[ad_1]
On Sunday, TV 2 told the story of “Maria” who has had no contact with her daughter “Lea” since she went on winter vacation with her father in 2017. The mother has parental responsibility and a visitation agreement.
Despite countless attempts to resolve the case, including through lawyers, the child welfare service and the family welfare office, the mother and daughter have not had regular contact for three and a half years. The daughter is now 12 years old.
TV 2 has been trying for many months to get the boy’s father to talk. She has now decided to comment on the case through her attorney Maria Hessen Jacobsen at the Elden DA law firm.
– The father wants to protect the child.
– My client states that there are good reasons why he has refused to be together for periods. She maintains that it is about protecting the child. You do not want to specify your concerns in the press for the sake of the child and the family, but the child welfare service is aware of your concerns. My client claims that he does not mention the mother negatively in front of her daughter and has not tried to influence her, writes lawyer Hessen Jacobsen in an email to TV 2.
– There are no good reasons
– Grandpa has no good reason for not letting me meet my daughter, and he has also broken a visitation agreement we had. The child welfare service has also stated that it is better for the child to spend time with both the father and the mother, says Maria.
She explains that the family protection office also spoke with both parents.
– Absurdly low income limit if you want free legal aid
– The family therapist was very clear that my daughter should be with me, so she also sent a report of concern twice to the child welfare service, says María.
TV 2 can confirm that a concern report was sent to the child welfare service, but both times the case was dropped.
Does not despise contact
The lawyer Hessen writes to TV 2 that her client does not refuse the visit, but that she has set conditions that the mother has not met.
– According to the information to date, the child does not want to have contact with his mother, but an attempt was made to arrange contact this summer. The last scheduled visit was canceled by the mother, because she did not accept the terms. The framework that had been established for the visit had been created in an understanding between the child and the child welfare service, without the involvement of the parent, Hessen writes.
María explains to TV 2 that the boy’s father demanded supervised visits, which she considers unreasonable.
– But when I finally accepted this, I didn’t hear anything else from him or the lawyer, she says.
She does not understand what right the grandfather, who has deprived her of his daughter without legal reason, has to set conditions.
Turn the matter around
– It is to turn the matter around, thinks Maria.
Maria says she had a thirty-minute meeting with her daughter for the first time in June of this year. According to María, it was a nice meeting, something expressed by both the daughter and the representative of the child welfare service.
– Common with social sabotage
– And my daughter wanted to see me again. She said it had been good for her. We laughed together and the tone was very good, says Maria.
It tells about a daughter who told about school, friends, handball training and everyday things.
– But when they told me that I only had a quarter of an hour with my daughter at our next meeting, and that that was my daughter’s demand, I decided to cancel it.
– Why not meet her?
– This can’t be good for my daughter or me. What happened since you went down from 30 minutes to 15 minutes? It’s not that I don’t want to meet her, but this is not good for any of us.
Maria believes that meetings should be organized in a better way. And that the daughter should get a much better list from the child welfare service.
– Now, the child welfare service is only involved in the case in a very limited way, says María.
Later, Maria was informed through the child welfare service that her daughter had said that the meeting felt a bit awkward. Maria responds to this:
– But I don’t want to speculate why this is so now, she says.
Maria affirms that she felt good during and after the meeting with her daughter. And you think you would have understood or noticed if your daughter felt uncomfortable in that environment.
Citation error
The father of the child further states through his lawyer that it is undesirable to present an answer through press releases and that he is now awaiting an actual subpoena.
– I chose to go to the media because I feel that the system has failed me and not least my daughter. We have not received the follow-up that we should have received, says Maria.
The lawyer further writes that: “The mother has informed TV 2 that she sent a subpoena to the district court on January 9 of this year, which is not correct. The district court today states that it has not recorded any subpoena in the that my client is listed as a party, not a case developed later. “
– I have formulated myself incorrectly here, and I apologize. He had a subpoena completed by attorney Trine B. Rysst, dated January 9. Then I got a tip from the family protection office to retain it in the hope that it would be resolved without a round in court. I regret not being clear enough here, and that it was perceived to have been turned in, says Maria, who regrets that TV 2 has thus transmitted incorrect information in the case.
The father of the child also agrees that the current possibilities for conflict resolution in parental disputes are poor. Through legal clarification, you will face the same financial challenges as the mother in the case, because the threshold for being awarded free litigation is too high, Hessen says.
The child welfare service will help
TV 2 has been in contact with the child welfare service today. For the sake of the child, we anonymize the person and the municipality.
– It is limited to what extent we can comment on the case and get involved in the case, as this is not an active case, but we are happy to help in a solution if the parents so wish, says the head of the child welfare office to TV 2.
– How do you see the case?
– We believe that it is best for the child to have contact with both parents, says the child welfare officer on TV 2.
He adds that when children have lost contact with a parent for a long period of time, it is important for all parties to understand that they must proceed slowly to reestablish contact and that this must happen largely on the child’s terms. in a safe environment. .
– If both parents want it, the child welfare service will make sure the daughter is followed up and conversations are held with her, the leader continues.
She believes this can be done through the family office or with the help of the child welfare service supervisor.
As far as TV 2 knows, and is informed by the girl’s mother, no psychologist or expert has spoken or investigated the daughter so far. She’s only been in a few conversations with a case officer at the child welfare service.
