Sunday, January 16

Woman in her 30s: Claims she became a victim of abuse at an abuse center

This message goes from an employee at an abuse center in Eastern Norway in June 2018.

The recipient is a woman in her 30s who is to be treated after years of trauma and abuse. According to her own records, she has been sexually exploited and “borrowed” in the environment she was previously part of.

Almost three years have passed since the relationship with the female employee at the abuse center.

That they initiated a sexual relationship is undisputed.

The woman in her 30s talking about dozens of intercourses. The employee herself has estimated that there were 10-15 intercourses, but that this only happened after she left as an employee.

The woman in her 30s tells of a turbulent on and off relationship, where she feels abused by a person who should actually help her. The employee was over ten years older than her.

The affair was reported and investigated by the police for possible abuse of power and sexual intercourse with a patient.

They had access to written documentation, and had the woman’s own knowledge of 10-15 intercourses, but the case was dropped.

How could that happen?

– I would prefer a rape in a dark alley, rather than this.

The words belong to the woman which is behind the review.

VG meets her at lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen’s office in Karl Johans gate in Oslo.

The woman in her 30s has long blonde hair in a tight ponytail. She has a background from the drug environment and has tried most drugs. She says that she has been drug-free for a long time.

The woman in her 30s believes the therapist has played with her feelings, and that she knew everything about her background, trauma and defense mechanisms.

She says she trusted her, precisely because she worked where she did.

She believes the employee at the abuse center has prevented her from getting the help she needed after the traumas she has had in her life.

A psychologist’s statement from March last year indicates that the woman’s symptoms and disease picture have significantly worsened as a result of what she has been through.

VG has presented the accusations in this case to the employee. She has had the accusations read out in this text and sent them in writing. In an e-mail to VG, she writes that she does not want to counter the accusations. She says she has finished the case after it was dropped.

The woman in her 30s also experiences failure of the actual abuse center where she received treatment.

On behalf of her client, Mette Yvonne Larsen has notified the center of legal action.

In a written response from this winter, the center’s lawyer argues that the prosecution has dropped the criminal case:

“It is therefore assumed that their former employee has not committed an assault on the woman in her 30s.”

– This is the level of competence at a center for victims of abuse. A former employee who admits to having had sexual intercourse with my client 10-15 times, and who due to weak police work has slipped away from prosecution. To state that there has been no abuse here is a new abuse against my client, says Larsen.

The head of the abuse center also does not want to comment on the case. They refer to the duty of confidentiality.

The relationship with the employee at the assault center started in the spring of 2018, according to both involved. At the same time, the woman in her 30s regularly went to a psychologist. There she told about the relationship.

The psychologist states in her medical records that she has felt an ethical dilemma ever since she learned this in the spring of 2018.

The woman in her 30s tells the psychologist about positive experiences, and that she experienced intimacy and sex with the woman as safe because the employee was familiar with the abuse problem, it says in the journal.

But on August 2, 2018, the woman in her 30s tells her psychologist that there has been an end between them, according to the journal.

The psychologist seeks advice at the professional council in the Psychologists’ Association and is told that the matter may be affected by the Penal Code.

At the same time, the psychologist is informed that she may risk being accused of violating the duty of confidentiality. The consideration for the patient should weigh heaviest. It can be more serious not to report, is the advice she receives.

The psychologist will report the case on 15 August 2018.

The woman in her 30s only gets furious when she hears that the psychologist has reported. She opposes. and the police get no help from her when they start an investigation. She also alerts the woman at the abuse center.

The woman who is reviewed, even goes to his boss on August 16 to tell his version of the relationship.

According to the manager of the center, the woman explains that she had fallen in love with a patient, and that it was mutual. The boss says in later interrogations that she only hears that they have kissed each other on the mouth and held each other.

Later in the evening this afternoon, 16 August, there is frequent contact by text message between the woman in her 30s and the employee.

The messages between the two are later secured by the police and form an important part of the police investigation.

Although the woman in her 30s is angry at the psychologist who has reported, she is also disappointed with the woman at the abuse center who has not told about their sexual relationship with her boss.

She expresses that the woman has given a make-up version of their relationship, and that the woman is trying to save herself.

The answer from the employee is as follows:

These messages from 16 August 2018 will be central when the police later enter the case. It will not happen until June 2019.

Then the woman in her 30s is ready to contribute to the police. Meanwhile, the woman at the abuse center has had to quit her job with immediate effect. Some employees had discovered messenger messages between her and the woman in her 30s that indicated sexual intercourse.

“My psychologist was right, but I did not want to believe it,” the woman in her 30s wrote in an e-mail to the police in the summer of 2019.

She now wants to contribute to the investigation. In questioning this summer, she tells the police about sexual intercourse, sexualized messages and approachable behavior at the abuse center. She says she felt naked with her eyes right from the start when she arrived at the center in the spring of 2018.

She gives away everything she has of messages and photos. The police make their own reports on the documentation.

The employee at the abuse center will be questioned in the case on 8 August 2019.

She admits kissing and squeezing at the center, and that the two have had sex 10-15 times. But the sexual intercourse had taken place after she left the center in October 2018. It had been an equal relationship, she tells the police.

The interrogator reads to her the message from August 2018, that she had told the management at the center everything – except that they had had sex.

The interrogation states that she can not answer why she wrote this.

– A lot has been lost, she says.

Autumn 2019 Police are questioning several of the woman’s colleagues at the abuse center. They interrogate her boss, they ensure all written documentation. Hundreds of messages between the women are stored and systematized.

The woman in her 30s describes that she experienced being taken care of, that someone took her seriously during this period.

Police are also questioning a former psychologist who has treated her; not the same as the reported relationship.

The psychologist talks about her background. She describes that what the woman is now telling the police is the worst thing that could have happened to her. Her weak psyche means that she does not understand when she is treated badly.

This psychologist also writes a report of concern to the county doctor regarding what she describes as worrying conditions at the current abuse center.

That message will be sent on January 4, 2020:

“NN had a notion that this was part of the treatment she needed to recover.”

The relationship thus worked retraumatizingly. In that sense, this was a classic abuse case, the psychologist writes.

The answer from the County Governor is that they do not follow up the report of concern because the abuse center is not a health and care service as the term is understood in the Health Supervision Act.

Barely three weeks later, the police have completed the investigation. It is placed on the position of the evidence by the public prosecutor.

December 2021: One and a half years after the suspension, the woman’s lawyers in their 30s have tried all formal ways to get the case resumed, but the complaints about the suspension have not been successful.

Her current lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen says it is a clear goal for them to get the case resumed.

– There is more than enough in this case that indicates that a criminal relationship has taken place, says Larsen.

The argument is: All documentation indicates that this therapist at the abuse center has had sexual intercourse with a user – and thus done something criminal. Sexualized messages between them are referred to as sufficient evidence that an abuse has taken place.

VG has submitted this whole case for head of department Anne Margrete Katteland at the Public Prosecutor in Vestfold, Telemark and Buskerud Public Prosecutor’s Offices.

She will not comment on individual cases or specific evidence assessments made by her public prosecutors.

“The public prosecutor has come to the conclusion that the police dismissal is correct. In order to prosecute, the prosecuting authority must be convinced of the suspect’s criminal guilt, and also be of the opinion that the criminal guilt can be proven in court. This applies to the subjective as well as the objective conditions for punishment “, Katteland writes in an e-mail.

She further points out that the suspension was requested to be overturned by the Attorney General in May 2020.

The case was then sent from the Attorney General to the Public Prosecutor for preparatory treatment, to look at it again if possible. This assessment was made by a different public prosecutor than the one who had originally maintained the suspension.

“The public prosecutor found no reason to recommend reversal of the decision and rejected the request for reversal on 8 September last year. The complainant was informed that the rejection decision could be appealed to the Attorney General. The rejection decision was not appealed “, writes official Katteland to VG.

She points out that the decision was sent directly to Mette Yvonne Larsen in Altin.

Larsen says to VG that she has never received this decision.

– If we had received the decision, it would have been appealed, although it is unlikely that the Attorney General would have reversed this decision. If I receive a copy of this letter, I will of course take it up with the Attorney General immediately, the lawyer tells VG.

– In any case, this decision does not change the fact that those who have investigated the case have overlooked the obvious criminal circumstances. The police put on written documentation that the employee at the abuse center “had said everything, except that they had had sex”, points out Mette Yvonne Larsen.

– What more should the prosecution have of documentation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *