Překlad článku z dubna:

Dagbladet has looked more closely at the underlying facts in an infested Norwegian child welfare case, which is currently being sentenced in the European Court of Human Rights (EMD).

The case is about Trude (33), who shortly after the birth in 2008 was deprived of care for his firstborn.

In 2012, the legal system in Norway decided that the boy should be adopted away to foster parents, despite the fact that at the time Trude had given birth to a new child whom the child welfare service believed was good enough as a mother to take care of.

The case, which Dagbladet mentioned in a major news document last Saturday, is one of a total of ten Norwegian child protection cases that the Human Rights Court has passed through for consideration.
Today, the 33-year-old mother lives with her husband and their two common children, a girl of seven and a boy of four. She has not seen her firstborn since he was three years old. Today he is ten. The state has thus considered that Trude is good enough mother for two of her three children.
Court papers from both Norwegian courts and the EMD show that a key point in the contentious child welfare case has been the allegation that the boy lost significant weight after giving birth, without the young mother realizing the seriousness of it.

This was also a major reason why the child welfare service intervened and forced the boy, as his mother left a three-month stay in a maternity home after only three weeks.

The EMD""s factual review of the case states:

"In the child welfare service""s decision, it was claimed that Wild Mother""s Homes had to check on the mother and children every three hours to ensure that the boy was getting enough food. Without this control, they were unsure if the boy would survive. ”

A letter to EMD from the boy""s adoptive parents states that the boy was "seriously malnourished" when they took care of the three-week-old boy in 2008.
Trude has always been unaware of the allegation that the boy was so malnourished that it was about life. She fed him, and he slept, she claims,


Trude""s mother, Sissel, lived with Trude and her son during parts of their stay at the maternity home. She has always maintained that Trude took good care of him and that the baby was in normal good condition when the child welfare took over the care.

Weight gain
A judgment from the Drammen District Court on August 19, 2009 sheds interesting light on this.
It appears that the boy weighed 3590 grams when he was born on September 25, 2008.

The lowest recorded weight the baby had was weighing at a health station on October 6. Then he weighed 3170 grams.

The weight loss was 11.7 percent, some midwife, in her testimony in court, said "was not alarming" as a 10 percent weight loss after birth is considered normal.

Then the weight card from the health service shows that the boy""s weight increased.

On October 10, the boy weighed 3230 grams and on October 13 the weight showed 3330 grams.

“In the period up to 13.10, Mother had the child with him and was the one who fed him. The fact that the child""s weight must have increased during mother""s solitary care and feeding on Vilde is not mentioned in the report, ”Drammen District Court pointed out.
The child was not weighed when it was taken away on October 17, but the weight chart shows that the child on October 23 weighed 3850 grams, which is well above the birth weight.


"In Wilde""s report of 23.10, it is stated that mother failed the child very seriously even in the most elementary areas such as breastfeeding, childcare, safeguarding the child and in relation to psychosocial interaction," cited the district court, which did not rely on the assessments of the nursing home. and child welfare.

The district court ruled that Trude should return to care for the son, but the boy was never returned. Later, the Court of Appeal came to the opposite conclusion, and in 2012, the Norwegian judicial system decided that the foster parents should be allowed to adopt the boy.


The child welfare leader in the relevant municipality says they cannot comment on the matter because it now stands between biological mother and the state.

Anne Gry Skoglund Managing Director, Anne Gry Skoglund, says the mother""s home does not comment in specific cases due to confidentiality and ethical considerations. On a general basis, she writes the following in an email to Dagbladet:

- In taking care of our care we have in our democratic society a judicial system, an utive authority with the right and duty to make a decision. Neither the child welfare service nor a family center has such authority. I think that is very good and correct, says Skoglund and elaborates:
It provides good legal certainty for parents and children that the work of other bodies is tested. I relate to the court""s decisions, including any criticism. We, like everyone else, always have something to learn, and we strive all the time to improve and be in development, says the mother""s home manager.

Government Attorney Fredrik Sejersted is the attorney for the state in Trude""s case, which is currently being sentenced in the EMD.
Sejersted has on several occasions made it clear to Dagbladet that he does not want to comment on "individual pages by fact" in the contentious child welfare case that ended in forced adoption.

The Government Attorney""s argument against the judges in Strasbourg is also not about the factual basis of the case. Sejersted""s most important argument is that the Human Rights Court is not in a position to review "the thorough assessments made by Norwegian courts".

- Both the Child Welfare Service and Norwegian courts have conscientiously sought to safeguard the interests of the child, as they are obliged, both under Norwegian law, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), says Sejersted.
The Government Advocate therefore requests the Human Rights Court to stay away from what they consider to be pure Norwegian affairs.

- This is an actual assessment of evidence that, in our view, the EMD is not in a position to review, and which must be used when assessing whether the ECHR Article 8 is respected, says Sejersted.

Important thing
On October 17 last year, Trude""s forced adoption case was processed in the EMD""s Grand Chamber, following an appeal against the sentence in which Norway was acquitted by four against three judges in the Court""s Fifth Chamber in November 2017.

The outcome of this case is so important that, pending this verdict, the EMD has placed the treatment of several similar Norwegian child welfare cases on ice.

No one knows when the Grand Chamber""s 17 judges are ready with their verdict on the case, but the players think it may come before the summer.


https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/barnevernet-hevdet-det-sto-om-babyens-liv-papirene-viser-noe-annet/70952604?fbclid=IwAR3BCv3_SuHTcqOy7yywLwJJeC4LIFTCTK8IhIJPzpSOjwg_oYGdvok5yCg