Norway's Sandnes municipality faces intense political scrutiny for refusing to compensate a man for childhood trauma, despite a court ruling it bears responsibility. The case centers on Herman Pettersen, 61, whom Gulating Court of Appeal found was unlawfully taken from his Romani parents by police in 1964 and later placed in an abusive adoptive home, causing severe PTSD.
A Court's Verdict and a Municipality's Defiance
In a December 2023 ruling, Gulating Court of Appeal concluded Sandnes municipality has a clear basis for compensation liability in what it described as a brutal case. The court established a direct causal link between the municipality's actions and the severe post-traumatic stress disorder Pettersen suffers from today. However, the court also determined his financial claim was time-barred under the statute of limitations. This technicality has become the focal point of a growing political dispute. Pettersen and his lawyer, Monica Bjøndal Andresen, argue the statute of limitations does not legally absolve the municipality from paying compensation. They point to the municipality's own recent policy statements that the statute of limitations alone should not be grounds to reject claims in child welfare cases.
Contradiction in Municipal Policy
The conflict intensified when Sandnes Mayor Kenny Rettore of the Conservative Party stated in a March 2024 council meeting that legal time-barring was not sufficient reason to deny compensation in child welfare matters. Following the court's verdict, Pettersen's camp notes the statute of limitations appears to be the sole reason for denial. Confronted with this contradiction, the municipal administration's response has sparked further criticism. On behalf of the municipal leadership, Birthe Holm, the professional lead for childhood services, stated, "The municipality has reviewed the Court of Appeal's ruling, including the assessment of the basis for liability. The municipality disagrees with the Court of Appeal's assessment that the municipality acted negligently." This statement, asserting the municipality's disagreement with a higher court's factual assessment, has drawn fire from opposition politicians.
Political Backlash and a Call for Debate
Ole Ronny Koldal, a council representative for the Red Party, sharply criticized the administration's stance. "When Sandnes municipality has decided that the statute of limitations should not be the only reason for rejection, it is completely wrong for the municipality to then invoke disagreement with a higher court instance. Why would we do that? What is the rationale for this? I am left with the feeling that the municipality is placing itself above the court," Koldal said. In response, Heidi Bjerga, group leader for the Socialist Left Party in Sandnes, has submitted a formal interpellation for the February council meeting to force a debate on the situation. She has directed specific questions to Mayor Rettore, asking if he agrees with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the statute of limitations decides the case, and that the court notes the municipality has a clear basis for liability.
The Legal and Ethical Impasse
The case presents a stark legal and ethical dilemma. The court has performed the dual function of establishing the municipality's factual responsibility for profound harm while simultaneously blocking the financial remedy due to a procedural deadline. This leaves Pettersen in a paradoxical position: legally right on the substance of the claim, but unable to receive compensation through the court system. The municipality's decision to hide behind the statute of limitations, after its political leadership downplayed its importance, is viewed by critics as a breach of moral duty. The administrative leadership's additional step—disputing the court's finding of negligence—is seen as an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority in a matter of historical injustice.
The Road Ahead
The political intervention ensures Pettersen's case will receive a full hearing before the elected council, moving it from an administrative decision to a matter of public policy and conscience. The debate will compel Mayor Rettore to reconcile his previous statement with the current administrative stance. For Herman Pettersen, the council meeting represents a final avenue for acknowledgment and justice, beyond the confined corridors of legal procedure. The decision Sandnes politicians make will resonate as a statement on how Norway's communities choose to address the darkest chapters of their own institutional history, long after the courts have had their final say.