Family Denied Truth After Woman’s Tragic Drowning

Kibet Bohr

Copenhagen Travel Writer and Blogger

January 26, 2026
10:36 pm

A 26-year-old woman with a brain injury drowned alone in a frozen lake at her residential facility in Denmark, but her family is being denied access to documents that could explain what went wrong. Authorities cite confidentiality laws, even though the family previously had legal guardianship, sparking criticism from legal experts who say the law creates a dangerous accountability gap.

Family Left Without Answers After Tragic Drowning

Isabell Jensen’s family is grappling with more than just grief. They are desperately seeking answers about what happened the night the 26-year-old drowned alone in a freezing lake near her residential facility, Østruplund in Otterup.

The family wants to know why authorities removed Isabell’s overnight supervision just 17 days before her death. They also want to understand why the alarms meant to alert staff if she left the facility failed to work that night.

Despite repeated requests, Frederikshavn Municipality and Region Southern Denmark have denied the family access to documents related to Isabell’s case. Both authorities point to confidentiality obligations under administrative law.

A Critical Gap in the Law

Under current Danish legislation, families can only access information about a relative’s death if it falls under healthcare law. This means if someone dies during treatment at a hospital or nursing home with medical staff, relatives can obtain information about what happened.

However, if a person with disabilities or special needs dies at a residential facility covered by social services law, the situation is different. In those cases, authorities can deny access citing confidentiality and respect for the deceased.

Oluf Jørgensen, a leading expert in media law and public access legislation, strongly criticizes this legal framework. He argues that when authorities deny access to close relatives, no one can hold the system accountable. This creates distrust and uncertainty about what actually happened and whether authorities fulfilled their responsibilities properly.

From Guardian to Stranger

For Johanne Berg, Isabell’s sister, the denial is especially difficult to comprehend. She served as Isabell’s legal guardian while she was alive, which gave her full access to all documentation related to her sister’s care.

But guardianship ends when a person dies. At that moment, all of Johanne Berg’s rights to information vanished.

Before her death, she could access everything in her sister’s case. Now she is told nothing. This legal paradox means that the very person most invested in protecting Isabell’s interests is suddenly cut off from information.

Surprisingly, Oluf Jørgensen has received multiple inquiries over the years from families facing similar rejections when seeking information about relatives who died at residential facilities across Denmark.

Questions Without Answers

Isabell Jensen had a congenital brain injury that left her mentally functioning as a child. According to her family, she exhibited self-harming behavior and had made several attempts to leave the facility.

The family’s questions keep mounting. Why didn’t the alarms work? Why didn’t authorities respond more effectively to Isabell’s behavior patterns? What steps did the residential facility take to prevent her from leaving alone at night?

Professor Eva Naur, an expert in social law, previously told TV 2 Fyn that the lack of additional staff to locate Isabell if she left the premises was incomprehensible and highly criticizable.

Pushing for Transparency and Accountability

Johanne Berg believes both Frederikshavn Municipality and Region Southern Denmark possess critical information about the circumstances leading to her sister’s death. Information that could establish responsibility and prevent similar tragedies.

For her, obtaining access to documents is not about explanations or justifications. It is about documentation showing exactly what happened. Without that, no one can learn from the mistakes that may have cost Isabell her life.

In fact, Oluf Jørgensen argues that when a citizen cannot protect themselves, or when they have died, they lose the ability to ensure their own rights. In many cases, it becomes essential for close relatives to gain access to information, he explains.

He believes Parliament should examine the legislation to create possibilities for relatives to access information about deceased family members in such situations.

Official Responses

Johanne Berg has now filed a complaint with the Danish Appeals Board over the repeated denials of access to information.

Meanwhile, Social and Housing Minister Sophie Hæstorp Andersen declined to comment when TV 2 Fyn presented the case and asked for an interview. The Ministry stated they had no comment to offer.

Frederikshavn Municipality responded in writing that they provide access to documents when possible, but there are limitations. The municipality explained that under administrative law, only parties to a case have the right to access documents. Surviving relatives, including former guardians, are not considered parties to a deceased person’s cases.

Allan Kjær Hansen, center director at Specialcenter Syddanmark (which operates Østruplund), also responded in writing. He stated that due to confidentiality obligations, he could not comment on the specific case or individual decisions made regarding the resident. He added that relevant authorities and agencies are notified of incidents, and any further explanations would occur through proper channels in close cooperation with involved authorities.

Fighting for Her Sister’s Rights

For Johanne Berg, the fight continues. Isabell can no longer complain or see where the system failed her. But access to documents could reveal those failures.

The family does not just want closure. They want accountability. They want to ensure that what happened to Isabell does not happen to anyone else. Without transparency, that becomes impossible.

As it stands, the legal framework protects institutional confidentiality more than it protects the rights of vulnerable citizens or their grieving families. Whether Parliament will address this gap remains to be seen.