The Supreme Court of Norway will not hear the appeal of two women seeking compensation after their babies were switched at birth in Herøy over 60 years ago. The two women have lost twice in court and appealed to the country's highest court. The Supreme Court's Appeals Committee unanimously found there was insufficient reason for the case to be brought before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the country's highest court and only handles cases that may have significance for others.
The baby switch in Herøy is one of very few similar cases in Europe. The two women want compensation and redress for human rights violations, for lost childhood and family life. In the 1980s, it was discovered what had happened, but instead of informing about it, health director Torbjørn Mork concluded it was best to move on. In secret, several families were mapped to find out which of the newborns at the maternity ward in Eggesbønes in Herøy could have been switched. Karen Rafteseth Dokken, a mother of three, found out four years ago that the girl she brought home from the maternity ward in 1965 was not hers.
In recent years, Karen Rafteseth Dokken has used all her savings on lawsuits to get the municipality and state to take responsibility for what happened. Last autumn, she lost the appeal case in Borgarting Court of Appeal. In the judgment from the Court of Appeal, the judges wrote that the switch has had significant and lifelong consequences for those involved, but concluded that the state is not responsible for what happened.
The Supreme Court has demanded adjustments in Norwegian child welfare practice to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and Norwegian law. The Supreme Court has emphasized that it is important that child welfare works actively to facilitate reunification. This has happened after the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has repeatedly convicted Norway for human rights violations.
In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court rules that foreigners with residence permits in Norway may still have the right to asylum. In a ruling from March 27, 2026, the court concluded that the Immigration Appeals Board had misinterpreted the law when rejecting the asylum application of an Eritrean woman and her child. The woman already had a residence permit in Norway through family reunification, but later applied for asylum citing risk of persecution in her home country. The Immigration Directorate and the Immigration Appeals Board rejected the applications without assessing her situation there. The Supreme Court concludes that this was wrong, and that the risk of persecution should always be assessed, regardless of whether the applicant has another residence permit.
In another case, a municipality in Møre og Romsdal must pay 100,000 kroner to a father after a years-long dispute. Already on the same day the baby was born, new parents were ready to take over, and the parents have fought to establish that the municipality intervened unlawfully. The Supreme Court now rules that the municipality did not do enough to ensure that the baby could return to the biological parents at a later time.
The two women who appealed in the baby-switch case are exempt from paying the Supreme Court's costs to clarify whether the case should be heard. The state had demanded they pay 55,000 kroner.