Communicated on 1 April 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 60371/15 A. S . against Norway lodged on 25 November 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Oslo. The application is lodged also on behalf of her son, X. She is represented before the Court by Ms M. GÄ…siorowska , a lawyer practising in Warszawa.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant gave birth to X in December 2009, following artificial insemination. There is no registered father of X and the applicant has sole parental responsibility. In March 2012 X was taken into public care on a provisional basis and the applicant was granted contact rights with him once a week. The measure became permanent in September 2012 by decision of Oslo and Akershus County Social Affairs Board ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker , hereafter “the Board”). In February 2013 the decision was confirmed by Oslo City Court ( tingrett ) which also decided to restrict the applicant ’ s contact rights to one hour twice per year. In April 2014 Sagene Child Care Protection Services ( barneverntjenesten ) decided to keep X ’ s place of residence secret from the applicant.

During the spring of 2014 the applicant demanded the termination of the public care or, in the alternative, that she be granted extended contact rights.

On 5 November 2014, the Board rejected her request, after having held an oral hearing for two days where 11 witnesses were heard. The applicant was refused contact rights and the decision to keep X ’ s place of residence secret was confirmed.

The applicant appealed against the decision to the City Court which, on 27 March 2015, rejected the appeal. An oral hearing was held for two days and 14 witnesses were heard. The court noted in particular the following. Concern for X ’ s situation had been raised as early as in April 2009, in particular with regards to the interaction between X and the applicant. The applicant had participated in family counselling between June and September 2010. After reports of concern by the applicant ’ s sister and mother, certain measures had been put in place by the Child Care Protection Services in March 2011 to help and assist the applicant. In November 2011, X ’ s kindergarten had repor ted concern that X spent very little time at the kindergarten and therefore had few possibilities to develop relations and social skills. During the spring of 2012, X and the applicant had stayed at a family centre for evaluation. However, the stay had been interrupted after about five weeks when the family centre had observed serious flaws in the applicant ’ s ability to care for X ’ s basic needs. At this point X had been taken into public care on a provisional basis. In the subsequent report by the family centre, it had been concluded that the applicant provided X with flawed and insufficient care in all areas.

According to the court, X was a vulnerable child in need of special care. He had shown a positive development in the foster home. The court further observed that the applicant had admitted that there had been reasons for taking X into public care in 2012. Moreover, even though the applicant since then had taken a course in parental guidance and been a trainee at a kindergarten, the court was not convinced that she had improved her skills in parental care since she was considered to lack an intuitive understanding of X and his needs. Therefore, supportive measures were not found to be effective or sufficient. Four visits had taken place since September 2012 and the reports by the Child Care Protection Services from the visits indicated that there had not been an improvement in the applicant ’ s care capabilities. Furthermore, according to the foster mother and a report from a child and youth psychiatric clinic, X had had negative reactions - such as bedwetting and vomiting - following the visits and the effects had lasted for up to two months after the visits. These reactions were seen as particularly alarming as X would soon start going to school. It was therefore concluded to be in X ’ s best interest not to terminate the public care and to refuse the applicant all contact rights. With regard to the measure to keep X ’ s place of residence secret, the court noted that the applicant had shown an interest in the whereabouts of X and it was likely that she would want to visit X if she knew his address. According to the court, such unannounced visits would jeopardise X ’ s development,

Upon appeal by the applicant, Borgarting High Court ( lagmannsrett ) refused leave to appeal on 22 May 2015. It noted that the City Court ’ s judgment was thorough and well-reasoned.

On 3 July 2015, the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ) refused leave to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities ’ decisions not to terminate the public care of X, to refuse her contact rights with X and to keep X ’ s residence secret from her have violated her right to family life.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

H as there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, through the national authorities ’ decisions not to terminate the public care of X, and in particular, to refuse the applicant contact rights with X and to keep X ’ s place of residence secret from the applicant ?