Jurisdiction in child welfare case despite the children being in a foreign country
Supreme Court judgment 25 January 2022, HR-2022-207-A, (case no. 21-145427SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against order.
X municipality (Counsel Jørgen Aandal Vangsnes) v. A, B (Counsel Johannes Wegner Mæland)
Justices: Indreberg, Falkanger, Bergsjø, Falch, Sæther
A couple travelled to England with their two children immediately after the municipality had notified them that a case would be brought before the County Social Welfare Board about the care of the children. The children still live in England with their mother. The County Board issued a care order just over two months after the family's departure. The Supreme Court, having conducted an oral hearing, concluded that the County Board had jurisdiction to issue the care order and that Norwegian courts had jurisdiction to review it. It was concluded that the children had "habitual residence" in Norway when the County Board made the decision, cf. section 1-2 of the Child Welfare Act and Article 7 (1) of the Hague Convention 1996. The parents' retention of the children in England after the decision was made was "wrongful", see Article 7 (2) of the Convention. Section 4-31 second sentence of the Child Welfare Act, did not regulate this issue. The municipality had also instituted proceedings in England, with a view to the return of the children, within the time limit in Article 7 (1). The time limit in section 4-13 of the Child Welfare Act to implement the care order had also not expired. The Supreme Court ruled that Norwegian authorities and courts had jurisdiction to review the County Board's decision, and that the time limit for implementing the care order had not expired.