29 Nov Placement of the child in foster care and the parents’ contact rights

In the case of K.O. and V.M. v. Norway (application no. 64808/16, 19.11.2019) European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

• no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the placement of the applicant couple’s daughter in care, and 
• a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention as concerned their contact with their daughter, which had been restricted to four, then six times per year. 

The case concerned official decisions to take a couple’s daughter into care a few weeks after her birth in 2015 and their limited contact rights. The family were ultimately reunited in 2018. 

Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the authorities had conducted an in-depth examination of the case in respect of the care order, looking at the applicants’ history of problems and whether a less drastic measure than taking their daughter into care could be used. They had, however, found that that would have been impractical, bearing in mind previous attempts to help the applicants and their difficulties in co-operating with the child welfare authorities. In sum, the Court found that the reasons for taking the applicants’ daughter into care had been “relevant and sufficient” and that the interference with their right to family life had not been disproportionate. There had therefore been no violation of Article 8.

In contrast, the authorities’ decisions on contact rights had, at a very early stage in the procedure, been based on the assumption that the family would not be reunited because it was considered that the foster care would be for the long-term. The daughter had, ultimately, been returned to her parents. Yet neither the Board nor the City Court had explained, other than in general terms that the child needed stability, why it had been contrary to her best interests to see her parents more often, especially in view of the fact that feedback on their interaction had been positive. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8 as concerned the restrictions on contact between the applicant couple and their daughter.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights