Source: https://stepup4childrensrights.com/norways-proposed-new-law-on-the-rights-of-children/
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 12:13:23
Document Index: 784093788

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 12']

Norway’s proposed new law on the rights of children – Step up 4 Children's Rights
Norway’s proposed new child welfare law is likely to deepen the crisis in which Norway currently finds itself in. If this proposed new law is implemented it will enable further overreach into family life in Norway. The proposed new child welfare law is likely to generate new problems as well, without resolving the existing ones. For example, the door would be open to further abuse by the Norwegian authorities, making it even easier to take new born babies even before the mother and child have left the hospital.
The following report is an analysis of the proposed new law on the rights of children in Norway.
This commentary concerns a draft law, which is referred to as Barnevernslov (hereinafter: Draft)[[1]] and which is intended to replace the current law of July 17, 1992 on protection of children – Lov om barneverntjenester (barnevernloven – hereinafter BVL)[[2]]. The provisions of the BVL currently in force provide a comprehensive regulation of legal status and methods of conduct regarding children living in conditions which endanger their life, health or psycho-social development. The law addresses also fundamental questions connected with foster care, procedures regarding intervention in the family life and the organizational structure of social services – especially the Office for the Protection of Children (­Barnevernet) and county councils of social welfare (fylkesnemnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker), as quasi-judicial institutions controlling the activity of Barnevernet and performing the tasks determined in its provisions.
The draft of the law which is to replace BVL was prepared by the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Equality (Barne- og likestillingsdepartementet) and presented for social consultations on April 4, 2019[[3]]. As was pointed out, the currently active law became effective over 25 years ago, in 1993, which forces development of a law adequate to currently existing social needs[[4]]. Work on the Draft started in 2014, when a special committee was established to assess the possibility of simplification and introduction of amendments to the currently effective law[[5]]. The product of the work, report NOU 2016: 16 – Ny barneversnslov (hereinafter NOU 2016: 16)[[6]] was published in 2016. BVL provisions were in turn partially modified in 2018[[7]].
The activity of Barnevernet has been subject to criticism for a significant time now, both by Norwegians themselves and by international organizations. The Norwegian system of protection of children has a long standing tradition, and the law formerly governing this area – Lov om barnevern – became effective in 1953[[8]]. It was already this law that was subjected to thorough criticism[[9]], which was at least partially upheld by the ruling of the European Court for Human Rights (hereinafter: ECtHR) in Johansen v. Norway, stating that the decision denying Adele Johansen contact with her daughter and depriving her of her parental rights was issued in violation of article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter: ECHR)[[10]].
In 2015, the currently effective law was criticized in an open letter signed by over one hundred Norwegian specialists from various areas – lawyers, psychologists, social workers and academics. At the same time, further widely publicized cases of unjustified intervention of Barnevernet in the life of families with origins from outside of Norway shook the public opinion in many European countries and in the United States, particularly the case of the Norwegian-Romanian family of Bodnariu, whose five children were taken away and placed with three different foster families[[11]].
A Moldovan politician, V. Ghilethi presented on the forum of the Council of Europe a report entitled Striking a balance between the best interests of the child and the need to keep families together, based on the case of this family. This report became the basis for the adoption a resolution of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe number 2232 (2018) of June 28, 2018 under the same title[[12]]. The report confirmed that Norway violates the rights of children by unjustified deprivation of their parents of custody over the children, execution of foster and institutional care and application of procedures as foreseen by the BVL provisions. Meanwhile, on June 6, 2018, the ECtHR issued a ruling in the case of Blondina Jansen, a Norwegian citizen of Roma origin, clearly confirming that forbidding the contact of biological parents with a child placed in a foster family is contrary to the goal of foster care, which is of gradual return of the child at the care of its biological parents. Therefore such practice constitutes a violation of right to respect of family life protected under article 8 of the ECHR[[13]]. The Grand Chamber of the European Human Rights Court found Norway in violation of article 8 of the Convention also in the verdict of September 10, 2019 in case of Strand Lobben and others versus Norway, underscoring at the same time that the Norwegian authorities did not sufficiently consider the best interest of the biological family of the child when undertaking an intervention in the family life of Trude Lobben and her son and consenting to the son’s compulsory adoption[[14]].
2. redefining the rules of the best interest of the child by assuming that the criterion for this interest (well being of the child) should be assessed in detachment from the biological kinship of the child and basing solely on the assessment of alleged developmental benefits, which may flow from a stable relationship with various caregivers, while no developmental benefits are attributed to the child remaining under the care of biological parents[[15]];
As declared by the authors, the main objective of development of the Draft was to improve the protection of the rights of children by strengthening preventive mechanisms and powers of the institutional social services connected with undertaking interventions at an early stage[[16]]. These would now be executed under the principle of mildest intervention (mildeste inngreps prinsipp)[[17]].
However, the declaration is highly doubtful considering the fact that the NOU 2016: 16 report pointed rather to a great importance of interventions specified in § 4-6 BVL, indicating at the same time – which is particularly surprising – towards a necessity to meet international obligations and fuller implementation of constitutional norms by Norway[[18]]. The goals of the new law were specified in § 1-1 of the Draft and they do not provoke major reservations, containing a set of rather pompous declarations concerning the provision of children and youth who live in conditions where their health and development could be endangered with the necessary help, care and protection at the right time.
Still the fundamental directive of acting in “the best interest of the child”, which aims to determine how all the provisions proposed (in § 1-3 of the Draft) will be implemented remains deprived of material normative content. This signifies that authors did not abandon the current understanding of the principle of best interest of the child which disregards its emotional ties to biological parents.
Understanding which does not flow from the law but was imposed institutionally (i.e. determined by the NOU [2012:5] report). This causes fundamental reservations, especially considering the judicature of the ECHR, according to which the best interest of the child should be determined with the consideration of both maintaining the ties between the child and the biological family and a duty to assuring development of the child in a healthy environment[[19]]. The resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe nr 2232 (2018)[[20]] has an analogous understanding of the child’s best interest.
A small and rather symbolic improvement is noted in the area of the rights of parents to maintain contact with their child. Existence of such right was clearly confirmed (see § 7-1 of the Draft). However, it is illusory in nature, because the county council of social welfare may decide to forbid such contacts and do so in essence in an arbitrary way, as the regulations do not provide for any concrete conditions (§ 7-2 of the Draft).
This means that the current state will be maintained de facto (see § 4-6 and § 4-19 BVL). The decision of the council in this area may be only verified once every two years and exclusively at the request of the parent and not automatically. Even if the parent keeps the right to maintain contact with the child, such contacts will happen according to a plan set by Barnevernet (§ 7-3 of the Draft). Such plan will not be considered an administrative decision and will not be subject to higher instance control. This means that the employees will have full freedom in this area and constitutes a case of depriving parents of their rights (see article 6 of the Convention). Obviously the Draft does not set the minimum standard regarding the number of meetings between the child and the biological parent.
The Norwegian Media Association (Norsk presseforbund), Association of Norwegian Publishers (Norsk Redaktørforening) and the Norwegian Journalist Union (Norsk Journalistlag) submitted an Opinion of August 1, 2019, (hereinafter: Opinion)[[21]] regarding the Draft, within the process of social consultations (consultation meeting number 19/1565). The Opinion points out that among the most important shortcomings of the Draft is the absence of mechanisms, which would assure sufficient transparency of actions undertaken by Barnevernet, which attracted the attention of not just Norwegian but also global public opinion.
In the assessment of the journalist community the proposed solutions only perpetuate the current state of affairs, in which many leaders of the Barnevernet units on municipal level refuse to provide information about their activity, using the clause of secrecy of information for the protection of the institution and its employees to the detriment of the children and their parents (see point 3 of the Opinion).
For this reason, the journalist organizations propose for the clause to not include the protection of public administration employees or public or private care providing institutions (ibidem).
Secrecy clause may also concern the parties to the proceeding (i.e. parents and not officials). The journalist organizations propose specifying the reading of § 12-5 of the Draft, which permits withholding from a party access to documentation when it may expose the child or other persons to a loss or danger. According to the proposition of the journalist organizations, this rule should only concern such situations, when the threat is probable and specific (point 4 of the Opinion).
Another suggestion of the journalist organizations is to liberalize the provisions on the access of media to meetings of the county councils of social welfare, which are more restrictive than similar provisions regarding general courts and to improve the quality of documentation regarding the child (points 5 and 6 of the Opinion). The last proposition of the journalist organizations is to grant a child who turned 12 a status of a party in the proceeding (currently the case for children over 15 years of age), which is consistent with the conclusions formed in report NOU 2016: 16 (point 7 of the Opinion).
Author: Bartosz Zalewski, Attorney-at-Law
[Photo: Pixabay/ CCO Creative Commons]
The nightmare in Norway continues →