This is practically the best article I have seen about both the Lobben case in the ECtHR and about the state of Norwegian child protection at present. The article has a very wide and far-reaching perspective, and it is right, all of it. And Gundersen's conclusions are right, all of them.
Fridtjof P Gundersen, lawyer:
Mange av oss er faktisk ganske dumme og slemme når vi får makt(Many of us are in fact quite stupid and nasty when we are given power)Når morens barnevernssak blir gitt ny behandling i Strasbourg, skyldes det nok en ulmende følelse av urettferdighet, vilkårlighet og myndighetsmisbruk.(When the mother's child protection case is given new consideration in Strasbourg, it is, to be sure, because of a smouldering feeling of injustice, arbitrariness and the authorities' abuse of power)Dagbladet, 31 October 2018
"Moren, som fikk sitt første barn tvangsadoptert, reiser seg verdig foran dommerne som skal avgjøre om Norge brøt Den europeiske menneskerettskonvensjonen (EMK). Med seg har hun en fransk advokat og bilder av seg og barna. Noen meter bortenfor står Fredrik Sejersted, regjeringsadvokaten. Han har ingen klient med seg, men et kobbel av godt utseende unge rådgivere. Alle med trygg oppvekst og gode karakterer.
De vil aldri komme til å dele morens erfaring; at barnevernet kom og rev hennes tre uker gamle sønn ut av armene hennes."(The mother, whose first child was forcibly adopted away, gets up in a dignified way, before the judges who are to decide whether Norway violated the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). With her she has a French lawyer, and pictures of herself and the children. Some feet away is Fredrik Sejersted, the Attorney General of the Norwegian state. He has no client with him, but a bunch of attractive-looking young advisors. Alle of them with a safe childhood and fine academic results.
They will never share the mother's experience: that the child protection employees came and tore her three weeks old son out of her arms.) "Morens sak er én av ni – 9! – norske barnevernssaker som for tiden behandles i EMD. Det er i seg selv ekstremt, spesielt for en såkalt menneskerettighetsnasjon. Ingen land har opplevd noe liknende.
Enda mer ekstremt er det at Høyesterett bare har behandlet én av sakene. Møse og hans kolleger har abdisert og gjort EMD til den reelle ankedomstol i barnevernssaker. Utover at det er et svik mot de barn og foreldre det gjelder, er det illojalt mot Den europeiske menneskerettskonvensjon, som forutsetter at spørsmål om brudd på konvensjonen behandles nasjonalt. Vi snakker om et rettslig sammenbrudd."(The mother's case is one out of nine – 9! – Norwegian child protection cases which at present are processed by the ECtHR. That in itself is extreme, especially for a so-called human rights nation. No other country has had the same experience.
Still more extreme is that our Supreme Court has only taken one of the cases up for consideration. Møse and his colleagues have abdicated and made the ECtHR the real appeal court in child protection cases. In addition to being a betrayal of the children and parents concerned, it is disloyal to the European Convention on Human Rights, which presupposes that questions of violation of the convention are considered nationally. We are talking of judicial collapse.)It is worth taking special notice of what Gundersen says here about our Supreme Court. In Norway, victims of child protection abuses often believe that the Supreme Court will go to the heart of the matter. But when we consider the actual practice of the Supreme Court, and the way appointments to the Supreme Court are quite politically motivated, there is, on the contrary, reason to conclude that the Supreme Court is our worst court instance of all in child protection cases and other child-related cases.
*
The ominous development we have seen in Norway also exists and has made itself felt, in the ECtHR:
"Mindretallet i første runde i saken har gjort det klart at om frifinnelsen av Norge blir stående, vil det ikke lenger være sammenheng mellom liv og lære i EMD, slik at folk blir lurt til å tro at de har et vern de ikke har. Da vil EMD ha kommet dit Norge lenge har vært."(The dissenting judges in the first round of the case have made it clear that if the exoneration of Norway is allowed to stand, there will no longer be any connection between principle and practice in the ECtHR, so that people are led to believe they have a protection they do not have. The ECtHR will then have arrived to the place where Norway has been for a long time.)"Politikerne, psykologene og juristene har oversett at noen skal avgjøre hva som til enhver tid er til barnets beste i tusenvis av konkrete saker. I Norge er det barnevernet, spredt utover landets mange kommuner og bemannet av lavtlønnede kvinner med en billig utdannelse."(The politicians, the psychologists and the jurists have not taken note of the fact that somebody is to decide what is in the best interest of the child at every point, in thousands of concrete cases. In Norway, the CPS Barnevernet is this instance, spread over the country's many municipalities and manned with low-salary women with a cheap education.)Indeed yes, it is important to punch a hole in the myth of "the best interest of the child". One finds the concept, the way it is used by the supporters of Barnevernet in Norway, to be empty of content. The supporters do not even make an attempt to define it. Even so, Barnevernet and our authorities are allowed, around the year, to preach sermons about how they attend to "the child's best interest", without anyone demanding the very least explanation of
what in the CPS's treatment of children and parents is good for children. As lawyer Gundersen says: judicial collapse.
*
"Morens sak er en typisk norsk barnevernssak. Hun ba selv barnevernet om hjelp. Med det nyfødte barnet ble hun plassert på et familiesenter. I strid med jordmorens vurderinger, anbefalte senteret akuttplassering av hennes sønn."(The mother's case is a typical Norwegian child protection case. She herself asked the CPS for help. With her newborn child she was placed in a family centre. Contrary to the midwife's assessments, the centre recommented emergency placement of her son.)'Family centres' and 'mothers' homes' are among the facilities that have to be closed down altogether. It is well-known that they practice 'evaluations' which are unfounded psycho-babble. Such a facility would never be re-engaged by Barnevernet if it did not cough up these 'evaluations' which are to Barnevernet's liking.
*
"Åtti prosent av omsorgsovertakelser starter med akuttvedtak og over halvparten begrunnes med mangler ved den følelsesmessige omsorg. Slike mangler er det stort sett bare et presteskap av psykologer og barnevernsansatte som kan se."(80 per cent of takings-into-care start with emergency takeovers and more than half of them are claimed to be because of deficiencies in the emotional care. Such deficiencies are usually only observable by a priesthood of psychologists and CPS employees.)*
"Da det viste seg at moren var godt i stand til å ta seg av barn, ble hennes krav om tilbakeføring avvist med at sønnen har «særlige behov» som bare ekstra kompetente fosterforeldrene kan dekke. Det ble aldri redegjort for guttens spesielle behov. Også dette er typisk.
Regjeringsadvokatens prosedyre reflekterte myndighetsklimaet i barnevernssaker. Han anklaget moren for ikke å ha etablert tilknytning til gutten gjennom samværene. Med fire korte samvær i året med barnevernsfolk og fostermor hengende over seg, er det selvsagt ikke mulig å etablere noe som helst. Dette argumentet framsto som grusomt og uredelig, men er dessverre typisk."(When it turned out that the mother was very well able to take care of her child, her demand for return was rejected with claims that the boy had "special needs" which only extra competent foster parents could meet. It was never explained what these special needs were. This too is typical.
The Attorney General's process reflected what the climate in child protection cases is like with our authorities. He accused the mother of not having established any attachment to the boy through the visitations. With four short visitations per year, with child protection people and the foster mother hanging over them, it is of course not possible to establish anything at all. This argument had the character of being cruel and dishonest, but is, unfortunately, typical.)*
"Videre poengterte Sejersted at plassering i barnets familie ikke var mulig fordi far er ukjent. Han valgte altså å klandre henne for at hun var alenemor. Et gufs fra femtitallet. Er det slik regjeringen ønsker å bli presentert i Europa?"(Sejersted went on to make a point out of placement in the child's family not being possible because the father was unknown. So he chose to blame the mother for being a single mother. A very unpleasant reminder from the 1950s. Is this how our government wants to be presented in Europe?)This is it in a number of child protection cases. Single mothers are easy for the CPS to attack and have the children removed from. That is why they attack them, maybe more frequently than they attack others.
*
"Norske myndigheters barnesentrerte perspektiv er i virkeligheten en revolusjonær ideologi. I den gode hensikts navn («barnets beste») gis en dårlig utrustet forvaltning nærmest uinnskrenket makt. Den siste sperren var EMDs klare rettslige utgangspunkt om at det er til barnas beste å være hos sine foreldre eller i det minste opprettholde bånd til dem.
Det er dette Norge angriper i denne saken. Og det er derfor den er så viktig. Uten sperrer for myndighetenes inngrep i livene våre står bare den nakne og vilkårlige makt tilbake. Moren gjør en viktig og modig jobb for oss alle."(The child-centred perspective of Norwegian authorities is in reality a revolutionary ideology. In the name of good intentions ("the child's best interest") a badly equipped administration / civil service is given practically unlimited power. The last barrier was the ECtHR's clear, judicial basis of it being in children's best interest to be with their parents or at least to maintain bonds to them.
This is what Norway is attacking in this case. And that is why it is so important. With no barriers against the encroachment of the authorities on our lives, only naked and haphazard power remains. The mother is doing an important and courageous job for all of us.)The question remains, though, how the ECtHR will in the coming Grand Chamber judgment motivate upholding the principle, if they do uphold it. Without a basis in available documentation of
why it is important for children to maintain the bonds to their own parents, it is left to feelings, sundry reasoning and sundry connections that judges and Council of Europe members may see, whether the principle of upholding the bonds is made to rest on a basis of facts. If not, it may again come under attack at any time. Scientific documentation exists. So far, it has not been made the centre of argumentation in any country's deliberations of children's best interest.
**
Cf also
Marianne Haslev Skånland:
How Norwegian experts came to reject biological kinship as relevant in child welfare policySiv Westerberg:
The Folly of Sweden's State Controlled Familiesmany of the references in English here:
Sverre Kvilhaug:
Atskillelse barn og foreldre – det fortidde traume?(Separation children and parents – the hidden trauma)
Bjorn Bjoro:
A system that wears people downMarianne Haslev Skånland:
Some professional child experts (1) – Kari Killén, social worker and dr.philos Marianne Haslev Skånland:
Is biological kinship irrelevant for the life of human beings?Marianne Haslev Skånland:
The Child Protection Service (CPS) – unfortunately the cause of grievous harm – Part 1: First encounters with the system and the court proceduresMarianne Haslev Skånland:
The Child Protection Service (CPS) – unfortunately the cause of grievous harm – Part 2: Content, dimensions, causes and mechanisms of CPS activitiesSuranya Aiyar: Articles 42-46
herefamilien-er-samlet:
5 years as refugeesMarianne Haslev Skånland:
Norwegian Supreme Court judgment: A father is to go to jail for 5 months for having kept his daughter away from the cps Barnevernet's care Marta Straume:
Child protection on Norway's main streetMarianne Haslev Skånland:
The Council of Europe with a critical report on European child protection systems Marianne Haslev Skånland:
Human Rights in Norway – as Low as they can Go