In a groundbreaking case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that a child services agency breached a mother and her son’s rights by forcibly removing her son and giving him to a foster family several years after he was removed from her custody as a newborn.
The grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concluded that Norway’s Barnevernet child services agency had violated Trude Lobben and her son’s rights to family life, and had not carried out adequate investigations into the mother’s parenting skills or provided adequate evidence to bolster its claim that the child was vulnerable and that adoption was in his best interest.
In a statement published on ADF International, a faith-based legal advocacy organization promoting human rights, Lobben’s lawyer, Grégory Thuan Dit Dieudonne, said:
“Human rights advocates have been highlighting the destructive practices of the Barnevernet for years. This ruling is a step in the right direction for parental rights in Norway and beyond. Even a positive judgment cannot make up the precious 10 years this family has lost at the hands of the Norwegian state.”
Ms. Lobben told Norway’s TV2 that she hoped the judgment would help other families in similar predicaments:
“This must have consequences. I’m glad the decision can help many others who have experienced injustice from child welfare.”
The judgment is very long, but is a must-read for anyone interested in forced adoption and the human rights concerns around social services practicing this policy.
For those who don’t want to read the details in full, there is a very good summary of the case on the Christian Post.
Researching Reform 
We can only dream about it in a UK. Every case is thrown by same court.Every case, allthough in essence very simular to Norway cases.
And thrown away by Council of Europe. I know definitely one of most prominent critics of Norway Barneveren and who was instrumental at gathering support for other cases against Barneveren has his son studying in London at one of most prominent universities.This person is in charge of commission appointing new judges to ECHR,
LikeLike
Eugene, as an EU member state, we can take UK cases to this court….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha, where do we stand though after Brexit?
LikeLike
I think that will depend on how we leave the EU. If we have a deal, the terms could include remaining connected to the European courts. That said, some experts are saying we are tied in with the courts for a few years still, whatever happens. Even a no-deal could potentially keep us linked in. We will have to wait and see, that’s my understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. Soon we will leave EU. 2. I know many cases when parents tried hard with ECHR but never won a single case, forced adoption, foster care etc.
LikeLike
Alas the expense of hiring an international lawyer would be beyond most parents.I doubt that legal aid would be granted by the UK for a similar case.
More importantly after wading through this lengthy judgement with especial note of the conclusions I notice that apart from money sums being awarded to the applicants the adoption was not cancelled; probably because the court has no power to do that as was found in P.C.and S versus United kingdom where the UK was fined but the adoption stood !
The lawyers get rich but the kids stay adopted ! In Norway at least parents seem to be allowed some contact even after adoption while in UK despite the recent statute allowing this the courts decided contact after adoption would only be allowed if the adoptive parents agreed ! Result ,frustration ………..
LikeLiked by 4 people
It’s a step in the right direction. Most cases, domestic or international, take years to resolve, which means that children have bonded, often, with their carers or become adults. What this case does is provide strong ammunition to prove that all forced adoptions are illegal, or non-viable in terms of child welfare policy. It’s a judgment that was desperately needed. And it could well be the tipping point.
And yes, it could now be argued in a UK court and could lead to forced adoptions being taken off the table. That is the brilliance of this judgment.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Did you read it all Ian? “Norwegian human rights lawyer Marius Reikeras told The Christian Post that the European Court of Human Rights ruling will force the government to reunite Trude Lobben with her son.”
Thank God for the Christian organisation who supported her case, and for Pro Bono lawyers and barristers everywhere who also work for free. Full judgement here https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/pdf?library=ECHR&id=001-195909&filename=CASE%20OF%20STRAND%20LOBBEN%20AND%20OTHERS%20v.%20NORWAY.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with both Ian and Natasha, in real-terms, it changes very little, the bottom line is the adoption will not be reversed. It does, however, establish Case Law which may help.
What I have never understood is Adoption Disruption. If you don’t the kids they gave you, you can always hand them back and they will be put in “Care”, but the birth parents still don’t have the right to apply to get them home. I cite Mark & Nicky Webster as an example.
What is often lost in the legal arguments is the wishes of the children, who, if they had a voice, would go back to their parents. Also, the widely held belief that Adoption is an act of Heroism of “saving an Orphan” is one that needs to be challenged.
The only way forward as I see it, is for the child victims themselves to sue Social Services and Adoption Authorities in great numbers. Victimhood carries large sway in the courts and would change the narrative in the Court of Public Opinion. Rather than focusing on Parents as Victims, maybe its time to focus on Child Victims?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
Natasha on September 13, 2019 at 11:04 am
It’s a step in the right direction. Most cases, domestic or international, take years to resolve, which means that children have bonded, often, with their carers or become adults. What this case does is make it very clear that forced adoption is not legal, or viable in terms of child welfare policy. It’s a judgment that was desperately needed. And it could well be the tipping point.
And yes, it could now be argued in a UK court and could lead to forced adoptions being taken off the table. That is the brilliance of this judgment.
Liked by you
Xx
LikeLike
Hi Tumtum, I should add that this case does not say outright that all forced adoptions are illegal. What it does is say that various components in this forced adoption case are illegal – however, those elements are usually present in most forced adoption cases, so this is a substantial judgment in that respect. It is also being talked about by legal advocacy lawyers in Europe in those terms, so I see this finding as a very clear signal that forced adoptions are inherently wrong. That is the next step.
LikeLiked by 3 people
‘….however, those elements are usually present in most forced adoption cases,’
I agree, exciting times Xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well I shall judge the usefullness of this case by whether or not the child concerned is returned to its parents.
At present it seems that for all the pious chat the child stays adopted and the parents remain bereft and bewildered.
Forget what people say (even judges !) and look instead at what they actually do !
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: Top Human Rights Court Rules Forced Adoption Violates Right To Family Life | Researching Reform – GreatCosmicMothersUnite
What a useless court ! YES i said useless and stupid ! Pages and pages of intellectual twaddle in the various judgements of so called learned judges most of whom condemned the adoption but were quite happy to leave that the mum without her child because complete strangers had successfully gone through the forced adoption process !
As I said earlier maybe the court had no power to reverse the adoption but surely one of the judges could have recommended the return of the child to the mother or at least hoped that she would get her child back !
None of these miserable old morons had the guts to even express an opinion on the subject so don’t tell me what a wonderful case this was………….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you Ian for the most part and the child should be considered first to have the option to return home but it wouldn’t just happen like, that in the ideal world maybe.
In the real world, and speaking through personal experience of going through reunification with my child (young adult) back home with me years later; it’s only now I’m able to recognise that had we not took baby steps first building our bond and contact back up slowly then it could have been too much for him and I to process because in between time talking, both the child and you are processing it all and it’s more of a struggle for the child to process because much of what they learn is new to them and it’s a scary time for them getting to meet their natural family they’ve either never met or all over again.
When a natural parent applies for post adoption contact and even where you’ve proved facts which were wrong, the Judge is still likely to decide things like a welfare check on the child, if not already done if it’s known said child is struggling and they’re likely to appoint a guardian ad litem first if considering face to face contact with the child being told about the application. This is if all contact isn’t stopped with a court order to boot.
But this is only what I know of if the child has shown an interest to want to contact or seek to find their natural family off their own back, also known through personal experience.
But even if it’s done in baby steps, this wronged family should be given all the support now to make this possible and the damage caused and trauma proving how wronged they were and what’s being done about it all, I’m hoping to learn more about.
I believe in face to face contact for all families and it being built back up for ones who’ve had it stopped and if it’s true the child don’t want to know the parent(s) then it needs to be based not just on hearsay with doors left open, should they ever change their minds in the future.
I’m also a strong believer it needs to be mandatory and it’s imperative all parents are given a copy of the adoption certificate, to avoid similar mistakes from happening in the future and if adopters names need to be eradicated out, then whoever signs those adoption order’s the details need to be left on them same with the newer birth certificate the adoptee has done for them and the adoption order.
Too much is being hidden without those and mistakes are continuing on to not just happen, but be allowed to xx
LikeLike
We have no human rights in the UK, no EU human rights or UN human rights. This is why I attempted to use English constitutional law, we’d already lost 3 children to forced adoption, the 4th I wanted to try something different as I knew we’d already lost the case. It had already been noted in parliament the reason my children were kidnapped and forcibly adopted. “the risk is future emotional abuse” and then all the human right abuses were mentioned.
3 of the judges at [edited] family court backed off completely when I questioned their authority to sit in a jury-less court. I was attempting to use English law against them and what they were doing. They claimed they had banned me from their (pretend) courtroom. Then there was judge [edited] who claimed Magna Carta has been repealed
“NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/XXIX
Maybe when we leave the EU and get back to using English law and clean the rot from the system, things might change
LikeLike
Pingback: Denying Children Access to Their Parents Violates Right to Family Life – Harriet Harman MP | Researching Reform
Pingback: Denying Children Access to Their Parents Violates Right to Family Life – Harriet Harman MP
What a fantastic ruling. Let’s hope and pray through this ruling that many scars will be healed and that many mothers and fathers and siblings will be reunited to be the families, that Jesus gave his life and soul for. Congratulations, to the family who raised this action and a big thank you to the ruling body who seen the hurt and pain that this family and that many other families have to suffer by the hose who act under a protective umbrella called Social work and Social Services. Time now for Gods glory and retribution on Social service workers/Actors by all Courts. Simply these do-Golders need to be held accountable for their actions. Let’s be honest there are a majority of Social Service Social Workers who do do a fantastic job yet there are ones who think and act above the Law.
LikeLike
Pingback: Researching Reform speaks with Freedom Talk Radio | Researching Reform
Pingback: Norway’s brutal child protection system under spotlight in new film | Researching Reform