Topic: Child Kidnappings by the Western-European States - page 6. (Read 72947 times)

This is retarded beyond belief. Why should the family stay in Norway? There is always a chance of the Barnevern returning and kidnapping Oscar once more. Murmansk can't be that bad after all. And even more worryingly, they are planning to take his 3-year old sister as well to Norway. If Barnevern again kidnaps these kids, then I'll be blaming the parents.

This is very good news indeed. It is a relief that Oscar is given his freedom from the CPS and foster care and can at long last go back to his family. – Deprived of his family for a milk tooth ...

I agree that staying on in Norway is not a safe thing for the family to do and taking Oscar's sister back here from Murmansk means an added danger. The way Norway has placed Oscar in a position where he must re-learn Russian is of course a clear sign that the child protective services do not value his bonds to his family, they never do and we knew that anyway. Whether it is under the circumstances the best for them to live in Norway after all, they must judge for themselves. It is easy for us to say "Go away!", it may not be easy for them. But certainly the CPS would more than likely love to get their hands on both children, and the family is on record with the CPS forever. So let us just hope.

In practical terms, at Oscar's age it will be no trouble getting fluent, native, in Russian again. Luckily.

 

oh. haha i never imagined this place to be like this. But i think there a point to this law. It a psyochological challenge for parents in this place. and maybe this process also helped a lot of young kids.

And some good (yet mixed) new relating to the case in the OP, with which I started this thread.

http://www.murmansk.kp.ru/daily/26412/3286247/

Little Oscar was returned to his family (and, conversely, the family was returned to Oscar). It happened around 28th of July this year, after the boy was hidden away in a "foster" family for 10 months.

But, the family decided to stay in Norway and will not be taking their child to Murmansk. The article above angles the case as follows: Barnevern graciously decided to return the child to his parents, despite what the court ruling (not to return) seemed to indicate. I really hope that the decision to stay will not prove to be a tragic one in the future...

What these 10 months of separation has done to the 6-year-old kid, is that he started to forget Russian language. The mother's sister said that during a Skype meeting the child had difficulty understanding her, and that the parents even had to translate for him at times. It seems that Oscar will be learning Russian anew together with his little sister. The aunt, with whom little girl was living during this time, says that the little girl remembers the day when her brother was taken away, how three women came, and how her mother was crying. The aunt considers taking the girl to Norway so that she'll reunite with her brother again. (I hope this will not lead to dire consequences for both!)

Turn to page 10 of the following report from Norwegian Statistics Agency and study diagrams 2.2 and 2.3. The numbers are based on 2009 data.
http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/rapp_201139/rapp_201139.pdf

These diagrams show the number of children under Barnevern "measures", divided by country of origin. Diagram 2.2 shows children, who were born outside of Norway, while diagram 2.3 shows children, who were born in Norway, but who have one or both foreign national parents.

The number in parenthesis is the total number of children from this or that county. While the bars represent the number of children per 1000.

  
This thread has perhaps exhausted its potential and can be allowed to recede naturally. But as a last batch of information from me, let me refer to the latest "development" in the Czech case of Eva Michaláková's children (it is mentioned here in this thread on p 4, and discussed extensively on pp 5–14). It is quite illustrative of the horrid situation in Norway for victims of the Child Welfare Services (the official name in English of our child protection establishment, our "child protection services" - the CPS). I take the opportunity of summarising a little of the general state of affairs as well.

This is the news:
The planned case either in the County Committee or a district court has taken place and there has just been a decision/judgment.

The decision is (of course) that her sons are not to be allowed to return to her or anybody else in their Czech family. They are to stay permanently with their fosterers in Norway and the younger boy is to be adopted by these Norwegian foster "parents". Eva Michaláková is deprived of what in Norwegian law is called "parental responsibility", which is a kind of euphemism for "parental rights", meaning that she is no longer their mother nor has she any connection at all with them in any legal sense.

*

The result of the case has been published widely in the Czech Republic and has reached some other countries, but (of course) been largely ignored by the established Norwegian press, which is very state subservient, as is the Norwegian people: full of self-satisfied trust in the supreme wisdom and competence and humane, civilised decency of their authorities.

Prague to send protest note to Oslo over Michalak case on Oct 7
České noviny, 6 October 2015

The Norwegian authorities have had the insolence to "inform" the public that Mrs Michaláková can freely talk/write publicly about the case without risking punishment. This is deliberately misleading. It is correct that she probably does not risk being prosecuted in a criminal court in Norway (although it depends quite a bit on what she publishes). But that is not the issue. She has been repeatedly criticised by the CPS for going public and that has been used against her all along, trying to make her believe that she would fare better in the courts and in the CPS's eyes if she kept quiet. Most of all they have criticised her for publishing pictures of herself together with her sons. In Norwegian ideology, it is so terrible for children that their pictures are published, and this is certainly used against her by the CPS, the County Committee and the courts. When that is used as an argument why the sons "cannot" return to their mother, the Norwegian authorities still hold that it is not "punishment".

A further point should be clearly understood about making the world know about one's CPS case: the argument that this "proves" that one is inconsiderate to the children and therefore not a suitbale parent, is not real. None of the usual arguments of the CPS are real, except those relating to cases of factual, proven maltreatment. In all the psycho-babble cases (and they are the majority), the CPS simply uses against parents anything they think the courts will believe is a valid and serious enough "defect". Usually a claim that such-and-such "failure" on the part of a parent is seriously bad for a child is backed up by scientific-sounding psycho-babble. In Eva Michaláková's case, if she had not tried to find help by making her case public in the Czech community, the CPS would have used, even invented, something else to lay at her door. Eva Michaláková would not have got her children back any more than she now has, if she had shut up completely. – Generally, the CPS has managed to make our jurists (judges and lawyers) believe in the mumbo-jumbo about the harmfulness of all publicity about child protection cases, therefore the CPS delights in being able to use that argument in court. Nevertheless, they have other ammunition (they always do, regardless of how innocent and ordinary parents are), and they would really prefer CPS cases to be entirely anonymous, that is: to scare every parent away from publicising the case. If nobody at all knows any facts that the family can tell about the realities of their family life (most families can show, even prove, that a lot of what the CPS claims, is untrue), then the CPS would then have a completely free run with the parents and can stigmatise them completely. That is why the CPS and our authorities generally are working hard pushing for legislation which will more or less muzzle critics (the affected families and anybody else) of concrete CPS cases. They have become alarmed at the number of families who make use of the internet for telling the public about the treatment they have received at the hands of the CPS, accordingly they have had quite a bunch of jurists working for some time on legislation to restrict the freedom of speech; it will apparently no longer be permissible to publish concrete facts and names of people involved in CPS cases just in order to create "an opinion" in the population. Only publishings which are deemed to be "journalistic" will be permitted to give concrete details. The state's legal experts have discussed at length how to muzzle the population and hope to worm through without this restriction they have come up with being set aside by Article 10 (free speech) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

*

The Norwegian authorities have also apparently "informed" the outraged Czech public and authorities that Mrs Michaláková can appeal the case to a higher court. Ah, but the present decision claims that her sons have been away for so long that they are now "attached" to their foster "parents" (the official public ideology of psycho-babble) and therefore it would be so terrible for them to be "torn away" from these fosterers. What of the time when they were torn away from their parents? Nothing is ever said about the trauma such an action by the CPS exposes children to. The CPS and the courts always try to prolong endlessly the time they keep children in CPS hands, the cases drag on endlessly, until just such a preposterous claim as the present one is made. So what are Mrs Michaláková's chances in an appeal case, when even more months and years have passed?

Some Norwegian authorities have apparently also made the Czechs believe that children would not or could not be adopted away if either a parent or relatives of the parents wanted them. The Czechs have believed this and are furious. – This will hopefully teach the Czechs not to believe anything the Norwegian authorities say about child protection matters or the excellent safeguards of the courts. Lies are extremely frequent in this field and the courts support the CPS "expert" decisions almost mechanically. All victims of the Norwegian or other Western nations' CPS know it too, but it is extremely difficult to make foreign nations believe that the authorities of "civilised welfare states" of the West lie their face.

*

The Czech authorities have reacted very properly and quite strongly. They have had very serious meetings on government level, have sent a protest note, as the above article says, and there was actually also a suggestion of expelling the Norwegian ambassador. This last suggestion fell because it was felt that a total diplomatic break between the Czech Republic and Norway would prevent any further dialogue (cf the article in České noviny). – In the idea of dialogue the Czechs are too optimistic. Norway will not have any real dialogue about the case regardless, dialogue which might lead to Norway letting go of these children, because it would be a powerful precedent leading to a deluge of other parents and children demanding to be reunited.

All Norway will do, is to "inform" the Czechs endlessly about the perfect Norwegian system of child protection and the excellence of our courts, just the way Norwegian embassies in other countries do when Norway has confiscated children of their nations. One would hope that this case will teach the Czechs not to believe in the soft soap Norway always spreads through its embassies around the world. Official Norway and most of the Norwegian population are ridden by ideology, and any common sense about children and family is out the window long ago.

There is nothing to hope for, neither in "dialogue" nor in the legal process in Norway. The only possibility is continued and unstinted effort to condemn and make public everything about these cases and the ideology behind them, and even that effort will only work in the long run and, in individual cases, only accidentally. It may also make some people in Norway wake up a little if countries whose citizens are affected manage to boycott Norway in some way which affects Norwegian economy or pride. In the Indian case (next paragraph, and discussed back on p 4 of this thread), there was a demonstration in Calcutta of about 6,000 people and a movement to avoid the Norwegian company Telenor for phone services. Indians are now sending letters of support to the Czech embassy in New Delhi and of criticism to the Norwegian embassy there. The Czech Republic has withdrawn an official invitation (see below). All such actions are useful.

When it comes to "disciplining" devastated parents – and foreign nations trying to help them, Norway holds the children as hostages and the state has given the CPS full powers to do whatever they choose. They do not respond to arguments from foreign nations, nor to pressure. Even the pressing concern, on prime ministerial level, from India could not make the Norwegian government just decide to set aside the crazy decisions of the leader of Stavanger CPS in the well-known Bhattacharya case. At long last Norway let the children go, but only to their father's brother, and only after succeeding in putting the father and mother at loggerheads. It took much effort and very energetic helpers, e.g. the local child protection unit back in Calcutta, before the children were finally returned to their mother Sagarika. On hearing the news of this, the Stavanger CPS leader said that he would never again allow confiscated children out of Norway. He and the Norwegian official children's ombudsman at the time also gave newspaper interviews where they asked the Norwegian government department for child affairs to help local CPS offices in trouble with the press and foreign nations, because the poor CPS workers could not handle diplomatic troubles. The Norwegian government responded positively to this: They will step in and protect CPS agencies and more or less take over the handling of foreign states.

In a case concerning Turkish children, a Norwegian municipality (Stavanger again, but that is fairly accidental) apparently paid out half a million crowns (≈ EUR 50-60,000) to an agent who kidnapped the children back again from Turkey, where a court case running had commanded Norway to bring them out (the foster parents, helped by the Norwegian CPS and god knows who else, held them secretly). The Norwegian foster "father" in the case had already been accused of sex abuse of two foster girls previously in the household and has later been found guilty of sex abuse (cf The iron hand that rocks the cradle).

In a case concerning a Polish girl, the local Norwegian CPS, backed by the authorities, actually went to court in Poland to attempt to have the girl extradited back to Norwegian CPS care, in spite of everything the girl hefself wanted! Cf
Judgment in Poland: a nine-year-old girl NOT to be extradited to Norway

*

A very appropriate reaction in Prague to the present case has been to withdraw the invitation to the Norwegian ambassador to be present at a solemn celebration on 28 October, which was the day the independent state of Czechoslovakia was created in 1918.

Norwegian Ambassador Not Welcomed at Czech Presidential Seat
New York Times, 8 October 2015

This, then, is what finally draws a little bit of interest in a couple of fairly limp Norwegian newspaper articles, not the destruction of a Czech family and the literal abduction of two children from their family, but the diplomatic-political standing of our ambassador in Prague:
Comment on articles in VG and Dagbladet

The press representative at the Norwegian Foreign Department says that they see no reason why decisions in child protection cases should affect our bilateral relationship to the Czech Republic! No, I am sure they don't. This too exposes more than clearly the Norwegian ideology about the needs of children.

*

It is also to be hoped that this will teach the Czechs not to let Norway give them "developmental aid" in the form of sending CPS people down to "teach the Czechs" how to protect children. But their social services have something brewing already. A speech in Prague (on the occasion of the demonstration against Norwegian child protection on 30 May of this year) by the very perceptive Vaclav Klaus Jr. brings out this point, and also puts the Norwegian CPS misery in international perspective:

Václav Klaus Jr. - education expert speaks against stealing children by governement
NorskoKradeDěti NorwayStealsChildren, 1 June 2015

(There are several other videos about the Czech case that can accessed by clicking into the poster's name NorskoKradeDěti NorwayStealsChildren.)

  
  

  
Norway has a reputation of being humane and generous to refugees and asylum seekers. Well, here is an article about the way the administration of asylum applicants force out of the country - or try to force out - rejected applicants by cutting off money for living expenses. Fair enough, one might say - why don't they comply and quit Norway? Well, these are mothers whose children have already been taken into child protection care, and Norway refuses to let the children leave with their mothers. Instead, the children are candidates for adoption here. The article takes up the way the Directorate of Immigration takes no account of the totally inhumane way this separates mother and child – forever.

--------------------------------------
    


27 September 2015


Bjorn Bjoro:
A system that wears people down
– UDI director Frode Forfang should not only look at the Child Welfare Services.
He should examine his own system as well.


********

Bjorn Bjoro (Bjørn Bjøro) is a consultant, previously in the employ of the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (CWS).

A previous version of this article was published in Norwegian, with the title "Et system som stresser" (A system which creates stress) in the newspaper Vårt Land on 13th June 2015 and on the website Verdidebatt.no on the same day. It appeared in the context of a debate regarding the treatment in Norway of some mothers and children from other countries who apply for asylum.
   This English version of the article is published here with the kind consent of the author.

   The head of the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, Mr Frode Forfang, has not responded to the article from June (cf the last paragraph below), nor has anything in the workings of the system been changed.

*

Some institutional names and abbreviations are well-known in Norwegian society but need a brief explanation for foreign readers:
   The Child Welfare Services (CWS) is the official English title of the Norwegian government service handling child protection (Wikipedia: Child Welfare Services (Norway)). The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) is organised under the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. UNE is the Immigration Appeals Board.
(Official websites: The Ministry of Justice and Public Security, UDI, Appealing a decision).

********



In an article in the newspaper Vårt Land on 3 June 2015, the director of the UDI Frode Forfang recommends that the municipalities be relieved of their responsibility for asylum seekers, this to be transferred to the state. This is sensible but it is not enough.

It will take away the power which the municipalities make use of today in order to stop inquiry into the care possibilities in the extended family in the countries from which the asylum seekers come. The backdrop lies in a diplomatic crisis with, among other countries, Nigeria, which refuses to issue travel documents when the UDI and UNE want to expel from Norway mothers who still have parental responsibility for, and visitation rights to, children who are under the care of the CWS in Norway. UNE admits that this will cut off nearly all contact with the children, who are culturally whitewashed in Norwegian foster homes. The children are prepared for later forced adoption.

In addition, the UDI and its director Mr Forfang take care to reduce the possibility these mothers have of caring for their children here, in that the mothers are only to have money for food, the amount set right down to the level of NOK 1,590 per month. They are not to buy clothes. They are not allowed money to call a lawyer or helpers to support them. They are not allowed money for travel to meet their lawyer. The UDI director knows this, because the organisation African Cultural Awareness (ACA) sent a letter to the Minister of Justice Mr Anders Anundsen, who had the UDI furnish an answer.


Incorrect

The UDI gave the Minister of Justice incorrect information but knew better, when UDI denied that the Norwegian authorities in affairs concerning foreigners in Norway have tried, through passing decisions, to prevent the mothers from following their case against the CWS and later through the court system. In a new letter to the Minister of Justice, the ACA has documented the concrete attempts of our authorities to do so.

The attacks by the UDI/UNE on mothers with scant resources are in violation of established human rights. The mothers do not have the means of having the decisions of UNE corrected by bringing their case before the courts. Having gone through the case documents in some large scale cases, I hold that particularly the committee heads of UNE exploit the fact that a mother facing Norwegian prices with as little as NOK 1,590 a month is not able to pay a lawyer to take the case to court. Free legal aid does not exist in these cases.

In one of the cases I have, after going through the total set of documents in the case, written a 43 pages long summary and analysis for the use of the mother's lawyer and others.

The short version is that a good mother was being systematically stressed by the UDI/UNE. They also continued, in spite of a written warning about the consequences. They therefore managed to produce a child protection case. The Child Welfare Services (CWS) did not use a cultural bridge-builder, who would have been able to explain and lessen the conflict. Nor did the CWS confront the UDI/UNE when these latter agencies caused damage. After some time the CWS took the child into care by force, with the use of police and transport by car and ferry of the mother to a psychiatric hospital. The hospital, however, found no reason to keep her there.


Visitation mother - child

Since the mother was helped by the organisation African Cultural Awareness (ACA), involving cultural bridge-building, the mother's visits with her daughter have been very positive. The CWS admit this. But the CWS offend against the law of child protection as well as the Public Administration Act by refusing to obtain information about the conditons in the mother's family in Nigeria. When she left, their circumstances were extremely difficult and seemed hopeless. But during the several years that have followed, her family back home has actually managed to improve their lot and now have a dependable and good life. A brother of the mother lives there and has a family, room in his heart and room in his large, new house. He wants to include mother and daughter in his own family, and see to it that the daughter is educated in a private school.

In accordance with the mother's wishes, and supported by her lawyer, ACA and myself, the police contacted the CWS. They totally refused any inquiry whatsoever. Earlier, the CWS had refused to check anything when another brother of the mother who now lives in Canada contacted them and offered to take over custody. This brother has a house and a full family, is a religious minister and a social worker, and has a good and stable income. The conduct of the CWS is appealed to the County Governor (Fylkesmannen), and there will be an investigation against the CWS.


Creating stress

The contribution of the UDI/UNE has been to demand that the mother should be sent out of the country, that she is not to take part in the ongoing process and that she is to be stressed and worn down as before by receiving money only for food.

UDI director Frode Forfang should not only direct his attention to the Child Welfare Services. He should examine his own system as well. Will you, Mr Forfang, as an immediate measure see to it that these mothers are granted the same possibilities that other asylum seekers have, or will you continue to inflict pain on them?


  
  

  
English version of the article which was given above in French:



15 September 2015


Child protection and the emperor's new clothes

By Erik Rolfsen
lawyer


***
The original of this article was published in Norwegian in the newspaper Tidens Krav in Kristiansund on 27 July 2015, and in French (here and here) on 4 August 2015. It is published here in English by the kind consent of the author.
Translation: Marianne Haslev Skånland
***

Barnevernet, the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (CWS)*, perform an important task and often carry it out well.

But the CWS also make mistakes. These mistakes often have enormous consequences for the lives of those affected, parents and children alike. It is therefore reason for concern that the system that is supposed to prevent such mistakes and guard the interests of the private parties is very expensive and at the same time ill suited to put right whatever Barnevernet (the CWS) might have done wrong.

When the authorities take a family's children into care, certain measures of legal protection are to become operative: the parents have the right to a lawyer, paid by the state, and a right to have the case tried before the courts. In the course of the process an expert psychologist is appointed who familiarizes himself** with the case and writes a report. As a result we have court cases – often running for three days – involving: 3-4 lawyers, two CWS employees, an expert psychologist, a judge who is a jurist, and 2-4 lay judges, often from child professions, all paid by the state. The judgment is frequently appealed, whereupon a similar bunch of people get together for a new round, again paid by the state.

If only this spending of money guaranteed security under the law for children and parents! That is not the way the system works today. There are particularly two obstacles to proper functioning of the system:

•   The expression 'the best interest of the child' has no content;

•   The professional experts are engaged and paid by one of the parties: the CWS (Barnevernet).

What we are witnessing here are the new clothes of the emperor: beautiful and expensive materials (read: expressions and processes) viewed from outside and quite irreproachable. In reality, it is hot air and playing to the gallery.

It sounds so fine, so right, to say 'in the best interest of the child'. The problem is that although 'in the child's best interest' indeed has the status of legal term and is found in the text of the law (the Child Welfare Act § 4-1), its content is undefined. There are no measurable, objective criteria. In addition, we should ask ourselves who is competent to decide what is the best for a child in a given situation.

In many cases of parents with serious addiction problems, serious psychiatric diagnoses or violent behaviour, it is not problematic to decide that a taking into care is in the best interest of the child. But the same concept is also used in cases where no such problems exist. Children are deprived of their biological parent (usually the mother) who is not a drug addict, a patient or a violent person, because the CWS hold that it will be best for the child.

If the mother resists transfer of care, the CWS engage an expert, usually a psychologist, who is to examine the case and come up with a report recommending some action. The expert is selected, engaged and paid by the CWS. The CWS instruct the psychologist about the case, decide what the mandate for his investigation is to be, and send him their case documents (often several hundred pages). As part of his work, he has 2-3 meetings with the mother and arranges one or two observations of mother and child together. Then comes the report, which practically always supports the opinion which the CWS held from the start.

When the case is heard by the County Committee (a court-like authority specially mandated to give decisions in child protection cases), the report is decisive for the outcome. No wonder, since how would a committee, headed by a legal professional, be able to run over an expert in the field of something as indeterminate as 'the best interest of the child'?

The mother's witnesses are usually her friends, her siblings and parents, maybe a public health nurse, who say she is a good mother. The CWS have their own witnesses, in addition to their own employees and an expert with 5-7 years of university education behind him and several years of experience. The mother doesn't stand a chance, and nobody questions the fact of the expert being engaged and paid by the CWS. The remuneration from such work tends to make up the larger part or at least a considerable part of the expert's income. The expert knows that the mother will never commission any report in future – the municipality (the CWS) commissions around 5-10 such reports a year.

Tragicomically, if the case is appealed to the district court, the same performance is repeated. The district judge will give decisive weight to the same report and the testimony of the same expert. So the outcome is the same.

Hundreds of millions of crowns are spent on experts, lawyers, committees and court processes, at the same time that a whacking part of the CWS resources is spent on preparing and taking part in committee and court procedures, without all this increasing to any degree the the parents' protection under a rule of law.

Something like an industry has developed, called 'child protection cases'.

That is probably the reason why nobody cries out: The emperor is naked!


--

*  The Child Welfare Services (CWS) is the official English title of the Norwegian government service handling child protection
(cf Wikipedia: Child Welfare Services (Norway))

**  or 'herself', the psychologist being quite as often a woman.

  

  

Two items from India:

*

Nandita Chaudhary and Jaan Valsiner:
Cultural sensibilities matter in parenting
The Hindu, 21 August 2015

I have commented a bit on the article itself and about the newspaper The Hindu here.

*

Suranya Aiyar:
Save your child from UNICEF
A study of Unicef's biased and false claims about Indian parents
August 2015

Part I:  Introduction
Part II:  Basic Statistical Errors
Part III:  Physical Abuse: Bias, Exaggeration and Rigged Statistics
Part IV:  Sexual Abuse: Bias, Distortion and Rigged Statistics
Part V:  Bias and Lies on Emotional Abuse and Girl Child Neglect
Part VI:  Misleading Parents and Manipulating Children
Part VII:  Conclusion


This is a revealing analysis, well worth reading. It is some 50 pages long, but not terribly compact and the font size is large, and parts can be read on their own. It starts off going into some details in a survey which Unicef has conducted in India, and which Aiyar criticises the statistics of heavily (in terms quite easily understandable to non-statisticians). Then the paper puts the survey and its planned use in India into the international / Western perspective of "child protection".

The paper's author Suranya Aiyar gives a short 'autobiography' on the page following the title page. For those who are not familiar with her name I can add that she is very active and vocal on Indian social and cultural issues. From a Norwegian point of view: She was the one to take the clearest and strongest action in the Bhattacharya case, so that the mother Sagarika Chakraborti after a while got the children back in India. Cf

Suranya Aiyar:
Understanding and Responding to Child Confiscation by Social Service Agencies
9 May 2012
http://www.pravasitoday.com/understanding-and-responding-to-child-confiscation-by-social-service-agencies

Petition to the Indian National Human Rights Commission: Indians want their government to guard against western CPS
16 October 2012
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=7106
(first and second entry in the thread – down at the end of the first are 3 links, to the petition itself + to press announcement and appended material)

Signatories to the Petition to the Indian National Human Rights Commission:
The Confiscation of the Bhattacharya Children by Norwegian Authorities - A Case Study
12 October 2012
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=7763

*

  

  
The article Nemo1024 refers to above was originally published in The New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, and some other places. The newspapers seem to have taken it away, but it can be found elsewhere.

Norway Accused of Unfairly Taking Away Immigrant Children
Business Insider UK, 26 August 2015

Norway Accused of Unfairly Taking Away Immigrant Children
Yahoo News, 26 August 2015

The article stems from Associated Press, apparently written by someone working for them in Stavanger (on the south-west coast of Norway).

The link to the Yahoo posting is very welcome. The Yahoo posting has the advantage of having a lot of comments, valuable to read some of them. Many repeat the official version and have their own suggested explanations, very few have any insight, very many focus only on 'cultural differences' and that you should fit in when you are a visitor in another country, but the article's own focus is responsible for that line of reasoning.

Anyway, in spite of this: I seem to sense an increased attention to questions of child protection in several places, and more people are voicing informed objections to what is going on.

  

http://news.yahoo.com/norway-accused-unfairly-taking-away-immigrant-children-073550920.html

State Lets Police Take Teenagers Away From Parents If They Are Left Home Alone
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/04/state-lets-police-take-teenagers/

  

Here is a recent article by a Norwegian lawyer who challenges a couple of the central mumbo-jumbo phrases in child protection. This article is in French, it links to the original in Norwegian. (Unfortunately no English translation so far, but it may come.)

*

4 août 2015


L’ASE (Barnevernet) et les nouveaux habits de l’empereur

Par Erik Rolfsen, avocat



***
Cet article a été publié en norvègien dans le journal Tidens Krav à Kristiansund le 27 juillet 2015. L'article est publié içi en français avec l'accord de l'auteur.
***


Barnevernet (en français : l’Aide Sociale à l’Enfance – ASE) fait un travail important et le fait souvent bien.

Mais Barnevernet fait aussi des erreurs. Ces erreurs ont d'énormes conséquences pour la vie de ceux qui sont impliqués: les deux parents et les enfants.

Pour éviter de telles erreurs et protéger les intérêts des parties privées, le système est non seulement très coûteux mais aussi peu approprié quand il s’agit de corriger Barnevernet lorsqu’une erreur est faite. Ceci est donc source de grande préoccupation.

Afin d’assurer une protection juridique à ceux qui sont touchés alors que Barnevernet retire la garde d’un enfant à ses parents, les parents ont droit à une assistance juridique (avocat payé par l’état) et à l’évaluation, par le tribunal, de la décision du retrait de l’enfant.

Au cours de ce processus, un expert psychologue va établir un rapport. Ainsi, des essais d’environ 3 jours sont mis en œuvre et financés par le ministère public, faisant intervenir les acteurs suivants: 3-4 avocats, deux membres du personnel de Barnevernet, un expert psychologue, un juge juridique et 2-4 autres juges.

S’il est fait appel du verdict, tous se rassemblent une nouvelle fois et ce, encore aux frais de l’état.

Si jamais les dépenses engagées ont conduit à une meilleure protection juridique pour les enfants et leurs parents, ce n’est pas le cas aujourd'hui.

Il y a deux facteurs particuliers qui font que le système ne fonctionne pas:

• Le terme «meilleur intérêt de l'enfant» est vide de sens
• Les experts sont embauchés et payés par l'une des parties, Barnevernet.

Ici, nous parlons des nouveaux habits de l'empereur: Beaux et coûteux tissus (lire les termes et le processus) vus de l’extérieur et irréprochables. En réalité, il n’y a que du vent et du spectacle.

Le terme «le meilleur intérêt de l'enfant» semble si juste et si bienveillant. Le problème est que, malgré le fait que «le meilleur intérêt de l'enfant» est un terme juridique et est utilisé dans le texte de la loi (Barnevernloven § 4-1), il a une teneur indéterminée. Il n'y a pas de critères objectifs et mesurables. En outre, on doit se demander qui est la personne la plus compétente pour évaluer «le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant» dans une situation donnée.

Dans les nombreux cas où les parents sont sujets à une toxicomanie grave, ont des diagnostics psychiatriques lourds ou font preuve de violence, il n’est pas difficile de justifier que «le meilleur intérêt de l'enfant» est que Barnevernet prenne soin de l’enfant.

Mais le terme est également utilisé dans les cas où ces conditions sont absentes. Les enfants sont retirés à leur parent biologique (le plus souvent la mère) même si elle ne fait pas usage de drogue, n’est pas une malade mentale ou qu’elle ne manifeste aucun comportement violent parce Barnevernet est d'avis que ce serait dans « le meilleur intérêt de l'enfant ».

Si la mère s’oppose au retrait de son enfant, Barnevernet engage un expert, généralement un psychologue, qui fera une enquête et émettra sa recommandation dans un rapport. L’expert est choisi, engagé et payé par Barnevernet. C’est Barnevernet qui introduit le psychologue en la matière, détermine le mandat de l'enquête et soumet ses documents (souvent plusieurs centaines de pages). Plus tard, l’expert rencontre la mère à 2 ou 3 reprises et observe la mère et l'enfant réunis 1ou 2 fois. Puis vient le rapport qui, presque systématiquement, soutient fermement la vision originale de Barnevernet.

Lorsque l'affaire est portée devant le « Fylkesnemda » (Tribunal spécial), le rapport est essentiel pour le résultat. Pas étonnant. Comment un tribunal, dirigé par un avocat, peut-il contredire un expert dans le domaine lorsqu’il s’agit de quelque chose d'aussi indéterminée que l'expression «le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant»?

Devant le tribunal, la mère présente ses témoins qui sont souvent des camarades, des frères ou sœurs ou ses parents, et peut-être une infirmière qui disent qu'elle est une bonne mère. Barnevernet a, en plus de ses propres employés, un spécialiste faisant preuve d’une ancienneté de 5 à 7 ans dans l'éducation.

La mère est abattue, et personne ne remet en question le fait que l'expert soit engagé et payé par Barnevernet.

L'expert sait que la mère ne va jamais commander un rapport à l'avenir pendant que Barnevernet d’une petite ville achète 5-10 de ces rapports par an.

Le tragi-comique est que, si le verdict est contesté en appel à la Cour de district, la même situation se répète. Le juge de la Cour de district donnera un poids décisif à ce même rapport et au témoignage de ce même expert. Le résultat est donc identique.

Des centaines de millions de couronnes sont déboursées pour les experts, avocats et juges alors qu'une grande partie des ressources de Barnevernet est utilisée pour mettre en œuvre des essais sans que l’on ait une protection juridique satisfaisante des enfants et de leurs parents contre les abus de la Barnevernet.

Ainsi s’est développée une industrie particulière, très profitable, appelée la Protection d'enfants.

Voilà sans doute pourquoi personne ne crie: L'empereur est nu!


*

Erik Rolfsen, avocat
Advokathuset Kristiansund, http://www.advokathuset-kristiansund.no
Tel : + 47 992 98 999, [email protected]

* * * * *

  

I see. So that is what the Norwegian authorities say? Hmm, seeing is believing, so please keep us updated.

Here is a quite interesting article – really about the contrast between what the CPS say and what they do, and the lazy way the county committees (fylkesnevndene) accept this. And actually the courts are not much better:

•••••

Deficient rule of law in child protection cases in Norway

By Bjorn Bjoro


                                     – With present day practice,
                                      the CWS can get away with
                                      not acting in the
                                      best interest of the child.


•••••
Bjorn Bjoro (Bjørn Bjøro) is a consultant, previously in the employ of the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (CWS)*.
   This article was first published in Norwegian, with the title Mangelfull rettssikkerhet in the newspaper Vårt Land on 16th July 2015 and on the website Verdidebatt.no on the same day.
   The English version is published here with the kind consent of the author.
•••••


"The counties break the law" was the telling title of an article in the newspaper Vårt Land on 30 June, in the paper's coverage of the report from Riksrevisjonen (Office of the Auditor General of Norway) about the county committees which handle decisions involving compulsory measures and force in child protection cases. The National Audit Office's report, however, by and large limits itself to considering the long time it takes before the cases are processed, cf The county social welfare boards take too long to process child welfare cases.

The Audit Office, then, only takes up a limited part of the activities of the county committees (fylkesnemndene, called "the county social welfare boards" in the above article). Even so, the report shows that "the ministry does not ask for information which can reveal whether the quality of case handling in the county committees is satisfactory and creates trust, in the way required by the Child Welfare Act"(my translation)**. Certainly a serious matter, given that the Child Welfare Act §7-3 states explicitly that the case procedures of the county committees must be satisfactory and quick and must create confidence.

Oxford Research has recently carried out an analysis of part of the operation of the county committees. In an appendix to the report, informant reports by 12 parents relate their meetings with the county committees. The reports of how these parents have experienced the "rule of law" in actual practice in the county committees are not edifying reading. And they do not create confidence.

Regrettably, the scene presented agrees with my own experiences after having worked for 10 years in the Child Welfare Services (CWS) and later having acted as advisor in some child protection cases.

A lot of good work is carried out in the CWS but unfortunately too much of what is done is characterised by sundry opinions held by sosial workers and by weak professional competence. When the Child Welfare Services think they have a basis for considering taking over custody – and often before this stage – it is usual for the CWS to omit, systematically, positive aspects from their documents, thereby distorting reality by including as much as possible of whatever is negative.

In this way an incomplete and systematically skewed evidential picture is built up. The county committee is presented with this lopsided written material. Formally a county committee is a public body resembling a court. But usually there is no scrutinising of the evidence presented to find the truth behind what amounts to systematic manipulation. On the whole, the presentation of purported evidence is enough. The county committees therefore fall down fundamentally in guarding any rule of law. The seeming guardianship of due process is actually just formal, almost without any reality.

This is exacerbated by the practice of the CWS of engaging psychologists to write expert reports, psychologists whose relationship to the CWS becomes one of economic dependency. Many of them distort reality in the way they believe the buyer – the CWS – wants it to be for presentation in the county committee.

The contribution of a county committee is that of very rarely, and only to a superficial degree, engaging in depth in exposing the systematic manipulations and distortions. Anything like that is, by the way, a comprehensive and resource-demanding process. When considering whether to take a particular case to the county committee, the CWS often look to whether a decision in their favour in this case can increase the likelihood of their getting away with other pending cases too. When they are not given any necessary correction by the county committee, a result is that they do not mend their ways in other cases, but instead continue, on the basis of their experience.

With present day practice, the CWS can get away with not acting in the best interest of the child. The Child Welfare Services also get away with it when they choose not to use linkworkers and cultural bridge builders and do not reduce conflicts to achieve real and positive cooperation in the best interest of mother and children alike. Instead, the CWS choose, to a far too great extent, to plan for a breaking off of the biological bond between mother and child, and they are supported in taking over custody in the county committees.

Recently, 151 professionals have sent a letter of alarm about the Child Welfare Services to Solveig Horne, the Minister of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion. There is good reason for their alarm. A ray of light is that the Minister has taken the criticism seriously and there will be an effort to examine many aspects of the child protection system, including the question of rule of law.


– –


*  The official English title of the Norwegian government service handling child protection is the Child Welfare Services (CWS)
(cf Wikipedia: Child Welfare Services (Norway))

**  The Child Welfare Act is the law covering child protection.


  

According to Oscar's grandmother, who gave an interview to local Pskov newspaper, Norway may return Oscar (now 6, 5 when he was kidnapped by Norway) to his family (and at the same time, return the family to Oscar) towards the end of this months.

http://informpskov.ru/news/182162.html

I read somewhere that between 25% and 33% of all the children living in Norway will be abducted by the Barnevernet at some point of time before their 18th birthday. I have no sympathies with the Norwegian parents, as they are the ones who created this monster. But regarding children and parents with foreign citizenship, I believe that these countries should nuke Norway to shit, in order to stop this perversity.

I dont think so. 10% of Swedes these days are muslims already (99% of those first generation immigrants or their children, native converts are rare). Just last year country recieved another 90 000 "refugees" (1% of its population), primarily from muslim countries.

To me it seems rather like deluded marxists realizing their utopic dreams in death throes. In couple of decades, all those social engineers and feminists will be dead. Sharia law is build around the very family/clan structure, that marxists are hellbent on destruction, therefore conflict is inevitable. The fact, that Northerners brought this cultural double death upon themselves is just icing on the cake.

Norway has a peculiar child protection (barnevernet) system. At a most insignificant suspicion that a child has bee mistreated by its parents, the child will be taken by the sate from its parents and relocated to an undisclosed foster family. *The parents will then be presumed guilty until they prove that they are innocent, a process that can take up to several years. It does not matter if both parents and the child are not Norwegian citizens – they can even be tourists visiting the country for a couple of days, the process would still be the same.

http://rt.com/news/196532-norway-remove-child-tooth/

Two weeks ago a Russia family working in the North of Norway experienced just that. Their 5-year old son had a loose milk tooth, which the mother helped to remove. The child mentioned that at school and the teacher took the child home, suspecting abuse. The parents were getting worried when the child did not return from school in the evening, but became even more worried when they got summoned by the police to give statements. They were denied their request to see the child, and they still do not know where the child is. Child protection also expressed interest in the younger sister of the boy, but the parents managed to send he back to Russia to her grand-parents, while they remain in Norway for the legal battle to get their child back. All three are Russian citizens, so this is not just a case of kidnapping, but of an abduction of a foreign citizen.

Here is a 2011 case, where a Russia single father was imprisoned for his attempts of getting his Russian son back from CPS:

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/11-10-2011/119296-norway_children-0/

    According to Human Rights Alert Norway, a Norwegian human rights organization, child protection services take children from their parents every day, without investigation or court decisions. As many as ten children are forcefully separated from their parents in the country on a daily basis. In 2011, 50 children, who had been separated from their parents against their own will, committed suicide.

http://stanislavs.org/child-kidnapping-by-the-norwegian-state/

That's just a lose - lose situation for all parties involved. Unless the parents are really abusive and not in their sound mind, taking a kid away from his/hers parents will hurt so much more than a loose tooth getting taken out or do so much more damage than the occasional light discipline for bad behaviour.

Didn't know about that. It's so ridiculous. That's just taking things too far and getting negative attention. Hope the Swedish party that proposed that was laughed out of power. It certainly would be anywhere else. But seems like the case in Norway was just one school with shared bathrooms though: http://www.wnd.com/2006/09/38125