[ad_1]
In many cases, one parent unjustifiably prevents the other from having contact with common children. This most often affects fathers, but many mothers are also exposed to visitation sabotage.
In these cases, NAV believes that it is appropriate to provide increased child support to the person who sabotages the contact, even if the person in question has a judgment that they should have contact.
The practice of NAV often leads to significant and unfortunate financial consequences for those who want to be with their own child, but cannot be together.
– Undermines the judicial system
– My experience is that NAV does not take sufficient account of court decisions and decisions and that, therefore, this practice undermines the judicial system and the trust in it, says lawyer Line Evensen.
– What do you think is problematic?
– It is unfortunate that those who do not comply with the agreements obtain an economic benefit by refraining from being together in those cases in which there is no basis for it.
Legal experts have told TV 2 that the practice of NAV is a violation of the law, and that NAV incorrectly “rewards” parents who prevent the children from being with the other parent.
Big financial impact
– This has significant financial consequences, as in a case where a visitation agreement was recently signed, the client would have paid NOK 2,000 in child support had the agreement been followed, but according to the NAV based on actual visits, the client had to pay NOK 9,000 due to the visitation agreement. it was not followed. Even though the client wanted to follow through on the deal, Evensen explains to TV 2
When the visitation deduction is to be determined, NAV calculates the number of nights rather than relying on a judgment or court agreement that has been entered into.
Evensen has worked with several cases where social sabotage has been an issue.
CRITICAL VOICE: The current system undermines trust in the judicial system, says lawyer Line Evensen Photo: LEA Advokatbyrå AS
– The main rule is that an agreement should be used as a basis, but that NAV in the cases that I have had does not consider this, but looks at the real contact, explains Evensen.
She believes that if an agreement is not deliberately followed and there is no desire for contact on the part of the taxpayer, it is natural for NAV to determine the contribution based on the number of nights.
– But in some cases, there are cases where there is a pure boycott of visits that is determined in an agreement or court ruling, and NAV then interprets the law incorrectly in violation of the preparatory work of the law and the intention of the legislator, believes Evensen.
According to Evensen, the practice in these cases will also affect children who are prevented from having contact with both parents.
– How has NAV responded to your inquiries?
– I find it difficult to answer this question in a concrete way without violating the duty of confidentiality.
– What do you think is the reason why NAV interprets the law as the agency does?
– I think the reason is that they do not want to get involved in the conflict between parents. They will probably remain neutral, but sadly they will contribute to an unfortunate management practice.
Several parliamentary representatives are now demanding answers on whether NAV misinterprets the law, as several legal experts claim.
IS THE LAW INTERPRETED CORRECTLY? Kjell Ingolf Ropstad has said that it will clarify whether the practice of NAV is in line with the intention of the legislator. Photo: Ole Enes Ebbesen / TV 2
The Minister for Children and Families, Kjell Ingolf Ropstad, has told TV 2 that he will clarify the practice of NAV within a reasonable time.
Taboo
– Not having contact with your own children is taboo and very painful for those who live it. It’s also probably difficult and embarrassing to talk about because you can face prejudice, and many will likely think that something is wrong with the parent who has no contact, Evensen experiences.
You have often had processes for a long time, and this is so demanding that you run out of power. Evensen believes that addressing the financial aspect of this will likely be even more taboo for many.
For many, the worries and feelings of losing contact with the child (ren) will feel more important than the financial consequence of this.
– In most cases, reaching a judicial agreement or a sentence is a solution in the cases, and one hopes that the worst conflict is over. If it is also not respected, this will be experienced as very difficult.
Manipulated children
Requesting the use of a penalty payment against parents who break a court agreement and avoid contact is a possibility. According to Evensen, many refuse to take a new legal step in cases that are already fraught with conflict.
– Here the children will be heard and involved again. This causes many people to refuse, and therefore this is a remedy of limited value.
According to Evensen, when children are older, they may have been manipulated by a parent, and therefore the likelihood of being fined when they claim they do not want the contact is less likely.
– When the parent who is the resident parent prevents the child from being together without there being a basis for it and provides an economic advantage, they may increase the distance with the other parent and the child. It will also be able to give an advantage to parents who manipulate children in different ways, which is very unfortunate, says Evensen.
