---
import {
  norwayArticle,
  norwayCases,
  norwayImages,
  norwayOrganizations,
  norwaySources,
} from "../../data/norway";
import BaseLayout from "../../layouts/BaseLayout.astro";
import LocaleCopy from "../../components/LocaleCopy.astro";
---

<BaseLayout
  title={`${norwayArticle.title} | Dave Gilligan`}
  description={norwayArticle.excerpt.en}
>
  <main class="norway-page">
    <section class="container norway-hero norway-hero--article">
      <div class="norway-hero__copy">
        <span class="eyebrow">Article / Norway desk</span>
        <h1>{norwayArticle.title}</h1>
        <p class="norway-hero__lede"><LocaleCopy copy={norwayArticle.excerpt} /></p>
      </div>

      <aside class="panel norway-hero__note">
        <div class="capsule__kicker">
          <span>Published</span>
          <span>{norwayArticle.publishedAt.slice(0, 10)}</span>
        </div>
        <h2>This month's Norway update.</h2>
        <p>
          A feature built around Do Better Norge, fathers' rights groups, immigrant-family pressure
          points, and the official Strasbourg material on Norway.
        </p>
        <a class="button button--dark" href="/norway">Back to the Norway desk</a>
      </aside>
    </section>

    <section class="container norway-gallery norway-gallery--article">
      {norwayImages.map((image) => (
        <figure class="norway-gallery__figure">
          <img src={image.src} alt={image.alt} loading="lazy" />
          <figcaption>
            <span>{image.credit}</span>
            <a href={image.sourceUrl} target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">{image.sourceLabel}</a>
          </figcaption>
          {image.note && <p class="norway-gallery__note">{image.note}</p>}
        </figure>
      ))}
    </section>

    <section class="container norway-layout">
      <article class="panel norway-article">
        <div class="capsule__kicker">
          <span>April brief</span>
          <span>Oslo / Strasbourg / family life</span>
        </div>

        <p>
          Do Better Norge is making one of the hardest arguments in contemporary Norway: that the
          state speaks fluently about children's interests while too often letting fathers,
          immigrant parents, and family continuity become negotiable. That is an advocacy argument,
          not a court holding. But it is not floating in thin air. The official European Court of
          Human Rights record shows repeated Article 8 trouble for Norway in family-life cases, and
          that record is now too large to dismiss as anecdote.
        </p>

        <p>
          The cleanest official summary appears in the Court's own
          <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/CP_Norway_ENG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Norway country profile
          </a>
          . It notes that on 14 September 2023 the Court dealt with
          <a href="https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?filename=21+applications+against+Norway+concerning+children+taken+into+public+care.pdf&id=003-7744629-10718629&library=ECHR" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            21 applications against Norway concerning children in public care
          </a>
          , declaring 12 inadmissible and finding Article 8 violations in nine other similar
          applications. That does not prove every activist claim. It does prove there is a durable
          and visible Strasbourg problem.
        </p>

        <p>
          What keeps recurring in that problem is not always the original intervention by itself.
          The Court often focuses on what comes after: reduced contact, weak reunification work,
          long-term foster-care assumptions made too early, and a habit of letting time do the
          state's severing work. In
          <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/w/strand-lobben-and-others-v.-norway-no.-37283/13-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway
          </a>
          , the Grand Chamber made reunification doctrine impossible to ignore. In
          <a href="https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?filename=Judgment+K.O.+and+V.M.+v.+Norway+-+placement+in+foster+care+and+contact+rights.pdf&id=003-6566150-8690597&library=ECHR" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            K.O. and V.M. v. Norway
          </a>
          , the placement itself survived Article 8 scrutiny while the contact regime did not. That
          distinction matters enormously for fathers and non-resident parents: sometimes the legal
          fracture is not the first decision, but the slow starvation of the bond afterward.
        </p>

        <p>
          That is why fathers' rights groups remain part of this conversation. The Court's country
          profile also includes
          <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/CP_Norway_ENG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            father-access cases such as Sanchez Cardenas v. Norway
          </a>
          and older Article 8 parental-rights litigation such as
          <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/CP_Norway_ENG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Johansen v. Norway
          </a>
          . Advocacy groups like
          <a href="https://mannsforum.no/kontaktinformasjon-mannsforum/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            MannsForum
          </a>
          and
          <a href="https://www.f2f.no/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Foreningen 2 Foreldre
          </a>
          are not citing the Court for decoration; they are intervening in a real problem-space
          where contact can collapse long before anyone admits that contact has been structurally
          undermined.
        </p>

        <p>
          The immigrant-family dimension is equally difficult and equally real. The strongest single
          Strasbourg reference point remains
          <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/w/abdi-ibrahim-v.-norway-no.-15379/16-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway
          </a>
          , where the Grand Chamber held that Norway had violated Article 8 in a case involving a
          Somali Muslim mother and the adoption of her child by a foster family. The significance of
          that judgment is not merely emotional. It says, in practical terms, that culture and
          religion are not decorative details to be mentioned late in the file. They are part of the
          child's family life and identity, and they must be given real weight.
        </p>

        <p>
          The Court's own Norway profile also reminds us that Article 8 trouble is not confined to
          child-welfare cases. Immigration-family-life cases such as
          <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/CP_Norway_ENG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Nunez v. Norway
          </a>
          and
          <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/CP_Norway_ENG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Antwi and Others v. Norway
          </a>
          show that the family-life question also reaches deportation and immigration enforcement.
          That matters here because one of the recurring claims from immigrant parents is that the
          system reads cultural difference as instability, or foreignness as reduced credibility.
          The Court does not endorse that sentence in those words, but the case law certainly keeps
          family life on the table when state power meets cross-border families.
        </p>

        <p>
          This is where
          <a href="https://dobetternorge.no/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            Do Better Norge
          </a>
          becomes more than a protest banner. The project has built a visual and educational
          language around Article 8, samvar, oversight, cultural blindness, and the economic logic
          inside Norwegian child welfare. One can disagree with parts of its interpretation and still
          admit that it is doing something institutions often fail to do: making the structure legible
          for ordinary families. The same goes for rights groups working the fathers' side of the
          argument. Their claim is not that every mother wins unfairly, or that every public-care case
          is illegitimate. Their claim is that fathers and immigrant parents can enter systems where
          the presumption of distance arrives earlier than the presumption of repair.
        </p>

        <p>
          The fairest way to put it is this. Norway does not have an imaginary problem. It has a
          documented Article 8 problem, an argument over how deep that problem runs, and a growing
          ecosystem of rights organizations trying to make sure the words family life keep meaning
          something when the file is thick, the expert culture is confident, and the parent in front
          of the state happens to be foreign, non-resident, or simply the father.
        </p>
      </article>

      <aside class="norway-sidebar">
        <article class="panel norway-pullquote">
          <div class="capsule__kicker">
            <span>Reading line</span>
            <span>Inference from sources</span>
          </div>
          <p>
            The official ECHR material does not ratify every advocacy claim, but it does support a
            narrower and still serious conclusion: Norway has had repeated Article 8 failures around
            contact, reunification, permanence, and in some cases cultural continuity.
          </p>
        </article>

        <article class="panel norway-casebook__lead">
          <div class="capsule__kicker">
            <span>Casebook</span>
            <span>Open in new tabs</span>
          </div>
          <h2>Key judgments and official summaries.</h2>
        </article>

        {norwayCases.map((item) => (
          <article class="panel norway-casebook__item">
            <span>{item.date}</span>
            <h3>{item.title}</h3>
            <p><LocaleCopy copy={item.significance} /></p>
            <a href={item.href} target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">{item.sourceLabel}</a>
          </article>
        ))}
      </aside>
    </section>

    <section class="container norway-network">
      <div class="section-header">
        <div class="section-header__title">Rights Organizations</div>
        <div class="section-header__meta">
          These are not court sources. They are part of the ecosystem making the Norway family-life
          argument public, legible, and persistent.
        </div>
      </div>

      <div class="norway-network__grid">
        {norwayOrganizations.map((organization) => (
          <a class="norway-network__card" href={organization.href} target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">
            <span><LocaleCopy copy={organization.strap} /></span>
            <strong>{organization.name}</strong>
            <p><LocaleCopy copy={organization.summary} /></p>
          </a>
        ))}
      </div>
    </section>

    <section class="container source-block">
      <div class="section-header">
        <div class="section-header__title">Source Credits</div>
        <div class="section-header__meta">
          Official legal assertions on this page are drawn from ECHR materials. Group descriptions
          and visual material are credited to the organizations themselves.
        </div>
      </div>

      <div class="source-list">
        {norwaySources.map((source) => (
          <article>
            <a href={source.href} target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">{source.label}</a>
            <p>{source.note}</p>
          </article>
        ))}
      </div>
    </section>
  </main>
</BaseLayout>
