Demonstrators get outside help – and the child protection Minister becomes paralyzed!
By Olav Sylte, lawyer
They demonstrate in front of the Norwegian Parliament and are heatedly active on the internet, their common denominator being that they think the justice system is not working at all. At least not when it comes to Norwegian child protection (CPS) – Barnevernet. Now they may have found acceptance for being at least partially right.
Norway is in fact no longer considered to be typically best in class, at least not in an honest way, and this apparently also applies to child protection and the legal system.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The question I am raising here is not that of exploitation of natural resources, pollution or the use of dope in sports, but the basic issue of whether Barnevernet’s intervention in families and homes has been “necessary” interference in these families in the human rights sense.
The alternative is that it may have been grave transgression of human rights.
Article 8-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is the rule that states the requirement of “necessity”, and this is what has been subject to debate lately.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
My reason for taking this up now is that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has set in motion this year something resembring a unique, grand action against our child protection and justice system.
In a European context, it is rare that something like this happens. So it does not really surprise me that our Minister of Children and Equality had to give a rather sensational statement to the daily news on October 18.
The action started with the ECtHR admitting a Norwegian child protection case about forced adoption, to be considered under the possibility of violation of ECHR Article 8 last year. Human rights jurist Marius Reikerås was the one to submit the case and according to the media, he has had to move abroad as a result of his activity.
This case has probably, in conjunction with extensive demonstrations and criticism of the Norwegian child protection system over the past year, opened a fertile ground for other cases to get through the narrow needle’s eye which the ECtHR usually keeps.
The action revolves around the investigation of, so far, 7 Norwegian cases, several of them about adoption, and the question of whether ECHR article 8, including the requirement of “necessity”, has been violated.
(About the action: “Angriper barnevernet – Storoffensiv mot Norge: Menneskerettsdomstolen skal granske sju norske barnevernsaker” (Attacks Barnevernet – Grand offensive against Norway: The ECtHR is to investigate 7 Norwegian child protection cases) )
Even the fact that so many cases on the same issue have been admitted for proceedings, justifies the assertion that child welfare critics have already achieved a resounding win over Norwegian Barnevernet and the legal system that we have.
No self-criticism on the part of Barnevernet
Norwegian child protection gives the impression that the opposite has happened, and pretends that they do not even know of the ECtHR’s recent activity.
To illustrate this, I can mention a case on adoption in which I represented the parents before a County Board a few days ago.
In this case the municipality’s lawyer held that the human rights provision is not even applicable in matters of adoption, even though adoption is the most intrusive and serious intervention which the authorities can use against parents who do not agree to having their child adopted away.
The municipal lawyer claimed not to have heard anything about the ECtHR being involved in any proceedings regarding forced adoption, and had absolutely no knowledge of any activity of the ECtHR this year.
Certainly the central child protection authorities do not seem to have issued any instruction to curtail anything.
The Attorney General
Even the Attorney General, who has a habit of supporting the practice of the authorities, has recently stated that he is aware that the Norwegian child protection system may have got “out of control”.
This was in the summer. Subsequently, two more Norwegian cases were admitted to the ECtHR for consideration in the Court (the number of cases thus being increased from 5 to now 7).
( His statement: “Det norske barnevernet under lupen” (Norwegian Barnevernet under close scrutiny) )
Paralyzed Minister
The headline in the newspaper Dagbladet said that the Minister of Children and Equality, too, does not rule out the possibility that Norwegian Barnevernet and the justice system may systematically have violated human rights, like the critics have over several years claimed they do. This at least is my interpretation, based on the newspaper report, of what the Minister said.
I hope somebody will as soon as possible explain to Minister Horne that she is in fact responsible and can issue instructions as she sees fit.
The responsible Minister is expected to immediately have her Ministry instruct all Barnevern offices in the country to change tack before it is too late.
The correction may come from outside
The assertion and the lack of information about the media image shown by the municipal lawyer I mentioned above, may serve as an illustration of the Norwegian child protection system and the zealous legal system that we have.
We have a system which does not dare to admit that it may have made terrible errors, in matters of basic human rights and dignity. That is actually what ECHR Article 8 really is about.
When even the Minister does not manage to take action before it is too late, but just concludes that something may be wrong, there is perhaps only one option left, and that is that the correction must come from outside.
I assume that if this is the case, what happens might be somehat more brutal. Only time will tell and the minister still has a few months to clean house.
Further limitation of the freedom of expression of the involved parties
I have written about this subject for many years. I have also been reported to the Bar Association’s disciplinary unit for it. This is the side of Minister Horne which I have seen, besides the article in Dagbladet.
( More here: “Bufdir til klagesak mot advokat” (The directorate for child protection makes complaint against lawyer) )
Furthermore, a year ago I wrote the following:
“If someone is to be criticized besides the psychologist in the current case, it is above all the Norwegian courts with the Supreme Court in the lead. This because the threshold for intervention in private homes may have been set too low in general, and probably all too often in violation of ECHR Article 8. I have yet to see someone criticize, with similar campaigns, the Norwegian courts for this.”
I believe this claim is just as relevant today – but this is of scant help for those who have already lost their children. They can, however, expect to be invited by Horne to seminars, in the election campaign of the Progress Party which has started.
• • •
Olav Sylte is a Norwegian lawyer who has represented the families in many child protection cases, and who is also active writing articles about such issues in e.g. periodicals, newspapers and on his website Rett og urett (Justice and injustice). The Norwegian original of this article, “Brakseier for ‘barnevernsdemonstrantene’!”, was published on October 19, 2016.
This English version is published here with the author’s kind consent.
• • •
Thank you to Professor Marianne Haslev Skånland for making me aware of this article and for obtaining permission for me to print it here. I have found Professor Skanland to be one of the most knowledgeable Norwegians on this tragic subject.
THE ORIGINAL POST MAY BE VIEWED HERE.
cr
Posted by Chris 
Wings of the Wind 
NORWAY VIOLATES PARENTAL RIGHTS…AGAIN!
March 24, 2020On March 10th, two important child welfare case decisions were made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Unanimous convictions were made in both cases, clearly and strongly denouncing Norwegian authorities.
In each case, Norway was found in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention describes the right to respect for private and family life. It states:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” (Guide on Article 8)
EHtCR judges found that Norwegian officials were guilty of unexcused and unbridled intrusion into normal family life in the March 10th decisions. These same officials/authorities were found guilty of being “responsible for a situation of family breakdown.”
In the case of HERNEHULT v. NORWAY, the Court noted a recent case where precedent had been clearly declared:
“61. The general principles applicable to cases involving child welfare measures, including measures such as those at issue in the present case, are well-established in the Court’s case-law, and were recently extensively set out in the case of Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway.”
Back in September (10 September 2019), in the case of STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY, the ECtHR judges in Strasbourg found Norway in violation of Article 8 by a vote of thirteen to four.
In the second case decided on March 10th, PEDERSEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY, the Court also referred to the Strand Lobben case:
“39. Other relevant material relating to domestic and international law is referred to in the Court’s recent judgment in the case of Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway.”
The citation of previous litigation in both HERNEHULT v. NORWAY and PEDERSEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY explains how the Court came to its united condemnation.
The two cases have several similarities. One is that the wives in each case were not born in Norway. Hernehult’s wife is a Romanian national, and Pedersen’s wife comes from the Philippines.
Each case originated in an application against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the ECtHR under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Hernehult applied in March of 2016 and the Pedersens applied in August of 2015. The Hernehult settlement was 26,893 U.S. dollars for non-pecuniary damage, and the Pedersen settlement was 37,637 U.S. dollars for non-pecuniary damage and 10,216 U.S. dollars for costs and expenses.
Over 20 similar cases are slated to be decided by the EHtCR in the coming months. No one knows how many more applications against the Kingdom of Norway are forthcoming.
Editorial
How many more decisions like this will have to be made before the Norwegian Child Welfare Services, otherwise known as the Barnevernet, will begin to see that the world is waking up to its crimes? I am pleased by these wise decisions of the ECtHR. It is obvious that they can now see through all of the miasma belched into our habitat by the Barnevernet and Norwegian officials. I’m not aware of anyone who is satisfied with the settlements made, but these recent decisions are steps in the right direction certainly. The ECtHR’s references to the Lobben case in the March 10 decisions reveal recent, positive movement. The court is clear…it is using “well-established” “case law” for its decisions. I am very thankful and yet…
How can any reparations repay someone for a child stolen?
In the Pedersen case, paragraph 68 of the ECtHR judgment speaks for itself:
68. The Court emphasizes that to the extent that these decisions implied that the authorities had given up reunification of the child and the natural parents as the ultimate goal, the conclusion that placement must be considered to be long-term should only have been drawn after careful consideration and also taking account of the authorities’ positive duty to take measures to facilitate family reunion. However, in this case the decision to impose a very strict visiting regime cemented the situation at the very outset, making it highly probably that the child would become attached to the foster parents and alienated from the natural parents, thus precluding any realistic possibility of eventual reunification. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in the present case. In this respect, the Court recalls that where the authorities are responsible for a situation of family breakdown because they have failed in their obligation to take measures to facilitate family reunification, they may not base a decision to authorize adoption on the grounds of the absence of bonds between the parents and the child (see Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, § 208).
You can read the details of the case and the court’s decision HERE.
In, 2013, Mr. Dan Mikael Hernehult moved to Norway with his wife and three boys and before the year was out (November 4th) the child welfare service issued emergency care orders for all three children in accordance with section 4-6 of the Child Welfare Act. (You can download a PDF copy of the Child Welfare act here.) They were placed in emergency foster homes the same day. The sad account does not stop there. You can read the details of the case and the court’s decision HERE.
Many in Norway have been hoping and praying for the type of decision made in the Hernehult case. In it, the Norwegian authorities were convicted of wrongfully taking two of the boys into care in the first place. This is an opening salvo of, hopefully, many more decisions like it.
Professor Marianne Haslev Skånland is the one who referred me to Paragraph 68 in the Pedersen case and she was particularly pleased with the decision in the Hernehult case. She writes:
“The judgments have made things increasingly clear, up to now, when they write so clearly that they (the ECtHR judges) both condemn the taking into care of two of the children, AND the failure to return them.”
She also states:
“I am really most of all glad of the judgments from February 2020 which I found against Russia and Romania. Not because I am glad to see that in those countries, too, they have social services which more or less frequently make enemies of parents and seem to delight in disrupting family bonds. But because I see a trend in what the ECtHR is doing: They now seem wide awake to the fact that they have a duty to carry out here: help combat a very destructive trend – the trend of believing that biological parents are of no importance to their children and that the social services can provide children with better conditions and satisfactory ’stimulation’! That is pure, speculative psychobabble – quackery, and all experience disproves it.”
Marianne’s description of Barnevernet philosophies as “speculative psychobabble” fits my understanding perfectly. She has broad knowledge of child welfare services inside and outside of her home country of Norway. HERE, on her homepage, you can see links to the Norwegian cases leading up to and including those mentioned in this post.
With all of the challenges families face in our time, the last concern should be about government entities separating loving families. Many countries are having similar problems. It is important that we become aware of the philosophies of child welfare in all countries.
I appreciate those who have worked so hard to create awareness about this important issue and I congratulate those who have spent years fighting to see that these cases made their way to court.
Chris Reimers
Share this: