Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Dubai financial regulator Michael Saylor Google Pay

What about the right to family life?

TV-tips that will get you on your dream vacation Even Stormoen Show more Imagine if your small child was moved several thousand miles away against your wish. Y

- 16 reads.

What about the right to family life?
TV-tips that will get you on your dream vacation Even Stormoen Show more

Imagine if your small child was moved several thousand miles away against your wish. Your care and love, children can hereafter only get during occasional vacations with their child.

Rune Harald Rækken Show more

In a nightmare of a judgment decided the Supreme court in the last year to distinguish a omsorgsdyktig parent in Norway from their children. The other parent got to move them from Norway to another country in Europe. For our ultimate judges were the children's right to family life with both parents child. The value of the regular care from both mother and father were underrated.

Violated the Supreme court menneskerettene? The case is appealed to The european court of human rights.

Menneskerettsbruddene, as the Uk repeatedly been felled in Strasbourg, relates to the question of child welfare . But often it is also the Norwegian courts handling of foreldretvister between general omsorgsdyktige parents without the involvement of child welfare authorities, problematic in relation to the menneskerettene. This applies in particular when one parent moves common child without the other parent's consent.

the Right to respect for family life applies to both children and parents. This is a human right established in The european convention on human rights (ECHR). The un convention states that the state is obliged to respect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis also if they break the relationship.

Shared residency – what do the children themselves? Debate

When the children act and the courts give one parent the right to move far away, we believe it is problematic ift. The ECHR and the Un convention. Both conventions are part of Norwegian law and should, according to the bill of human rights are given precedence when conflict with national legislation.

the Children has led to about three-quarters of Norwegian children with parents who do not live together, are in a deferred status of refugees, because three-quarters of the children do not have shared residence. When it is not is the shared place of residence, the act grants one parent the right to make the important decisions about the children alone. Many bostedsforeldre decide alone to move the joint children far of place domestically. This they can do regardless of which reason, without the other parent's consent and regardless of whether it is for the child's best interests.

supreme court ruling lowers in practice, the threshold to move the joint children abroad without the other parent's consent. If parents do not agree about the movement and the case be brought before the court, be it an ordinary "child's best interests"assessment. The supreme court's judgment is the first of its kind and sets an objectionable precedent.

The best time to distinguish of regard to children the Newspaper Plus

the Supreme court drew the conclusion that it was to their children's best interests to be moved abroad, which is the original home to the parent with hovedomsorgen. The children will then, in practice, lose all opportunity for the continued regular care from the other parent, as they have close ties to. The supreme court characterized even this parent as a good caregiver.

Judges have in this matter set bostedsforelderens interests ahead of their children's best interests, and this often happens in Norway.

the Supreme court maintains that it made a "broad future-oriented assessment", but it is crucial weight on the bostedsforelderens financial situation. Further on the experts ' assessment that hovedomsorgsforelderen felt lonely and without support in Norway, which in the future would could involve the risk of depression and reduced omsorgsevne.

It is easy to follow the legal styringsbøyene as the Supreme court explains in this matter, but it is when the five høyesterettsdommerne to exercise the discretion that it goes properly wrong.

the Supreme court assumes, in practice, to make a life for small children. The children have had in their community, with both mother and father, half-siblings, grandparents, other family and friends. The supreme court does not choose the safe status-quo solution in the Uk, but bets on a new life for the children abroad. Instead of selecting two good parents, so chose the Supreme court one parent for the children. The value of the best possible overall foreldrekontakt and there to keep both parents as hverdagsressurser was of secondary importance.

Unfortunately, the current barnelov central provisions that creates conflict rather than encourage cooperation. Child psychologists agree that conflict between parents is not good for the children. Approx. 2700 annual foreldretvister in court (16-17 per cent of all civil disputes), the evidence of a barnelov who have failed in important areas. The losers are the children. Most parents live blissfully ignorant about how the law will affect their children, and themselves, on the day samlivsbruddet occurs.

There are plenty of fathers who could vote in a "me too"! Debate

the Children, and the practice of this has led to the fact that most of the time it is one parent alone who gets the power to take the important decisions in their children's lives after separation. The other parent has little it should have said, something that creates power and powerlessness, facilitates abuse of power at the one and the fear of losing contact with the other. The lack of equal parenting often leads to the unfortunate positioning in the bruddfasen and conflict.

For the Parliament should the supreme court ruling to be a serious wakeup call on how the children turn out. The parliament must take the responsibility to change a law and a system that adds up to that it should be selected between two good parents when the child can keep both. Equal parenting as the normative starting point in the children act, will provide more favourable solutions for the children, because it will stimulate better cooperation between the parents. The government will receive next year Barnelovutvalgets the assessment and should propose legislative changes in this direction.

F2F has promoted the bill that will create more equality, less conflict and greater opportunity for children to grow up with both parents.

"Vulnerable children" does not hold any longer You can submit your article and opinion piece in Dagbladet here

Want to discuss?

Visit Dagbladet debate!
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.