Lioness Tonje fights for her daughters to be allowed to live at home

The case of the twin girls of Tonje Avløs, deputy leader of Løvemammaene Midt, has created great interest throughout the country. Stjørdal municipality has refused the family the continuation of the BPA scheme they have and will move her two daughters to an institution (children's home) due to their complex medical condition. The daughters are no more than 8 years old, and cognitively only 1-2 years old. The municipality argues that NRK Trøndelag with the best interests of the child.

When the matter reached the Stjørdal municipality council a couple of weeks ago, the municipal administration also argued that it was in the child's best interests to move the daughters out of the home and into an institution.

It's strange how allocation offices in municipalities often throw out claims and make decisions that it is in the best interests of children to move out of the family home away from their parents long before they are of legal age, in the case of disabled children, true enough, but never do so for families with able-bodied children, unless the case goes through the child welfare service and a tribunal first.

Sometimes parents agree with child welfare services that it is best for the child not to live at home for a period of time. In such cases, child welfare services may offer placement in a foster home or institution as a relief measure. This assumes that the parents consent to the child moving. If, on the other hand, the child welfare service believes that the child is being subjected to serious neglect and it is necessary and in the best interests of the child that they take over the care, they must submit a case for a proposal for taking over the care to the Child Welfare and Health Board. In such cases, the child welfare service must first have considered and concluded that voluntary measures are not sufficient to ensure the child a good enough care situation. But this is not the case in this case. Tonje is a resourceful, caring and good mother and no is worried for the care the children receive. What then gives the municipality the right to completely disregard the family's wishes and the children's best interests?

Both Section 104 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are clear that by all actions that affect children, whether undertaken by public or private welfare organisations, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child should be a fundamental considerationStjørdal municipality is not convincing anyone that this is in the best interests of the children.

The UN Convention also points to the right to family life in Articles 8 and 9. Article 9 states, among other things, that:

“Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will”.

Stjørdal municipality cannot be serious when they believe that two girls with a cognitive age of 1-2 years would rather live in an institution with strangers than at home with mom and dad!

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has drawn up a list of factors that may be relevant to consider in the best interests of the child. Which factors are relevant depends on the individual case. Other factors may be included if applicable and the list is therefore not exhaustive.

The child's views
The child's identity, character traits and characteristics
Family environment and close relationships
The child's right to protection, care and safety
The vulnerability of the child or vulnerable situations
The child's right to life and development
The child's physical and mental health
The child's right to education

Furthermore, there is a basic principle According to the Children and Parents Act, section 30, children should grow up with their parents, if possible. Social rights, both financial benefits and practical benefits, are intended to help families be able to make this possible.

The CRPD states:

“The States Parties to the present Convention, recognizing that children with disabilities should fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children, and recalling the obligations undertaken by States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to this end.”

Stjørdal municipality simply needs to step up and align itself with children's rights and the family's right to choose where the children will live. This decision appears to be a ridiculously poor attempt to camouflage a decision that, above all, has the municipality's financial interests in the front seat. Enough is enough!

You can read more about the case. here.