CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 18 May 2020 Published on 8 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7692/20 R.I. against Norway lodged on 24 January 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Norwegian national, and the mother of X, born in May 2014. B is the father of X, and in a relationship with the applicant. In July 2014, on a regular health examination of X as he was six weeks old, medical staff noticed severe bruising. Further examinations revealed that the child had several broken ribs in addition to the bruises. The incident was reported to the police. On 10 July 2014 an emergency care order and placement in foster home regarding X was given. The same day the applicant and B were arrested and charged with domestic violence against the child. Both were later acquitted of the charges of domestic violence, but convicted for failing to provide X with medical assistance. On 16 October 2014 the County Social Welfare Board ( Fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) gave a decision on an ordinary care order and placement in foster home regarding X. Contact rights for the applicant and B were set at one hour once a year. On 25 February 2015 the City Court ( tingrett ) found that the applicant and B should not enjoy any contact rights in regards to X. The decision was upheld on 23 January 2017 by the High Court ( lagmannsrett ). On 23 October 2017 the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ) in a judgment set the contact rights for the applicant and B in regards to X at one hour once a year. On 24 April 2018 the Board decided to withdraw the applicant’s and B’s parental responsibilities and allow the adoption of X. The decision was upheld by the City Court. The applicant appealed against the judgment of the City Court, but it was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.   Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant submits that her right to respect for her family life was violated by the decision to withdraw the applicant’s parental responsibilities for her son and to allow for his foster parents to adopt him. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the decision to withdraw the parental responsibilities for her son and allow his foster parents to adopt him, (see, in particular, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10   September 2019)?