Danmark kan risikere at komme i konflikt med Menneskerettighederne / Denmark may risk coming into conflict with Human Rights

Vi skal i Danmark passe på med, at vi ikke krænker forældrenes ret til familieliv, som er en del af deres Menneskerettigheder. Sådan lyder det fra flere eksperter i forbindelse med aftaleteksten til Børnene Først, der lægger op til, at man kan træffe beslutning om bortadoption af børn, allerede før de er født.

I en række artikler har vi på K-NEWS undersøgt Børnene Først. Dette er sidste artikel i serien.

Tekst: Amalie Guldborg Olesen / Foto: Shutterstock

Norge blev i 2019 dømt af den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol (EMD) for at have krænket Menneskerettighedskonventionens artikel 8, der dækker over retten til privat- og familieliv. Sagen handlede om en mor, hvis tre-årige datter var blevet bortadopteret uden samtykke. Dommen lagde vægt på, at Norge ikke havde gjort et ordentligt forebyggende arbejde inden beslutning om bortadoption, og derfor var der allerede der sket en overtrædelse af konventionen.

I Danmark lægger aftaleteksten til Børnene Først og en ny Barnets Lov op til, at kommunerne skal have mulighed for at træffe afgørelse om en bortadoption, allerede før barnet er født. I udspillet til aftalen, der kom før den endelige aftaletekst, talte man endda om at ville lempe reglerne for adoption uden samtykke. Hos Institut for Menneskerettigheder, hvor Anette Faye Jacobsen er seniorforsker, holdt man meget nøje øje med netop denne del.

”Det, de havde lagt op til i første udspil, var dramatisk – blandt andet i forhold til at ville lempe tvangsadoptionsreglerne – og der var jeg bekymret for, om det virkelig var det, de ville. Men det trak de i land med. De var ved at lempe det så meget, at de næsten helt ville fjerne forældrenes ret til familieliv. Det ser meget mere fornuftigt ud nu,” siger hun.

Men selvom det ser mere fornuftigt ud nu – og de har fjernet forslaget om at lempe reglerne i den endelige aftaletekst – så skal vi i Danmark stadig være opmærksomme på, at vi ikke krænker retten til familieliv, fortæller Anette Faye Jacobsen.

”Tvangsbortadoption er et indgreb, som EMD går meget omhyggeligt ind i, fordi det er så voldsomt. Så der er elementer, allerede i den nuværende lovgivning, som man kan være bekymret for vil være noget, som EMD kunne slå ned på. Man skal derfor være meget omhyggelig med sin begrundelse for en adoption, for ellers kan vi også få problemer med EMD,” siger hun og uddyber:

”EMD lægger meget vægt på, at man ikke kun tager bestik af situationen her og nu, for når man laver en afgørelse om adoption, gælder det resten af barnet og familiens liv. Så man skal tænke langsigtet.”

Ekstraordinært tvingende grunde

Ligesom Anette Faye Jacobsen, så mener også advokat Gitte Leth Thomsen, der er stifter af organisationen Barnets Stemme, at vi skal være påpasselige med, at vi ikke kommer i konflikt med konventionen.

”Der er risiko for, at reglerne om bortadoption vil kunne komme i konflikt med Menneskerettighedskonventionen. Hvis man kigger til andre lande, blandt andet Norge, har der i hvert fald været sager, der viser, at Menneskerettighedsdomstolen stiller høje krav til kvaliteten af myndighedernes afgørelser i disse sager - herunder at afgørelserne skal være truffet på et tilstrækkeligt bevis- og vurderingsmæssigt grundlag, hvor der er sket en grundig afvejning af barnets interesser i forhold til hensynet til retten til familieliv, når det vurderes, hvad der er til barnets bedste. Dette taler netop for, at vi ikke skal slække på kravene til de afgørelser, som myndighederne træffer i sager om bortadoption,” siger hun.

Også Caroline Adolphsen, lektor ved juridisk institut på Aarhus Universitet, påpeger, at vi skal være opmærksomme på de signaler, som Menneskerettighedsdomstolen kommer med i forbindelse med andre sager omkring bortadoption.

”Praksis ved EMD omkring tvangsadoptioner tilkendegiver meget klart, at der skal være ekstraordinært tvingende grunde til det. Det skal være absolut nødvendigt, og man skal vise, at man har gjort alt, hvad man kunne, for at bevare familielivet samlet. Derfor kan man sige, at hvis man går ind, før de overhovedet har fået mulighed for at vise forældreevne, så kan man – ud fra de udtalelser domstolen har haft – være i tvivl om, hvorvidt det ville være noget, de ville slå ned på,” siger hun og tilføjer:

”Vores egen højesteret er ikke særlig aktivistiske, hvilket jeg synes er positivt i et demokrati, men de har faktisk i nogle af de seneste sager om tvangsadoption sagt, at selvom man opfylder de danske regler, skal man huske, at man også skal overholde Menneskerettighedskonventionen. Så der er en grænse for, hvor langt ud man kan lovgive, og det er meget sjældent, vi får højesteret til at sige noget, der bare minder om at være så tydeligt.”

********************************************************************************************************************

In Denmark, we must be careful that we do not violate the parents' right to family life, which is part of their Human Rights. This is how it sounds from several experts in connection with the text of the agreement for the Children First, who propose that a decision can be made on the adoption of children even before they are born.

In a series of articles, we at K-NEWS have examined The Children First. This is the last article in the series.

Text: Amalie Guldborg Olesen / Photo: Shutterstock

In 2019, Norway was convicted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for violating Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which covers the right to private and family life. The case concerned a mother whose three-year-old daughter had been adopted without consent. The judgment emphasized that Norway had not done proper preventive work before deciding on adoption, and therefore there had already been a breach of the Convention.

In Denmark , the text of the agreement puts the Children Firstand a new Child Act up to the municipalities having the opportunity to decide on an adoption, even before the child is born. In the draft of the agreement, which came before the final text of the agreement, there was even talk of wanting to relax the rules for adoption without consent. At the Department of Human Rights, where Anette Faye Jacobsen is a senior researcher, this particular part was closely monitored.

"What they had planned in the first proposal was dramatic - among other things in relation to wanting to relax the rules for forced adoption - and there I was worried about whether this was really what they wanted. But they pulled it ashore. They were easing it so much that they would almost completely remove their parents' right to family life. It looks much more sensible now, ”she says.

But even though it looks more sensible now - and they have removed the proposal to relax the rules in the final agreement text - we in Denmark must still be aware that we do not violate the right to family life, says Anette Faye Jacobsen.

“Forced adoption is an intervention that the EMD goes into very carefully because it is so violent. So there are elements, already in the current legislation, that one may be worried about will be something that the EMD could crack down on. You must therefore be very careful with your reasons for an adoption, because otherwise we can also have problems with EMD, "she says and elaborates:

" EMD attaches great importance to not only taking cutlery of the situation here and now, because when one makes a decision about adoption, it applies for the rest of the child and family life. So you have to think long-term. ”

Extraordinarily compelling reasons

Like Anette Faye Jacobsen, lawyer Gitte Leth Thomsen, founder of the organization Barnets Stemme, also believes that we must be careful not to come into conflict with the convention.

"There is a risk that the rules on adoption may come into conflict with the Human Rights Convention. If you look at other countries, including Norway, there have at least been cases that show that the European Court of Human Rights places high demands on the quality of the authorities' decisions in these cases - including that the decisions must be made on a sufficient evidentiary and assessment basis. , where there has been a thorough balancing of the child's interests in relation to the consideration of the right to family life, when assessing what is in the best interests of the child. This speaks precisely to the fact that we should not relax the requirements for the decisions that the authorities make in cases of adoption, ”she says.

Caroline Adolphsen, associate professor at the Department of Law at Aarhus University, also points out that we must be aware of the signals that the Human Rights Court gives in connection with other cases concerning adoption.

“The practice at EMD regarding forced adoptions states very clearly that there must be extraordinarily compelling reasons for this. It must be absolutely necessary, and one must show that one has done everything one could to preserve family life together. Therefore, one can say that if one goes in before they have even been given the opportunity to show parenting ability, then one can - based on the statements the court has had - be in doubt as to whether it would be something they would crack down on , ”She says, adding:

"Our own Supreme Court is not very activist, which I think is positive in a democracy, but they have actually said in some of the recent cases of forced adoption that even if you meet the Danish rules, you must remember that you must also comply with the Human Rights Convention . So there is a limit to how far you can legislate, and it is very rare that we get the Supreme Court to say something that is just reminiscent of being so clear. ”

”