CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 17 janvier 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 17383/90                               Adele Johansen                                   against                                   Norway                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 17 January 1995)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 5-11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 12-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 17-72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 17-41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3         B.    Relevant domestic law            (paras. 42-72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 73-118) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23         B.    Points at issue            (para. 74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23         C.    As regards Article 8 of the Convention            (paras. 75-110). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23              a.     In accordance with the law                  (paras. 78-81) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24              b.     Legitimate aim                  (para. 82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24                c.     Necessary in a democratic society                  (paras. 83-110). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25                    aa.   The taking into care of S and                       the refusal to terminate care                       (paras. 88-95). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25              CONCLUSION            (para. 96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27                    bb.   Deprivation of parental rights and access                       (paras. 97-109) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27              CONCLUSION            (para. 110). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page         D.    As regards Article 6 of the Convention            (paras. 111-112) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30              CONCLUSION            (para. 112). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30         E.    As regards Article 13 of the Convention            (para. 113-114). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30              CONCLUSION            (para. 114). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31         F.    Recapitulation            (paras. 115-118) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF M. H.G. SCHERMERS. . . . . . . . . . .32   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF M. L. LOUCAIDES. . . . . . . . . . . .34   APPENDIX I    : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . .35   APPENDIX II   : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . .36   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The application   2.     The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1960. She resides at Nørreballe, Denmark. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mrs. Signe Moland, a lawyer practising in Oslo.   3.     The application is directed against Norway. The respondent Government were represented by their Acting Agent, Mr. Frode Elgesem of the Solicitor General's Office.   4.     The case concerns the taking into care of the applicant's daughter, S, and her attempts to be reunited with S. The applicant considers that in these proceedings her right to respect for her family life has been violated, that the issues were not determined within a reasonable time and that she did not have an effective remedy in Norway. She invokes Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 10 October 1990 and registered on 31 October 1990.   6.     On 10 July 1992 the President of the Commission decided not to apply Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure as requested by the applicant in order to secure an adjournment of the adoption proceedings in Norway.   7.     On 14 October 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   8.     The Government's observations were submitted on 26 January 1993. The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 17 and 26 March 1993.   9.     On 13 October 1993 the Commission declared the application admissible.   10.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 25 October 1993 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The Government and the applicant submitted further evidence and observations on 21 February and 20 April 1994 respectively.   11.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. On 21 March 1994 Mrs. G.H. Thune and a member of the Commission's Secretariat met with the parties in Oslo for this purpose. In the light of the parties' subsequent reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   12.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present :         Mr.   H. DANELIUS, President       Mrs. G.H. THUNE       MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON            S. TRECHSEL            J.-C. SOYER            H.G. SCHERMERS            F. MARTINEZ            L. LOUCAIDES            J.-C. GEUS            M.A. NOWICKI            I. CABRAL BARRETO            J. MUCHA            D. SVÁBY   13.    The text of this Report was adopted on 17 January 1995 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is :         (i)   to establish the facts, and         (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose            a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under            the Convention.   15.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   16.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The particular circumstances of the case   17.    The applicant was born at Laksevåg near Bergen, Norway. She left the parental home when she was sixteen. In 1977, when she was seventeen years old, she gave birth to her son, C, and the following years she and C became dependent on assistance from the social authorities. On many occasions the social authorities assisted the applicant in the upbringing of C but nevertheless considerable problems as well as friction between the social authorities and the applicant arose. The situation culminated in November 1989 when C, who was then twelve years old, was taken into care pursuant to section 11 of the Child Welfare Act (Barnevernsloven) of 1953 as the circumstances of the case disclosed a danger to his health and development. C subsequently received treatment at the children's psychiatric department at Haugeland hospital.   18.    At that time the applicant was pregnant and following the implementation of the above care order she left Bergen for Oslo and was accommodated in a crisis centre. Due to her pregnancy and her state of health the applicant was referred to Ullevål hospital in Oslo. The doctors there considered her physical and mental state of health to be very poor.   19.    On 7 December 1989 the applicant gave birth to her daughter, S. Due to the applicant's difficult situation and the problems which had arisen with the upbringing of C, the social authorities (barnevernet) were contacted. A meeting took place on 8 December 1989 between the applicant and her counsel and the social authorities during which the applicant's and S's situation was discussed. Following this the chairman of the Client and Patient Committee of Røa, section 24 (klient- og pasientutvalget i bydel 24, Røa), hereinafter the CPC, decided on 13 December 1989 as an interim measure to take S into care pursuant to section 11 of the Child Welfare Act. Because of the applicant's physical and mental state of health she was considered incapable of taking care of S, a view which was based on information from the Ullevål hospital and from the social authorities in Bergen as well as on the outcome of the meeting held on 8 December 1989. The applicant did not lodge any appeal against this interim measure.   20.    On 19 December 1989 S was placed in the Aline Child Care Centre pursuant to section 11 of the Child Welfare Act. The applicant was allowed to visit S twice a week. The applicant did not challenge the arrangement concerning her access rights at that time.   21.    Following the above interim measure the question of care was brought before the CPC which, on 29 December 1989, appointed an expert with the mandate of evaluating the applicant's capability of taking care of S. The expert opinion was submitted on 13 February 1990. It concluded as follows :   (translation)         "Faced with outside pressure and situations she considers       she cannot handle, (the applicant) reacts, both according       to the documents in the file, the other information and       also according to herself, with depression, fear and       confusion. Compared with how she has been described by       inter alia Ullevål hospital I consider her to be       functioning much better today. I assume that this is due to       the fact that her situation is easier since she has       received considerable human support, inter alia from her       counsel. Her reactions are, however, unstable and very much       dependent on outer circumstances.         Since her youth (the applicant) has periodically used       intoxicating substances. However, this has not developed       into an abuse although she has not been willing to accept       control or treatment. In respect of the problems this case       raises, however, her use of such substances is, as (I) see       it, not of decisive importance.         If (the applicant) were to regain the care of the child       (the children) the answer to the question whether she is in       need of treatment is definitely yes. (Her) destructive acts       vis-à-vis (her son, C) ... are in principle due to her       emotional problems. The problematic aspect in this       connection is the fact that (the applicant) does not       herself see this link and therefore neither wants treatment       herself nor for (C), at least not as suggested by the       authorities ... .       ...       ... Having regard to (the applicant's) history in respect       of taking care of her child and due to her lack of       knowledge of/denial of her own faults vis-à-vis her own and       (C's) problems I regret that, as the expert in this case,       I can hardly argue in favour of a positive hope as regards       her future capabilities of taking care of her children,       although she undoubtedly loves them and is attached to       them. In addition to these points (I) must add that (the       applicant) today expects a future as a mother on her own in       Oslo where she lacks support from a social environment.         The child in this case (S) is in a period of its life where       the attachment to hopefully stable persons ought to       develop. It is of decisive importance for her personal       development that she now gets the opportunity to attach       herself to persons whom she may consider through her       adolescence as stable and secure parents."   22.    Following the submission of the above expert opinion the applicant requested the appointment of a second expert. This was refused by the social authorities. Thus the applicant herself engaged another expert who submitted her opinion on 17 April 1990. It concluded as follows :   (translation)         "... I cannot find that there are sufficient reasons for       depriving (the applicant) of the care for her children (C) and       (S).         In my view (the applicant) shows responsibility when it       comes to considering the children's adolescence - and she       is also a person who may learn from the mistakes she has       made.         It is clear, however, that (the applicant) will need       certain practical assistance in the future. It is to be       recommended that both she and (C) receive therapy in order       to manage the emotional gaps from the bad years - and I       would consider it reasonable that the public authorities       cover this. Furthermore, (the applicant) ought to receive       support for her education."   23.    In the meantime the social authorities continued their examination of the case. In their report of 30 March 1990, submitted to the CPC, they recommended as follows :   (translation)         "Considerations under sections 16 and 18 (of the Child       Welfare Act).         (The applicant) has had problems with intoxicating       substances (hashish, alcohol, abuse of medicine) since the       age of 15-16. Furthermore, she has in periods been very sad       and troubled by depressions and fear. She has received       offers of assistance but never followed this up. It is the       case workers' opinion that (the applicant) shows little       insight into her own behaviour and that, in particular, she       minimises her problems in regard to intoxication and mental       functioning.         (The applicant) has hardly acted as an adult who has taken       upon her to plan her own and her son's life.         We cannot see either that she has acted with responsibility       vis-à-vis her daughter. Her appearances for medical       check-ups and her care for the unborn child during the       pregnancy were insufficient. The social authorities in       Bergen had received information that she ate very little       and that she misused medicine and alcohol.         Since the age of 17 (the applicant) has existed on social       assistance and has not shown that she can function in       working life or in environments outside those of (alcohol       and drug addicts).         (The applicant) remained in a relationship characterised by       ill-treatment, although she realised that her son suffered       therefrom, and rejected most of the offers of assistance       aimed at helping her son. Also in respect of her son's       problems she denies/minimises the problems. It is the       opinion of the social authorities that (the applicant) has       seen her son very little and hardly realises his needs. She       has not been able to give him sufficient care or managed to       protect him.         From our discussions with (the applicant) it is our       impression that (she) is blocked in her view of the public       authorities. She discloses a lack of ability to realise       that her impressions of fear and powerlessness vis-à-vis       the authorities have led to serious consequences for her       son. The fault for her having been unable to create an       acceptable life for herself and her son is placed on either       a tyrannic companion or on the public authorities. This has       resulted inter alia in her showing very little interest in       treatment.         The social authorities consider that the daughter will live       in conditions as described in section 16, subsection a,       since, in particular, the child's mental health will be       subjected to harm or serious danger if she is reunited with       her mother.         As mentioned before preventive measures under section 18       have been tried for years in respect of her son. For such       measures to have a positive effect it requires that the       person in charge of the care discloses certain insight into       his/her own problems as well as a wish to receive       assistance in a process of change.         These conditions are not met in this case.         Accordingly, the social authorities find that preventive       measures pursuant to section 18 of the Child Welfare Act       will not secure the child the necessary care.         Considerations under sections 19 and 20         The social authorities consider it necessary to take over       the care of the child since (the applicant) is considered       as being unable to do so satisfactorily and since       preventive measures are considered to be useless.       ...         The social authorities find that the best measure for this       girl is that the social authorities take over the care       pursuant to section 19 of the Child Welfare Act and that       she is placed in an approved foster home with a view to       adoption.         The girl is in good health and has shown good progress       during her stay at the child care centre. In this way it       will be secured that the girl receives the best possible       adolescence with stability and safety provided by the       foster parents with whom she will have all her emotional       contacts.         When the CPC has taken over the care of a child pursuant to       section 19 of the Child Welfare Act it may also decide to       take over the parental rights pursuant to section 20.         (With reference to the expert opinion of 13 February 1990) the       case workers consider the possibility of reaching (the applicant)       with corrections and treatment as being limited. If (the       applicant) were to accept treatment this would have to continue       for several years.         Over the last years science has demonstrated the       disadvantages of remaining a long-term foster child instead       of being adopted ... . The foster parents may at any moment       cancel the agreement or the parents may institute       proceedings in order to be reunited with the child.       Adoption clarifies the matter in respect of a stable and       secure life for child and (adoptive) parents.       ...         In order to secure the child's development and its       relationship to permanent care persons it is considered to       be correct in this case that the authorities deprive (the       applicant) completely of her parental rights pursuant to       section 20 of the Child Welfare Act.         Visits/secret address         While the girl has been at the child care centre (the       applicant) has had access twice a week for one hour.       Following a transfer of the girl to an approved foster home       with a view to adoption it is recommended to refuse access       and to keep the address secret.         (The applicant) has previously tried to disappear with her       son in order to avoid the social authorities and neither       did she inform the social office/authorities when her son       left the children's home at Bergen in February 1990 in       order to stay with her. Therefore, it is considered likely       that she will intervene inappropriately in the foster home,       perhaps also try to take the girl with her.         It is considered important for this child to have quiet and       stability in the new environment where she is placed. The       social authorities will accordingly recommend that (the       applicant) is refused contact with the child and to place       the child under a secret address.         Today the girl has no relationship with her mother and,       therefore, it will not be necessary to phase out the access       arrangement before the girl is transferred to the foster       home."   24.    On 2 May 1990 the CPC examined the case. The meeting was chaired by a judge from the Oslo City Court. The applicant was assisted by counsel and called three witnesses. The social authorities, which had submitted their report of 30 March 1990 to the CPC, called one witness. The appointed expert was heard, but not the expert engaged by the applicant herself. Both expert opinions were available to the CPC.   25.    On the basis of the information and evidence submitted the CPC decided, on 3 May 1990, by four votes to two, to take S into care, to deprive the applicant of her parental rights, to place S in a foster home with a view to adoption, to refuse access as from the moment S was placed in the foster home and to keep the address secret. In its decision the CPC stated :   (translation)         "With reference to the reports which have been submitted       and the submissions made during this meeting the majority       ... finds that (the applicant) has very little chance of       acting satisfactorily in taking care of her daughter. The       majority stresses that (the applicant) has been the sole       custody holder for her son, born in 1977. This task she has       not managed and the social authorities have taken this       child into care. Since 1977 (the applicant) has received       special assistance and, since her son was ten years old,       she has lived off social security benefits. She has only       worked for short periods of time. She has not lived       together with the fathers of her two children but has lived       for several years with another man who ill-treated her and       her son, both physically and mentally. He is now in prison,       serving a sentence for narcotics offences. She has herself       used narcotics and alcohol and this has created problems       for her. It is unclear how big a problem this has been, but       the CPC assumes that she has no problems for the time       being. It is not quite clear, however, whether the problem       has been solved also for the future.         (The applicant) maintains now that she has broken off with       her former friend and her previous life. She has moved to       Oslo and now appears to have another basis than the one in       Bergen. She has certain social contacts but these are       contacts stemming from the present situation which cannot       be of decisive importance. She has vague plans for the       future although she expresses a wish to get an education.         However, the majority is of the opinion that the decisive       aspects in this case must be that, according to the       appointed expert, (the applicant) has big and unsolved       mental problems which burden her social function and her       ability to take care (of children). Despite the fact that       her son has had considerable mental problems she has not       been able to cooperate with the authorities and has not       understood the necessity of giving his needs priority over       her own. She has not been able to understand that the boy       needed help and has not been willing to accept assistance       either. The majority fears that this attitude may lead to       her daughter's needs not being met either if she remains       with (the applicant). The majority finds that the daughter       will live in such conditions that the requirements of       section 16, subsection a, of the Child Welfare Act are       fulfilled.         In connection with taking her son into care a number of       measures have been tried, and the majority therefore finds       that measures under section 18 would be without effect. The       requirements for care under section 19 are accordingly       fulfilled. The majority also finds that the requirements       pursuant to section 20 of the Child Welfare Act are       fulfilled. (The applicant) is not particularly motivated       for treatment and there is little reason to believe that       this will change. The majority accordingly finds that it       would be in the interest of the child to be placed in a       foster home with a view to adoption. The period to come is       the basic years for the child where it is preferable that       the child may rest assured that it will not be moved. It is       of decisive importance for the girl that she can now be       attached to stable persons whom she may consider as being       stable and secure parents in her adolescence.         This is of decisive importance for the development of her       personality. Therefore she ought not to be exposed to a       terminable foster home contract. She also ought to have few       and close persons to relate to and therefore ought to       remain at a secret address pursuant to section 19 of the       Child Welfare Act, so that (the applicant) no longer has       access to her daughter when she is placed with foster       parents."   26.    The minority of the CPC found that the applicant's situation in life had improved following her move from Bergen to Oslo. Therefore it considered that the applicant should be given the opportunity to try to be in charge of the care of her daughter while staying at a special institution for that purpose.   27.    As indicated above (para. 17) the applicant's son, C, was taken into care in November 1989. On 4 May 1990 he ran away from the institution where he was living in Bergen and moved to the applicant in Oslo. Following the birth of her daughter the applicant had moved to an apartment in Oslo. As C did not want to return to Bergen and as the applicant found that the social authorities there did not do enough to help him, she decided to let C stay in Oslo. The applicant managed to get him admitted to a school there and she contacted a psychiatrist for support. Following an evaluation of these circumstances the social authorities in Bergen decided not to intervene and the care order was lifted on 19 June 1990. This decision was subsequently confirmed by the Hordaland County Governor (Fylkesmannen) on 13 March 1991. C has lived with the applicant since May 1990.   28.    On 25 May 1990 counsel for the applicant received the minutes from the meeting of 2 May 1990 following which the CPC decided, on 3 May 1990, inter alia to take the applicant's daughter, S, into care and to deprive the applicant of her parental rights over S. On 28 May 1990 the applicant lodged an appeal with the County Governor for Oslo and Akershus in so far these decisions were concerned. She furthermore requested the County Governor to give the appeal suspensive effect as far as the access rights were concerned as access to S would otherwise be terminated as soon as S was placed in a foster home. The applicant submitted that continuing access was of decisive importance in order to maintain contact between mother and child during the appeal proceedings. The applicant also sent a copy of her complaints to the CPC which decided, on 28 June 1990, to uphold the decisions taken on 3 May 1990 and to forward the case to the County Governor.   29.    On 31 July 1990 the County Governor decided not to give the appeal suspensive effect. In the decision he stated inter alia :   (translation)         "In accordance with section 42 of the Public Administration       Act (Forvaltningsloven) the County Governor may decide that       the implementation of a decision shall be suspended pending       the outcome of the appeal. The starting point in the Child       Welfare Act is that a decision is implemented immediately.         When examining whether suspensive effect shall be granted the       child's interests and the risk it runs in such circumstances       shall be taken into consideration.         The County Governor finds on the basis of the documents in       the file ... that the girl's interests are best taken care       of in that the decision of 3 May 1990 concerning       termination of access between mother and child is       implemented as from the moment the child is placed in the       foster home.         With reference to section 42 of the Public Administration       Act the County Governor decides that the decision on access       of 3 May 1990 is maintained pending the outcome of the       appeal to the effect that the access between mother and       child is terminated when the child is transferred to the       foster home. The request for giving the appeal suspensive       effect is accordingly rejected."   30.    The applicant's daughter, S, was placed with foster parents on 30 May 1990. The applicant has not had access to or seen her daughter since.   31.    Despite the above decision the applicant pursued her appeal. As she was informed that her appeal to the County Governor of 28 May 1990 would be pending four to five months she instituted proceedings in the Oslo City Court (byretten) requesting the Court to repeal the CPC's decisions of 3 May 1990. She maintained inter alia that it was decisive that the case was examined quickly as she had no access to her daughter. On 24 October 1990 the City Court dismissed (avvise) the case as such cases could only be instituted subsequent to a decision in the matter by the County Governor. On 17 January 1991 the High Court (Lagmannsretten) rejected the appeal since the County Governor had in the meantime decided the case (see para. 32 below) and there was therefore no reason to deal with the appeal. A further appeal to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett) was rejected on 7 March 1991.   32.    The County Governor for Oslo and Akershus determined the case on 9 November 1990, following a meeting with the applicant and her counsel on 5 November 1990. The CPC's decisions concerning care and parental rights were upheld. In the decision the County Governor stated inter alia :   (translation)         "The County Governor considers on the basis of (what he has       established) and the case-file that (the applicant's)       situation in life, her unstable mental situation and her       lack of capacity to evaluate both her own and her son's       situation might damage (her daughter's) development and       physical/mental health if she would have stayed in her       mother's care. The requirements of section 16 of the Child       Welfare Act would accordingly appear to be fulfilled.         As regards preventive measures pursuant to section 18 of       the Child Welfare Act, the considerable number of offers       from the Bergen social authorities show that (the       applicant) has managed only to a limited extent to       cooperate/use the offers she has received. From the talks       with the County Governor, the report from the Aline Child       Care Centre and the expert's evaluations it appears that       (the applicant) has very little knowledge of and       understanding for her own and her son's need for help. The       County Governor considers that (the applicant) will not be       able to cooperate with the authorities on their conditions       as far as preventive measures to the benefit of the child       are concerned. Preventive measures would in our opinion,       and with reference to the above, be without effect in this       case, cf. section 18 of the Child Welfare Act.       ...         Following the conversation with the applicant the County       Governor considers (the applicant) to be a very sympathetic       and well-intentioned person. She has an appealing behaviour       and manners which lead to the wish of wanting to return       friendliness with friendliness. However, we must state that       we consider that (the applicant) lacks the necessary       understanding as regards whether problems could appear upon       a possible return (of S). (The applicant) did not show any       understanding at all as regards the child's feelings and       was unable to separate her own and the child's needs. In       respect of the problems vis-à-vis her son and the planned       marriage (the applicant) did not manage to see that various       adjustment difficulties would occur. (The applicant)       considered her son not to be in need of treatment despite       the fact that psychologist (LV) has applied for his       admission to Nic. Waal's Institute for a possible       evaluation/treatment.         Having regard to the above the County Governor finds that       the decision of (3) May 1990 to take (the applicant's       daughter) into care is in accordance with section 19 of the       Child Welfare Act, and correct.       ...       As regards the deprivation of parental rights the County       Governor would state as follows :         Section 20 of the Child Welfare Act permits a deprivation       of the parental rights. From the Supreme Court judgment       (Rt. 1982 p. 1687) it appears that no specific requirements       prevent the use of section 20 except that care must have       been ordered pursuant to section 19. The child's interests       from a general point of view must be the decisive factor.       This means that it is not a requirement that for example       the parents have unlawfully disturbed the care situation or       that the contact between the child and its parents must be       considered to be harmful. If a general evaluation shows       that it is in the best interests of the child to take away       the parental rights in order to prepare for an adoption,       section 20 of the Child Welfare Act permits this.         (The applicant's) prolonged mental problems weigh in favour       of applying section 20. In continuing reports she is       described as unstable, depressive. During her stay at       Ullevål hospital concern was expressed that she could hurt       herself or develop a psychosis. (The applicant) has       previously considered suicide. (The applicant) is according       to the expert in need of treatment. The expert opinion       stresses (the applicant's) lack of knowledge of her own and       her son's problems; her ability to take care of her       children has been put in question. Having regard to her       lack of insight her accessibility to treatment is       considered poor. Having regard to the above the County       Governor hardly finds it realistic to expect results of       importance in a foreseeable fu