• 31/03/2023
• By wizewebsite
• 337 Views

Michaláková failed. The removal of the children was justified, they said in Strasbourg<

Norwegian social service Barnevernet took Michalák's sons Denis and David more than ten years ago due to suspicion of abuse, neglect and abuse. Subsequently, she placed them in foster care and the authorities deprived Michalák of parental rights to both sons.

The fathers kept the rights. The mother was unsuccessful with subsequent appeals and therefore appealed to the European Court of Human Rights with a complaint against Norway. However, according to Strasbourg, the Norwegian court sufficiently justified why it deprived Michaláková of her parental rights, and did not violate the relevant article of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights.

Article 8 states that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, and the state authority cannot interfere with the exercise of this right except when it is necessary and in accordance with the law.

In the text of the judgment, the ECtHR analyzes in which case a parent can apply to the court as a representative of the child. For example, when there is a risk that the rights of the child will be neglected.

However, according to the court, there may be a conflict of interest with Michaláková, because "here there was serious neglect of parental care and the order (to remove the children) was issued precisely on the basis of concerns" that Michaláková had previously failed to protect the children she wants to represent , before the suffering experienced.

Furthermore, the court reminds that the children in Norway were given their own legal representative, who spoke with them personally and provided the necessary evidence to the court there before the start of the proceedings.

"The ECtHR took note in particular of the Norwegian court's reference to serious neglect, physical and sexual abuse and the fact that the children were heard and the court issued an individual decision concerning each of them," stated Strasburk. "Taking into account the opinions and the psychological situation of the children, the ECtHR decided that the Norwegian court had sufficiently justified its decision to deprive the mother of her right to contact with both children," he added.

Michaláková heavily publicized the case and published sensitive information about the children, including photographs, despite the older boy Denis's request not to do so. The Strasbourg court has now recalled in its judgment that Denis suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and openly refused to live with his mother. This is also why Michaláková lost her parental rights. According to Strasbourg, by publishing personal information about the children, she made the situation even worse.

Attorney Michaláková was surprised by the verdict. "The decision in the case of the Michalák family is surprising to us because, from our point of view, it contradicts the court's previous jurisprudence. We are ready to proceed to the Grand Chamber and I believe that we will succeed in the same way as it happened in the past with the first case against Barnevern Strand Lobben," said Dora Boková.

This refers to the case of the Norwegian Trude Strandová Lobbenová, whose son was taken away by the Norwegian authorities shortly after birth. The case eventually came before the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court, which found the mother right.

Boková also commented on Michaláková's case that "in the meantime, some new facts have arisen on which we can base our appeal." Unlike the seven-member Senate, the Grand Chamber consists of seventeen judges and its verdict is final.

MEP Tomáš Zdechovský, who has been working on Eva Michaláková's case for a long time, commented on the case. He added that "lawyers are now studying the decision and then will choose next steps." He later stated that the ECtHR "unreservedly accepted Norway's contention":

We were not pleased with today's #ECPR verdict in the Eva Michaláková case! The court did not find a violation of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court practically adopted the argument of the Norwegian lawyers. In the case of the Slovak family, Norway lost and must pay the family 25,000 euros.

“Unfortunately, justice is slow in the case of stolen children and blind in this current decision. In addition, I would like to remind you that, from the point of view of Czech law, both children were entrusted to the care of Eva Michaláková's mother. It is absurd that children with Czech citizenship continue to remain in an unknown place and the family and the Czech state know nothing about them," said Jitka Chalánková, a senator and member of the Petition Committee in support of the Michalák family, in response to the ECtHR's verdict.

She recalled last year's decision of the court in Hodonín, which formally entrusted the children to the care of the mother, although this has no effect on the actual state of affairs.

The Czech Office of the Government Plenipotentiary stated in the judgment that, according to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Michaláková was not entitled to file a complaint on behalf of her children because she has a conflict of interest with them. She thus referred to the text of the verdict, which, however, according to the office, is not yet final.

The Czech government entered the proceedings before the court because both the mother and the children are Czech citizens. "According to the Strasbourg court, by continuing foster care, depriving the mother of parental rights and not allowing the mother to have contact with the children, Norway did not violate its human rights obligations," the office now stated.

"In the judgment published today, the European Court firstly found that there was a conflict of interest between the mother and the children, due to the serious neglect of the care of the children by their parents, with the children being removed from the mother's care on suspicion that the mother had not protected the children. The court therefore decided that the mother was not entitled to file a complaint on behalf of the children," the office said.

In addition, the Strasbourg court did not find a violation of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights. "Aware of the best interests of the children, the court also took into account the mother's parenting skills, expert opinions, the children's opinions, their positive development in foster families, the ongoing trauma of one of the children, the children's reactions to contact with the mother and the fact that the children see each other regularly, " said the office.

"Depriving the mother of her parental rights was intended to prevent further unwanted dissemination of sensitive information about the children by the mother. Furthermore, (the court) stated that the decisions of the Norwegian courts are not permanent and that the adoption of the younger son, which the foster parents sought, did not take place," the government official added.

Slovak family will receive compensation for damage

The European Court also ruled on the case of the Slovak-Norwegian couple Ladický, who found themselves in the same situation as Michaláková in Norway. In 2015, Barnevernet took their daughter Maxine and placed her into foster care.

In this case, according to the court, Norway violated the article of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. He therefore awarded the plaintiff 25,000 euros (over 600,000 crowns) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and another 500 euros (12,000 crowns) for court costs. These must be paid by Norway together with compensation to the applicants. However, the applicants must divide the money among themselves.

The court decided that in the case of the Ladickés, there was undoubtedly interference in the family life of the applicants. The ECtHR found that although the reasons for Maxine's removal were sufficient, the authorities decided that the child would grow up in foster care without considering the alternatives. According to the ECtHR, the case was broadly similar to others in which it had previously found a violation of rights by Norway.

Barnevernet has long been criticized by some parents and experts, who say it goes too far in its efforts to protect children and often takes their biological offspring from parents and places them in foster care without sufficient justification. An increasing number of cases are also dealt with at the court in Strasbourg.

The shooting