Det var ulovligt at flytte adoptivbarnet Amy med magt
It was illegal to move the adopted child Amy forcibly
Parliamentary Ombudsman traps heavily on the municipality in case of placement. "This is a violent action against a child."
Photo: JACOB EHRBAHN (archive)
Photo: JACOB EHRBAHN (archive)
Follow
Anders Legarth Schmidt ANDERS LEGARTH SCHMIDT
Journalist
The video begins with a man standing over a girl sitting on a couch. "Now you come up with," said the man. The girl says 'no', but the man lifts the girl off the couch and carries her assisted by a helper out of the house to a waiting car. The 11-year-old girl crying desperately, as she is moved. She kicks off the air and try to grab the furniture, which she passes. "Boy, it's disgusting, man," said a voice before the door slams and the car running away from the yard.
See the municipality's violent forced displacement of 11-year-old
LINK Video http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE3471132/det-var-ulovligt-at-flytte-adoptivbarnet-amy-med-magt/
The girl in the recording called Amy and the video shows how employees from Næstved by force in 2012 removed the Ethiopian-born child from her foster family after the municipality had decided that she should stay in a residence that better able to handle her.
A violent crackdown on a child
Amy became the center of a controversial case of adoption and fostering, where among other things, the following questions were asked: Was the municipal action in order? The answer has come. After prolonged study concludes Parliamentary Ombudsman that it was illegal, since Næstved moved the girl by force, even though it had decided that the girl against her will had to get away from his foster family. When children are moving from one placement to another, it must be voluntary, says the Ombudsman.
"I understand that the lack of legal basis has left the municipality in a difficult situation. But when there is no legal basis to use force, you can not do it. This is a violent action against a child, "said the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Jørgen Steen Sørensen.
READ ARTICLE Næstved regrets the way with Amy
After a tough childhood in Ethiopia came Amy nine years old to Denmark one August day in 2009 and moved in with his adoptive parents in Næstved. After some time got the adoptive parents find it difficult to deal with her, there was endless conflicts where Amy was angry and reacted violently to prohibitions and requirements. Even Amy explained that she was beaten, adoptive According to Politiken's previous coverage of the case acknowledged that they in affect came to shake her and slapping her. They sought help in the form of psychological assistance and family counseling, the municipality was informed about the problems and Amy was placed with a foster family.
Risk of child development and well-being
Amy had been living with the foster family for 11 months, since Næstved Municipality decided to move her to a residential institution with professional educators.
The decision was made based on an assessment of her mental state. The municipality assessed by his own admission that there were "obvious risk to the child's development and well-being, if not put in with appropriate support in time '. The felt at that time caught in a dilemma. On the one hand it knew that Amy preferred to stay with his foster family. On the other hand, the municipality had an obligation to do what it considered was best for the child; namely to move her to a residential institution. Therefore, the municipality no other solution than to remove Amy by force.
READ ARTICLE Municipality reported to the police for child violence
Since the dramatic move became public, several experts in law stated that it is not permissible to use force against a child in a foster home, unless there is an actual self-defense.
Parliamentary Ombudsman writes like this in his decision that he assumes that conditions in the foster family was not so bad that the municipality's use of force 'was based on the principles of self-defense and necessity'. The Ombudsman considers it in the background 'highly reprehensible' that Næstved used coercion as it consummated its decision to move Amy from one place to another.
Ministry to consider rules
Own initiative, the Parliamentary Ombudsman now writing called Social Security and the Interior Ministry to consider whether there should be created rules on how authorities can move a child to a new placement if the child resists.
After fierce criticism of the process complained Næstved back in 2012 that Amy was subjected to 'a dramatic removal'. A united the Children and Youth Committee in the municipality decided that Amy had to move back to her foster family. It happened on the basis of a number of experts had studied and analyzed the case. Amy was thus away from the foster family for four months, within the municipality thus turned on a dime and followed the child's own wishes.
===============================
ANMARK 15. NOV. 2016 KL. 12.14
Det var ulovligt at flytte adoptivbarnet Amy med magt
Folketingets Ombudsmand fælder hård dom over kommune i sag om anbringelse. »Der er tale om et voldsomt indgreb over for et barn«.
Anders Legarth Schmidt ANDERS LEGARTH SCHMIDT
Journalist
Videooptagelsen begynder med, at en mand står bøjet over en pige, der sidder i en sofa. »Nu skal du komme med«, siger manden. Pigen siger »nej«, men manden løfter pigen fri af sofaen og bærer hende assisteret af en hjælper ud af huset mod en ventende bil. Den 11-årige pige skriger desperat, mens hun bliver flyttet. Hun sparker ud i luften og forsøger at gribe fat i møbler, som hun passerer. »Hold kæft, hvor er det klamt, mand«, siger en stemme, inden døren smækker, og bilen kører væk fra gårdspladsen.
Se kommunens voldsomme tvangsflytning af 11-årig
Pigen på optagelsen hedder Amy, og videoen viser, hvordan medarbejdere fra Næstved Kommune med magt i 2012 fjernede det etiopisk fødte barn fra sin plejefamilie, efter at kommunen havde besluttet, at hun skulle bo på et opholdssted, der bedre kunne håndtere hende.
Et voldsomt indgreb over for et barn
Amy blev centrum i en omdiskuteret sag om adoption og anbringelse, hvor blandt andet følgende spørgsmål blev stillet: Var kommunens handling i orden? Svaret er nu kommet. Efter længere tids undersøgelse konkluderer Folketingets Ombudsmand, at det var ulovligt, da Næstved Kommune flyttede pigen med magt, selv om den havde besluttet, at pigen mod sin vilje skulle væk fra sin plejefamilie. Når et barn skal flyttes fra ét anbringelsessted til et andet, skal det ske frivilligt, fastslår Ombudsmanden.
»Jeg har forståelse for, at det manglende lovgrundlag har efterladt kommunen i en svær situation. Men når der ikke er hjemmel til at bruge magt, kan man ikke gøre det. Der er tale om et voldsomt indgreb over for et barn«, siger Folketingets Ombudsmand, Jørgen Steen Sørensen.
LÆS ARTIKELNæstved Kommune beklager forløbet med Amy
Efter en barsk opvækst i Etiopien kom Amy ni år gammel til Danmark en augustdag i 2009 og flyttede ind hos sine adoptivforældre i Næstved. Efter noget tid fik adoptivforældrene svært ved at håndtere hende, der opstod endeløse konflikter, hvor Amy var sur og reagerede voldsomt på forbud og krav. Selv forklarede Amy, at hun blev slået, adoptivforældrene har ifølge Politikens tidligere dækning af sagen erkendt, at de i affekt kom til at ruske hende og daske til hende. De søgte hjælp i form af psykologbistand og familierådgivning, kommunen blev underrettet om problemerne, og Amy blev placeret hos en plejefamilie.
Risiko for barnets udvikling og trivsel
Amy havde boet hos plejefamilien i 11 måneder, da Næstved Kommune besluttede at flytte hende til en døgninstitution med professionelle pædagoger.
Beslutningen blev truffet på baggrund af en vurdering af hendes psykiske tilstand. Kommunen vurderede efter eget udsagn, at der var »åbenbar risiko for barnets udvikling og trivsel, hvis der ikke blev sat ind med relevant støtte i tide«. Den følte sig på daværende tidspunkt fanget i et dilemma. På den ene side vidste den, at Amy foretrak at blive hos sin plejefamilie. På den anden side havde kommunen pligt til at gøre, hvad den vurderede var bedst for barnet; nemlig at flytte hende til en døgninstitution. Derfor så kommunen ikke andre udveje end at fjerne Amy med magt.
LÆS ARTIKELKommune anmeldt til politiet for børnevold
Siden den dramatiske flytning blev offentligt kendt, har flere eksperter i jura slået fast, at det ikke er tilladt at anvende magt mod et barn i en plejefamilie, med mindre der er tale om egentlig nødværge.
Folketingets Ombudsmand skriver i lighed med dette i sin afgørelse, at han antager, at forholdene i plejefamilien ikke var så dårlige, at kommunens brug af magt »havde hjemmel i principperne om nødværge og nødret«. Ombudsmanden finder det på den baggrund »meget kritisabelt«, at Næstved Kommune anvendte tvang, da den fuldbyrdede sin beslutning om at flytte Amy fra et anbringelsessted til et andet.
Ministerium skal overveje regler
Af egen drift har Folketingets Ombudsmand nu skriftligt opfordret Social- og Indenrigsministeriet til at overveje, om der bør laves regler for, hvordan myndigheder kan flytte et barn til et nyt anbringelsessted, hvis barnet modsætter sig.
Efter voldsom kritik af forløbet beklagede Næstved Kommune tilbage i 2012, at Amy blev udsat for »en dramatisk flytning«. Et enigt Børne- og Ungeudvalg i kommunen besluttede, at Amy skulle flytte tilbage til sin plejefamilie. Det skete på baggrund af, at en række eksperter havde undersøgt og analyseret sagen. Amy var dermed væk fra plejefamilien i fire måneder, inden kommunen altså vendte på en tallerken og fulgte barnets eget ønske.
LÆS ARTIKELKommune erkender: Tvangsflyttet pige var ikke i akut fare
e