Foster parents could not be granted status as a party to a child welfare case
Supreme Court order 7 April 2022, HR-2022-729-A, (case no. 22-000884SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against order.
A, B (Counsel Mette Yvonne Larsen) v. C (Counsel Bente Mostad Tjugum), X municipality (Counsel Bjørn Cato Rosenberg), D (Counsel Jon Anders Hasle)
In a child welfare case concerning revocation of a care order, see section 4-21 of the Child Welfare Act, the foster parents demanded status as a party. The Supreme Court, having conducted an oral hearing, found like the Court of Appeal, that section 36-6 of the Dispute Act does not grant foster parents status as a party in care order cases. The Court referred to the wording of the provision, to previous conclusions by the Supreme Court's Appeals Selection Committee and to the fact that a revocation of a care order is legally not a coercive measure against the foster parents. Article 8 of the ECHR on the right to family life could not give any other result. Although a family life had been established that had to be considered protected under the ECHR, the requirements of a legitimate aim and necessity in Article 8 were considered met. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's order was dismissed.
Areas of law: Child welfare. Section 36-3 of the Dispute Act. Article 8 ECHR.
Key paragraphs: 65, 72, 83, 86.
Justices: Øie, Matheson, Noer, Ringnes, Bergh