Advokatfirmaet Steinsvik AS
Pilestredet 7 A
45 500 700
I den fjerde av totalt ni saker vedrørende norsk barnevern som skal behandles i EMD er det konstatert brudd på menneskerettighetene og rett til vern om privatliv og familieliv. Saken tar for seg den vanskelige avveiningen mellom barns rett til beskyttelse og foreldrenes rettigheter. I denne saken ble det konstatert at foreldrenes rettigheter var krenket og Norge må betale kvinnen som klaget inn saken 25 000 Euro i erstatning.
I de tre foregående sakene som er behandlet av EMD har klager ikke vunnet frem mot staten Norge. Vi følger med i de resterende fem sakene som er fremmet til behandling.
Jansen v. Norway (no. 2822/16) The applicant, Ms B. Jansen, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Oslo.
The case concerned her complaint about being denied access to her daughter, who has been taken into care and is in a foster family.
Ms Jansen’s daughter, A, was born in 2011. She and the child lived for a short time with her parents, who are Norwegian Roma, until they were thrown out by her father. Over several months she moved in and out of a family care centre.
In June 2012 the Child Welfare Service issued an order to place A in an emergency foster home at a secret address. Ms Jansen was given one hour of supervised contact per week on the grounds of a risk that the child might be abducted. A full care order was issued in December under which Ms Jansen and the child’s father were allowed supervised contact of one hour, four times a year. Neither parent was entitled to know A’s whereabouts.
After a challenge to the contact decision by Ms Jansen and A’s father, the first-instance court decided that it was in the child’s best interests for them to not have contact rights at all. That decision was upheld on appeal, but the Supreme Court remitted the case in October 2014.
The second set of contact proceedings led the appeal court to uphold its decision on restricting all contact in April 2015 and in July 2015 Ms Jansen was refused leave to appeal again to the Supreme Court.
The main reason for the courts’ restrictions on contact was the danger of A being abducted by Ms Jansen’s family, which would be harmful to the child, and the possibility that the secret address of the foster family would be revealed. They also assessed Ms Jansen’s parenting skills and her ability to withstand her violent and controlling father. They took account of the family’s Roma background, without finding that to be an impediment to restricting contact.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Jansen complained about the courts’ refusal to grant her legal rights to have contact with A.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: EUR 25,000 (non-pecuniary damage)