E. M. and others vs. Norway and the proportionality of other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

In the E. M. case, two sons were removed from a Czech family in Norway in 2011 due to suspicion of sexual abuse by the father. This abuse was not proven, but the sons were not returned to the mother, against whom accusations appeared in the form of alleged neglect and later media coverage of the case against the children's interests. The boys were separated into two different foster families, and the mother's visiting rights were gradually reduced from two hours twice a week to 15 supervised minutes twice a year - and only with the younger son. In 2017, the mother also lost her parental rights. The case ended up at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which accepted Norway's full argumentation without examination and stated that there was no violation of the right to family life according to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (the Convention). Methods: A case study/interprofessional analysis of the ECtHR judicial decision and related facts emphasising social work. Results: The judicial decision of the ECtHR was announced after more than 4 years, and the appeal was rejected within 19 days. This is the only case where a conflict of interests of the mother was noted when filing a complaint, and it was not explained who can file a complaint on behalf of minor children if neither the parents nor the Czech Republic can. The court also did not explain why the boys were separated, what the limit of acceptable media coverage of the case by the parents was, and why the Norwegian social service (Barnevernet) and the Norwegian courts did not have to accept any of the mother's evidence or investigate whether the children could be placed with other relatives in the Czech Republic - as required by the Hague Convention. Conclusion: Due to 56 very similar complaints by parents directly against Barnevernet's procedure (insufficient visits, patronage of foster parents, forced adoptions, etc.), of which the ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 in 22 cases, as well as judgments such as T. vs. Czech Republic, it can be stated that that the sentence is disproportionate.