A.S. v. Norway (2019)

This case attacks the central dogma of Norwegian child welfare: the idea that once a child is moved, they should stay moved forever.

1. The "Clean Break" Policy

Barnevernet decided that "A.S.'s" child needed a "long-term placement" (langvarig plassering) immediately after the emergency removal. Because of this label, they argued that contact with the mother should be minimal (2 visits a year) to avoid "disturbing" the child's integration into the foster home.

2. The ECHR's Rejection

The Court found a violation of Article 8. They ruled that:

  • Premature Conclusion: The authorities decided too early that the placement was permanent, effectively giving up on the mother before she had a chance to improve.
  • Duty to Facilitate Bonds: Even if a placement is long-term, the state has a duty to keep the tie alive unless it harms the child. "Stability" for the child does not require erasing the parent.