Communicated on 25 April 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 43701/14
M.L.
against Norway
lodged on 2 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a Norwegian national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Oslo. She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Torgrimsby, a lawyer practising in Oslo.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is the mother of two children who are half-brothers. Her older son, A., born in 2008, was taken into permanent public care by the authorities in 2010 and placed at the applicant’s parents’ home. Her younger son, B., was born in February 2012.

On 15 June 2012, after receiving concerns from authorities and a private individual regarding the applicant’s lack of ability to take care of B., Fredrikstad Child Care Protection Services (Barneverntjenesten) decided on emergency placement of B. On 29 June 2012, the decision was upheld by Østfold County Social Affairs Board (Fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker – hereafter “the Board”).

The Child Care Protection Services then applied to the Board for a permanent public care order, requested that B. should be placed in a foster home and that the applicant should be granted supervised contact rights. Concerning the question of where B. should be placed, the Child Care Protection Services essentially stated the following. The applicant’s parents had previously been approved as foster home for A. However, the ability to cooperate was necessary for those wanting to be foster homes and since there had been some conflicts between the applicant’s mother and the authorities, the applicant’s mother lacked that ability. Moreover, noting the challenges involved in being a foster home, the applicant’s parents were considered to be relatively old (born in 1955 and 1962, respectively) and it was noted that the applicant’s mother had recently been ill. Furthermore, the applicant’s mother had not prioritised attending the visits with B. In these circumstances, it would not be in B.’s best interest to be placed with his grandparents.

The applicant contested the claims and submitted that, if the public care order was approved, B. should be placed with her parents. In her view, the Child Care Protection Services had not properly evaluated the issue. The clai