en sakstype som ofte står for norske domstoler, og er således veldig interessant."
(– This is a type of case which is often before Norwegian courts, and it is therefore very interesting.)
Ah yes, they are eager and interested. Excuse me, the two gentlemen seem to be less interested in the tragedies. Both are "interested" in whether the system can be protected, so that the tragedy-producing child protection system is not brought to an end? They seem to frolic in legalities and in "the game", and are without any understanding of the seriousness of the abuse carried out by Barnevernet and of the jurists' own avoidance of making it public.
It reminds me of what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Carsten Smith was so interested in in 1996, when the judgment against Norway in appeared: He was so glad to interpret the judgment not to have judged the Norwegian judicial treatment of the case (cf the last paragraph about case (a) ).
That again reminds us of the old saying that law and justice are far too important to be left to jurists. I agree completely (cf , the last section: The bankruptcy of the legal system).