Women Born in 1965 Claim Human Rights Violations Against Norwegian Government After Being Switched at Birth

In 1965, a woman from Norway welcomed a daughter in a private hospital. Seven days later, she returned home with a newborn.As the child grew dark, curly hair that made her appear different from the mother, Karen Rafteseth Dokken believed that the girl had inherited traits from her husband’s mother.

Nearly sixty years later, the real reason for the differences came to light. It was revealed that her biological daughter had been accidentally switched at birth in the maternity ward of a central Norwegian hospital.

The girl named Mona, raised by the woman, was not the child she had given birth to.

In their case at the Oslo District Court, the women claimed their human rights were violated after the authorities discovered the mix-up—when the girls were teenagers—and chose to conceal it.

They argued that officials had infringed upon their right to family life, a principle established in the European Convention on Human Rights, and have called for an apology and compensation.

Mrs. Rafteseth Dokken, now 78, was overcome with emotion as she recounted the moment she learned that she had been given the wrong baby all those years ago.

“It never crossed my mind that Mona was not my daughter,” she told the court. “She was named Mona after my mother.”

Mona, on the other hand, experienced a pervasive feeling of not belonging during her upbringing. This uncertainty led her to take a DNA test in 2021, which revealed that she was not the biological child of the couple who raised her.

The woman who raised the other baby, however, had known about the mix-up long before.

A routine blood test in 1981 showed that the girl in her care, Linda Karin Risvik Gotaas, was not biologically related to her.

Despite this revelation, the woman did not pursue a maternity case. Norwegian health authorities learned of the error in 1985 but failed to inform the other families involved.

Rights ‘violated’ by state – lawyer

Both women involved in the birth switch have stated in interviews that discovering the truth was a shock.

Nonetheless, they expressed that this revelation helped explain various aspects of their lives, clarifying the differences in both their appearances and personalities.

Kristine Aarre Hanes, representing Mona, stated that the state “violated her right to her own identity for all these years. They kept it secret.”

She could have uncovered the truth as a young adult, but instead, “she did not find out the truth until she was 57”.

“Her biological father has passed away. She has no contact with her biological mother,” added Ms. Aarre Haanes.

The circumstances surrounding the 1965 switch at Eggesbones hospital remain unclear; however, media reports indicate there were multiple instances during the 1950s and 1960s of children being accidentally swapped at the same facility.

At that time, babies were kept together while their mothers recuperated in separate rooms.

In other incidents, the errors were rectified before the children were permanently placed with the wrong families, according to the reports.

No plans for public inquiry – official

An official from the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services stated that the state was unaware of similar cases and that there are currently no plans for a public inquiry.

Asgeir Nygaard, representing the Norwegian state, is contesting the claims on the basis that the 1965 switch occurred in a private facility, and that the health directorate in the 1980s lacked the legal authority to inform the other families when it discovered the mistake.

“Documentation from that era suggests that government officials found the assessments challenging, partly because it was legally ambiguous what actions they could take,” Mr. Nygaard conveyed in a statement ahead of the case’s opening.

“Thus, in court, we will argue that there is no basis for compensation and that the claims being made are, in any case, barred by the statute of limitations.”

The hearing will continue until Thursday, but it remains unclear when a ruling will be reached.