[ad_1]
– That so few children have had a say in decisions as important as adoption is disappointing, says Professor Marit Skivenes from the University of Bergen to Dagbladet.
The professor emphasizes that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that children, as soon as possible, have the right to participate in decisions that concern them.
In a new study, published in the International Journal of Children’s Rights, Skivenes and researcher Amy McEwan-Strand from the University of Bergen Research Center on Discretion and Paternalism, investigated how county boards evaluate the capacities and facilities of children. children, in cases involving forced adoption.
Take a strong deal with Norway
The article is based on a survey of all adoption decisions for children aged 4 to 17 in a six-year period (2011-2016). In total, this amounted to 169 decisions.
These cases are decided after a two to three day hearing at the county boards, which are the first instance in child welfare cases.
– absent
– Our findings show that many children are absent from the justification and conclusion about adoption. Young children cannot assess their ability to form an opinion and are not present in cases. Older children undergo an in-depth evaluation, which only briefly mentions their opinion. Overall, the role and place of children in forced adoption decisions is surprisingly small, Skivenes says.
179 children, 88 boys and 91 girls were included in the study. The average leader was 7 years old at the time of adoption.
A total of 171 of the children were adopted by adoptive parents. Most of the county council’s decisions (163 out of 169) were unanimous.
The children who spoke wanted to be adopted.
Strong reactions: – Fear
For just under half of the children, county boards conducted some form of evaluation that includes the child’s input, but they rarely make an explicit assessment of the child’s abilities and maturity.
16 children were judged to be too young, with no other justification given.
For one of these children, the court expresses what appears to be a straightforward misrepresentation of the law: that an age of four means that there is no requirement for the child to have the opportunity to give an opinion.
Offenses
In light of their findings, the researchers conclude that the law is not being followed and that the rights of the child, as stipulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are not respected in the adoption boards treatment as a measure child welfare.
Possible explanations for this may be the lack of guidelines on how to give children a voice, that decision makers do not have sufficient competence to assess children’s capacities and facilities, that decision makers are not aware of their obligations or they are unwilling to participate. children, says Skivenes.
However, provincial councils have taken action and in 2019 introduced a guide for conversing with children.
The researchers emphasize that in their study there are some good examples of children participating in county board evaluations.
– It shows that it is entirely possible to involve children in such cases, says Skivenes.
– Responsibility of the committee chair
– It is directly regulated in the Child Welfare Law, which must state in the decision what the child’s point of view is, what weight is given to the child’s opinion and how the best interests of the child are evaluated. It is the responsibility of the individual county board leader to make sure the decision meets the requirements of the law, says Director Pernille Pettersen Smith of the Central Unit of county boards.
She points out that the county boards at the same time have seen a need to focus on involving children in case processing.
– There have been topics for various measures of competency internally, and a guide has been developed for the conversations with children that occurred in May 2019. County councils have an ongoing focus on engaging children, and this is a important issue for our competition measures, says Pettersen Smith.
In addition, the director notes that it follows from the Child Welfare Law § 6-3 that children who can form their own opinions on the case will be informed and given the opportunity to express themselves before a decision is made on the case. child welfare.
– Children have the opportunity to convey their opinion on the case through a spokesperson or directly to the person or persons who will decide the case. From the age of seven, all children have the opportunity to express their opinion on this matter. For younger children, the chairman of the county council should specifically consider whether the child will be able to form an opinion on the case based on the nature of the case, the age, and the maturity of the child. Questions about adoption can be difficult for a young child to think about, says Pettersen Smith.
Convicted in Strasbourg
The new findings of the investigation come at a time when Norway has, in a short time, been convicted of human rights violations in seven child welfare cases at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Two of these judgments refer to forced adoption.
Another 31 Norwegian child welfare cases have been handled in Strasbourg. Of these, 12 refer to forced adoption.
The Grand Chamber ruling in the Norwegian girl Trude case fell on September 10, 2019 and has become a leader in other Norwegian child welfare cases in Strasbourg.
On March 10 this year, Norway was sentenced in the inflamed forced adoption case of Terje and Merlita of Vestnes in Møre og Romsdal.
This verdict was one of two rulings Norway appealed to the EMD Grand Chamber, but last week Strasbourg rejected the state’s appeal.
Norway denied rematch in Strasbourg
More Findings
The recent findings of the Bergen researchers on forced adoption are another Norwegian investigation articles in a short time revealing that county boards have committed serious crimes against children.
On August 31, Dagbladet reported on a study by Østfold University College, published in the law journal Kritisk juss, which shows that county boards, in determining parent-child contact, have used large-scale standardized stanzas instead of make a real assessment of the specifics. the child in the individual case.
Politicians in the Central Storting have reacted drastically to this.
So do several professionals.
Attorney Geir Kjell Andersland has marked himself in recent years as a clear critic of the child welfare service, after a long career as a former regional director at Bufetat and a longtime county committee leader.
– I have worked with child welfare and children’s rights as a leader and as a professional attorney for over 15 years. After being a visible representative of the system for most of the years, in recent years I have become more critical of the system, and for a while I have seen and discussed the clear need for reforms in this field, says Andersland .
He describes the Østfold University College study as “a terrifying and important study.”
– I am surprised that so many decisions seem standardized, without individual and concrete evaluations. On the other hand, this is reminiscent of exactly what the EMD is about in its recent child welfare rulings against Norway, where the court has found violations in general and not very specific reasons in the intervening decisions, says Andersland.
Professor Elisabeth Gording Stang of Child Welfare Education at OsloMet thinks it is “concerning” if the material in the Østfold University College research paper is representative of how county boards determine visitation after taking over care.
– Violation of the rule of law
Children’s organizations are also reacting.
– The Norwegian authorities have a duty to allow the best interests of the child to be a fundamental consideration in all cases involving children. This follows from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This implies a material right for the child to have what is best for him in the case, says special counsel Mathilde Mehren | Save the children.
Acting General Secretary Sissel Aarak at SOS Children’s Villages is also critical.
– Norway must at least be able to follow international guidelines. A caretaking should be temporary, and when at such an early stage in the process you believe a placement should be long-term, with little bonding, it triggers a series of consequential mistakes that are dramatic for children and families, says Aarak and adds:
– In this study, it appears that contact between children and parents is very often reduced to the absolute minimum, which in turn reduces the possibility of repatriation. It is quite obvious that individual assessments must be carried out in relation to the individual needs of the child, so this study points to a violation of legal certainty.
