Communicated on 27 April 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 2822/16
Blondina Baloma JANSEN
against Norway
lodged on 6 January 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Blondina Baloma Jansen, is a Norwegian national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Oslo. She is represented before the Court by Ms N. Hallen, a lawyer practising in Oslo.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant belongs to the Roma people and is the mother of a girl, A., born in 2011, and a boy, B., born in 2014.
The social authorities had been involved with the applicant’s family since the applicant was seven years old due to violence in the family and the father’s refusal to allow the applicant to attend school. Following the birth of A., the applicant twice asked the authorities for help and protection from her family, in particular her father, but each time she left the family centre where she had been placed with A. and returned home. The family centre reported that the applicant was unable to leave her family despite the violence and that her ability to care for A. was lacking severely.
As a result, in July 2012, Sagene Child Care Protection Services (Barneverntjenesten) applied to Oslo and Akershus County Social Affairs Board (Fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker – hereafter “the Board”) for a permanent public care order and requested that A. should be placed in a secret foster home and that the applicant should not be granted contact rights. While the request was pending, A. was taken into emergency care and placed at a secret emergency home. The applicant was granted limited supervised contact rights. After one of the visits the emergency home mother was followed by a young man driving a car that belonged to the applicant’s father. As a consequence, A. was transferred to a different emergency home and the applicant’s contact rights were reduced and supervised by the police.
On 19 December 2012, the Board approved the Child Care Protection Services’ action concerning permanent public care and foster home placement, finding that the applicant’s parental skills lacked severely. It noted that the applicant at an early age had been taken out of school by her father and kept hidden from the authorities, that she had failed to follow up on the assistance and support she had received from the authorities, and that she remained under the control of her father. However, the Board found that there was no real and concrete risk of abduction and the applicant was therefore granted supervised contact rights four times per year for one hour each time.
Both the applicant and the Child Care Protection Services appealed against the Board’s decision concerning contact rights to the Oslo City Court (tingrett), which held an oral hearing and heard witnesses. The Child Care Protection Services submitted that the applicant should be refused contact rights while the applicant requested increased contact rights.
On 5 July 2013, the court decided to refuse the applicant contact rights with A. It found that there was a real and concrete risk of abduction. It noted, in particular, that the applicant’s father’s previous actions indicated that he exercised extensive control over the applicant and did not hesitate to commit serious criminal acts to maintain his influence, as was shown by his criminal record. It also noted that A., as a result of the refusal of contact rights, would lose significant parts of her Roma culture, but found that it was motivated by the overriding interest of protecting A.’s wellbeing.
In October 2013, the applicant’s father was found guilty of aggravated assault committed in December 2012 and sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment. He was found guilty of having knife stabbed the parents of a friend of the applicant because he thought they had helped the applicant to move out of his apartment.
In the meantime, the applicant appealed against the City Court’s judgment to the Borgarting High Court (lagmannsrett), which held an oral hearing and heard witnesses. On 5 May 2014, the High Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It stressed the risk of abduction, especially in relation to the applicant’s violent and unpredictable father, but also noted A.’s negative reactions during and after visits by the applicant.
Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court (Høyesterett) granted leave to appeal and, on 23 October 2014, overturned the High Court’s judgment, finding that it was unclear on what grounds the lower court had based its conclusions. It also observed that there was new information in the case which the lower court had not examined. The case was remitted to the High Court.
After a new assessment of the case, on 29 April 2015, the High Court, sitting in a new composition, upheld the City Court’s judgment. It considered that there was a real and concrete risk of abduction in view of the applicant’s father’s history of violence and control and the applicant’s inability to break with him and their environment. The court further considered A.’s interest in getting to know her origin and Roma culture. However, noting A.’s negative reactions during and after visits with the applicant and the risks of serious consequences on her development if the visits continued, it found that it was in A.’s best interest not to have contact with the applicant. In the court’s view, neither the Convention nor any other international instruments could be interpreted as granting an absolute right for parents to have contact rights with their child if it would be harmful for the child.
Upon appeal by the applicant, on 7 July 2015, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities have violated her right to respect for her family life by refusing her contact rights with A. since this was neither necessary nor proportionate in the circumstances. Moreover, it effectively prevents A. from getting to know her Roma heritage and language.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, by refusing her contact rights with her daughter?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy