According to court, the state is not liable for the suffering of 'remote mothers'

According to court, the state is not liable for the suffering of 'remote mothers'

The Child Protection Board has not acted unlawfully towards a group of 'remote mothers' in the last century. That is what the court in The Hague ruled in a case that women's rights organization Bureau Clara Wichmann and 75-year-old mother-in-law Trudy Scheele had brought against the Dutch state.

The women they represent had to give up their newborn child between 1956 and 1984, often against their will. This concerns approximately 13,000 to 14,000 women who often became pregnant without being married.

Not well informed

Scheele herself became pregnant in the sixties, while she was not married. She was sent by her family to the Catholic Paul Foundation in Oosterbeek, where she gave birth to a son in 1968. After she gave birth, she had to give her son up for adoption, although she didn't want to.

According to Scheele, Child Protection at the time actively contributed to young mothers relinquishing their babies. They would also not have been properly informed about their rights and the practical possibilities of raising their child independently. By holding the state liable for this, Scheele hoped that she would be recognized for the suffering she suffered.

However, the court ruled that it was not the task of Child Protection to advise the mothers. According to the judge, the compulsion that many remote mothers experienced was mainly caused by pressure from the environment, such as from their parents or the GP. According to the court, social and religious relationships were different at that time.

As a result, the women were "incapable of really making their own decisions in freedom". Due to the great social pressure, according to the court, it cannot be argued that the Child Protection Agency has acted unlawfully.

The state had also argued that the case is now time-barred. According to the court, there are indeed "good grounds" to assume that there is a limitation, but no further judgment is made about this.

Individual cases

The general judgment of the court about Child Protection does not alter the fact that the service may have acted unlawfully in individual cases, the judge says. But now, fifty years later, it is no longer possible to determine whether legally culpable mistakes were made.

In this video, Scheele tells how it was only fifty years later that she was able to read how her baby had fared:

The presiding judge of the court called the case "in- and intriest" during the session. According to her, the group of distance women has been hurt a lot.

According to the court, the fact that Scheele's claim was rejected does not diminish that grief and suffering. The chairman emphasized that this is a legal test, which offers little or no room for the emotional aspects of the case.

"We can't turn back time," she told Scheele. "It's not your fault it turned out this way."

Disappointing

Bureau Clara Wichman, which had brought the case together with Scheele, calls the ruling disappointing. "We will also read the verdict in detail and we will consider an appeal, because we maintain that the Child Protection Board and therefore the State are liable for this injustice," legal adviser Bryk said on the website of the women's rights organization.

.