How and why the Norwegian Supreme Court is uncompliant with ECHR

Ola Tellesbø (presenter), Martin Jullum and Eivind Meland.

Background: In 2018-2023, Norway was held liable by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 23 cases for not respecting family life. Inadequate contact ruined family life.

Method: Statistical analysis of the Supreme Court (SC) case law before and after Jansen v.

Norway (6.9.2018). Legal analysis of SC justifications for rear contact and comparing that to psychological research.

Results: Contact after the ECHR convictions has been significantly reduced. Little contact should ensure attachment to the foster family, break family ties, prevent negative reactions to contact on the basis that they are caused by parents. Stability in foster care must prevent "undue hardship". Psychological research shows, on the contrary, that attachment with foster family improves if the contact with biological family is preserved and safeguard the health and wellbeing of the child.

Conclusion: SC gives less contact than ever despite ECHR convictions. SC maintains a psychological understanding incompatible with the best interests of the child. Empirical evidence shows that the best interests of the child are continued contact with parents.

This is also the ECHR's foundational basis.

How and why the Norwegian Supreme Court is uncompliant with ECHR

Challenges in the Norwegian Child Support System: Addressing Parental Alienation and Financial Motives

Parental alienation under the Right of good administration and effective measures – Children’s Rights are Human Rights