Sandness! Are they not ashamed in life?

Comment: The most important thing for the administration in Sandnes municipality is to protect its position of power. To become more forceful in the face of former childcare children.

comment

This is a comment. Comments are written by commentators, editors and guest commentators on Aftenbladet, and express their own opinions and analysis.

Who is the landlord in Sandnes Municipality? It is the mayor Bodil Sievertsen, the mayor Stanley Werack (AP) and the deputy mayor Pal Morten Borgley (FRP).

And children former child care? They are the ones the municipality failed to protect from the damage that befell their childhood. Those who did not get help, or got help too late. As the group of eight siblings who have grown up in what the Sør Rogaland District Court has called a children’s wardrobe of horrors.

And in April this year, they ordered Sandnes municipality to pay nearly nine million crowns to four of the siblings – who have gone on trial – for a lost childhood. The municipality appealed the ruling.

What the municipality knew

These four are number one, two, three and five in the group of eight brothers. What the county court did not discover, what these four did not discover, and what the opposition politicians in Sandnes were not supposed to know either, is that the number four in the group of brothers in 2020 received compensation of NOK 420,000 from this so-called municipality – ie Sandness. In a secret agreement. They rate her as 100 percent disabled.

It’s like you don’t know where to start. If you are 100 per cent disabled and you are 23 years old, NOK 420,000 is shamefully small. It is just a matter of starting to build a normal annual income with at least forty years of lost earnings. In addition to lost savings and lost investments, because she will probably never be able to afford a home of her own, even if it is very small. For example.

Feel free to deduct from the modest disability benefit you receive. The amount is likely to be slightly above NOK 420,000. Which she has to keep a secret from her brothers as well.

verdict

And it was established in the ruling issued by the local court that there are eight brothers “They grew up in an insecure and unpredictable home where they were subjected to violence and abuse, living in squalid conditions without adequate food and without real room to grow. Conditions in the home – with the knowledge we have today – can best be described as a closet of horrors for children.”

Moreover, the provision states that “The professional assessments of childcare made in this case are deeply flawed and, also based on practice in the childcare service in the 1990s, there is a basis for linking liability for damages to children. The limit for linking liability for damages to the work of child protection services has thus been exceeded. This omission constitutes a strong censure of the Child Welfare Service, and therefore the municipality’s compensation in accordance with Section 2-1 of the Damages Act.

Sandnes municipality did not agree to this. Municipality director Bodil Sievertsen said in a press release that the municipality has appealed the ruling in principle. They believe that the negligence assessments, the evidence, the statute of limitations, and the causal relationship between the damage and the municipality’s lack of involvement are incorrect.

Even though they gave the sister, who grew up among those four siblings, compensation in a secret agreement three years ago.

The most important strength

And it will get worse. When Aftenbladet learned of a settlement with the sister, and asked to see her, the municipality refused. Superficial? It could hurt Municipal legal situation. The deciding factor for MunicipalHe is Municipal The negotiating position in other similar situations.

The municipality first uses its own position of power to order the Single Sister to keep the settlement a secret. Then they use their position of power to keep the settlement a secret from the rest of us. They use their position of power to protect their position of power. In front of its residents. And more specifically – towards people who have been so harmed by their upbringing that they may be entitled to compensation for their lost childhood.

Perhaps this is the appropriate place to remind that municipalities exist to provide services to their citizens? And that the list of compensation for lost childhood is very high in Norwegian courtrooms?

Because the power relationship here is very strange. It’s very strange. The municipality has its own lawyers, they have 100 percent healthy people who work, they have money, knowledge, positions and power. Individuals who have been so affected by terrible upbringing that they can claim compensation from the municipality, have neither. They’re not even unharmed.

Among all the unreasonable things that the municipality does, there is also a requirement that these people must be able to file their case within a certain period of time. Even if they are completely fed up with what they want to make a case about, they cannot stand firmly on their feet.

ugly

Why is the municipality appealing such a ruling? Why do they enter into such secret agreements?

Do they fear that there will be long, endless lines of people who are entitled to this compensation from Sandnes Municipality? i doubt it. But if this is indeed the case, it is up to the authorities (!) that the municipality contribute to shed light on everything. And because the municipality has so blatantly neglected itself that it is a national scandal and a system failure, all efforts must contribute to exposing and uprooting it.

no. Sandnes Municipality quite frankly believes that the most important thing in this matter is to protect its position of strength vis-à-vis the individual. They wrote it themselves, in their refusal to grant access to the confidential agreement.

It’s ugly, and it’s hardly ugly. Aside from being grossly immoral, power-hungry, and completely shameless.