[sdfqasdghj]

1. The two weeks at birth aren't legally full pay (most employers pay you anyway).

2. Yes if the mother doesn't qualify the father doesn't qualify. I think that there has been a court case that found that this is not legal. But the law has not yet been updated.

[allan-a]

I can confirm this. I'm an American living in Norway and I have had two children. My wife is also American, and we moved to Norway while she was pregnant with our first child. Because my wife had not been working we were not entitled to the normal benefits. Time has passed, and my wife got a job in her career field. We are now expecting a third, and because of covid-19 my wife has been unable to work the required minimum during her pregnancy. So we are looking at having a third child without the normal benefits! From the American perspective this is still great. We get "free" healthcare and a nice lump-sum grant, but I (the father) don't qualify for paternity leave and the lump sum grant is not huge in comparison. The grant is like 1/6th of the amount that most families get with their leave.

[black_knight]

You probably did this already, but make sure to double check that your wife really did not work enough under any possible requirements.

I know someone who had only substitute positions for shorter periods in the ten months before birth. But after several rounds of back and forth with NAV (even after birth), she got her benefits. She had to argue that staying at home would cause her to loose income (showed that she had to say no to some substitute work because of birth), and give them detailed lists of all hours she worked. Somehow it amounted to "enough".