Topic: Child Kidnappings by the Western-European States - page 8. (Read 72947 times)

I just hope that the Norwegian authorities will not go on a revenge spree, kidnapping dozens more of Lithuanian children living in the Scandinavian nation (there are thousands of Lithuanians working in Norway). Also, remember that for every single child re-united to his/her parents, thousands more remain to be rescued.

  
RichG is right, in my view. It is all of it tragic, and RichG rightly points out one of the major tragedies: the way children are manipulated into saying things which will result in much of their parents' lives being destroyed and of course their own as well.

The authorities have furthermore succeeded in planting 'useful' convictions in the population at large: that whatever children being questioned by 'qualified child experts' say against their parents, is true, while children who do not say negative things about their parents are lying 'in incredible loyalty to their parents'. People trust the quackery of the psychologists and child protection workers (their trust is reinforced by endless propaganda in the press and news and in our parliament, every week). Brute force is being used too, cf the film of the psychologist pressuring the little girl – a link to a description and a further link to the video of it was posted here by Erik Strand back on p 6:
I recently found an article companied by a video ...

*

Politically correct circles now even talk of love – mind you: not the love between children and their family, that is explicitly said to be absent – the children in the care of the child protection service are claimed not to have received love from their family. No, here is an educator of social workers who has recently done a doctorate on the love which social workers must have for the children. They must develop it as a 'basic competence'. And not love for the sake of itself, no, as an item in their 'treatment' of the young. A pedagogical trick. I wrote the comment below a few days ago:

 
Starting to babble about social workers' love

It is about as crazy as it can get: Now educational establishments training child protection workers are starting to talk about the love of social workers for "their" children as a "a basic competence".
(Translations from Norwegian are mine.)

Ungdom trenger kjærlighet fra barnevernet (Young people need love from the child protection agency)
Forskning.no, 28 April 2015

("Forskning" means "research", "science". forskning.no is a website publishing news from universities and other establishments of higher education etc in Norway. The website is solidly and unquestioningly a supporter of the politically correct, and have been known to quickly remove critical articles and comments. This distressing article is of course run of the mill in Norwegian philosophy about children, so it no doubt has a secure place. It might, however, be interesting to see if any critical comments appear and for how long they stay. The article is said by forskning.no to stem from 'research circles' – quite right: that is the kind of 'research' done in the socio-psychological milieus.)


We are told that:
"Love belongs not only in private life, but is also found in the professional relationship between social worker and child and youth."

I have to be ashamed, then? Because I have quite often said and written that one word is totally absent in the world of ideas in Western style social work: love. It turns up here. But in what manner of twisted, distorted version!

Once again there is no mention of at any cost honouring, respecting and upholding the nature-given, unique love between child and parents, the love which holds them together in freedom. No, the program is that social workers are to develop love for children in the hands of the child protection agency as a "basic competence", as "an appreciation which can function as a 'treatment strategy' in working with exposed youths". A helpless theatre performance of paid make-believe-emotions, then, which is said to "demand strong involvement and commitment, says researcher Hilde Marie Thrana at the District University in Lillehammer". One example which is given is the love which a young girl experiences from the social worker who wakes her up every morning when she herself would really prefer to drop out of school.

*

First, the social services destroy the family's preservation of family love, and shut the family completely out of their ideological horizon. Then they talk sentimentally about "Many youngsters in the child protection service have not had the necessary self-confidence established which others get when they experience love in their close family".

This is one of the most harrowing articles I have read for a long time (which says quite a lot). Norwegian professional child protection circles are in the process of stepping over the precipice. And the docile Norwegian population follows them faithfully, almost as one man, on their journey.

  


  

  

In reply to the OP, that's absolutely terrifying. I believe that it should be up to the parent how to raise their child, not the state. Governments often make sweeping, generalized decisions that don't work in all situations. Every kid is different. Parenting isn't a one-size-fits-all type of thing.

I also find it disturbing that even tourists can have their children taken away under this system, and that the Norwegian government uses the children themselves as informants!

This is just wrong!

  
Wonderful news today: A Lithuanian child and his mother have succeeded! They are home!

Lithuania won't hand back child taken away from Norwegian foster carers, police say
Delfi, by The Lithuania Tribune, 25 April 2015

"A Lithuanian child taken away from his foster carers in Norway and secretly driven to Lithuania and his mother will not be handed over to Norway, a spokesman for the Police Department said."

The article does not say whether this is Gabrielius or another child, but anyway it is terrific! At least one mother and son have been reunited. When Norway will not act humanely, then resolute action from Lithuania now helps keep their own citizens safe. Congratulations to this mother and child on belonging to a better state than Norway!

  

  
Another development on the legal front:

Norway to implement the Hague convention on child abduction –
unfortunate development for families targeted by the child protection authorities
24 April 2015

It's bad business, certainly, but it was to be expected. Norway has been talking big for a long time now about how much easier it will be to "protect" children when Norway implemenents the Hague convention.


  

A digression:
Norwegians have an incredible faith in the authorities. Recently, a farm was closed without trial. I tried getting some facts about the case. All I get is people's tribute to the authorities. It's disgusting.

Here is my latest article in English. It applies the Czech Republic. The description of the CPS is general.

How Norway will undermine Czech intentions for the family, for the protection of children, and for human rights

The Lower Chamber in the Czech parliament has passed a resolution containing good principles for family, children and child protection. This was done in connection with the violations committed against the family of Eva Michaláková in Norway and other Czech citizens.

The Czech principles are in accord with the UN and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but diverge markedly from the ill-considered actions of the Norwegian so-called child protection system – officially named the Child Welfare Services (CWS) – and their deviant reasoning about the principles on which the use of force against families and children should rest.

In addition, the Czech parliament recommends that the president and the government of the Czech Republic take the initiative to an international agreement with Norway which will establish the mutual obligation of the parties to inform one another about all administrative cases and court cases concerning the other country's citizens who are minors, and to make involvement possible in such cases. It would then also be possible for Norway to be involved in matters within the Czech Republic.

If one knows the Norwegian system of child protection well, one can easily see how such an arrangement would be abused by Norway.

There are, furthermore, several legal issues involved, e.g. the question of the obligation of confidentiality. Such obligations are violated continuously in Norway, from municipal level all the way to international. The public party's allegations are held to be the unquestionable Truth. For refugees from Norwegian child protection it will be dangerous if Interpol and different nations treat allegations as real proof. It is furthermore problematic that statutes can be stretched and that bureaucrats can have a practice of breaking them. But I will lay legal matters more or less aside.

There are at least two ways in which Norway will abuse the mentioned arrangement:

1. Refugees from child protection

A mutual agreement will be used by Norway to demand children back to Norway from parents (Czechs and others) who flee from misunderstood child protection. The justification on the part of Norway will be the one-sided and deceitful documents of the Norwegian CWS, as well as the opinions they claim to be scientifically based expertise. There is good, illuminating research available which shows both these kinds of documents and such claimed expertise to be spurious.

2. Custody disputes between parents

Norwegian CWS will demand children back e.g. from Czech mothers whose children have Norwegian fathers. They will hold such a claim to be based on expertise (but hardly backed by solid evidence), and justified by the afore-mentioned kinds of documents, second-hand witnesses, undocumented assertions written down as truths, etc. We can compare this with the procedure in criminal cases: The accused is entitled to read his explanation as written down by the police, and can sign it. In child protection cases ONLY the CWS's account is considered valid. This account the CWS often tries to hinder the private parties from reading, in clear violation of the Norwegian law pertaining to public administration. Nobody in the CWS is made to answer for this.

A small digression about the CWS and breaches of the law: If one googles with the Norwegian words "barnevern" (child protection) and "lovbrudd" (breach of law) [1], there are several tens of thousands of hits. That is quite a lot for a small country like Norway. Among the hits one finds everything from official reports and legal articles to the writings of desperately unhappy people.

The methods: Spreading information from sub-quality documents, plus not documented allegations

An arrangement whereby information and people are handed over will in other words be utilised for conveying the arguments of Norwegian CWS, arguments whose truth content is strongly opposed by the other party.

Several Nordic researchers have done research on CWS documents, with results embarrassing for the CWS. [2, 3, 4]

The prevailing methodical fault may be illustrated by Danish significant research showing that children under the CWS had several times worse prognosis than children of drug addicts. [5] The Cinderella effect, from Daly and Wilson's research, shows the importance of biological belonging. [6, 7] (Many interesting references are found in the English Wikipedia article. [8] The article about Daly and Wilson's research by professor emerita Marianne Skånland can be recommended. [9])

How far away the "expertise" which the CWS practice is from real scientific research, may be illustrated by reference to a psychologist on a Norwegian (debate) forum, who claimed that "Children don't give a damn where they live". The CWS hold that children can be just moved to new "parents" and will attach themselves to them. If they do not form attachment to these new "parents", it is due to a reactive attachment disorder created by the biological parents. Children's deep despair is re-interpreted as psychological problems created by the parents. This is then used as an argument that the biological parents are useless. The whole set of ideas is so crazy that outsiders have problems believing it. The CWS generally make use of ideas low on an evidentiary scale, and the CWS use such ideas in an amateurish and cynical way. A pointer is the miserable statistical results of the CWS's care for children. (An example is that children in CWS care have an 8 times higher suicide rate than average. [10])

The belief that the CWS's ideas are plain Truth is a heavy trend today. But in states under the rule of law the truth is something to be proved, on the basis of reliable science. Judges and courts are not to function as "useful idiots" for the ideology of professions, for moralism, trends and plainly wrong contentions.

The systematic support which our form of child protection has in the media [11, 12], the County Committees and courts, combined with the confidentiality practiced as well as the dishonour heaped on people who are "clients" of the CWS, all go to create a power culture which is quite formidable. It has been allowed to keep on and develop over several decades and the CWS organisation is now large enough and strong enough to dare attacking people of resource and social standing as well. The corruption which power lends to this profession is noticeable for the large majority of those attacked and run over. The fact that people accuse the CWS and the County Committees of lying has NO consequences for these establishments. People speak to a stone wall of ignorance and complete power. An illustrative description was given in a comment by Czech journalist Adela Knapova from the Czech magazine Reflex: "In Norway there is a wall. Here it seems as if the state owns the children. It sounds like communism and we have had communism before." [13]

n Norway, it is near impossible for politicians to have a career and at the same time criticise the actions of the CWS. The press and others will immediately attack them furiously. There is a striking logical discrepancy when compensation to CWS victims is granted. It is then acknowledged that CWS care was so and so bad BEFORE ( - 25 years back or more). But when it is a question of the system NOW, the CWS personnel are practically heroes and white knights. To question anything regarding them is to attack The Ultimate Good. But there has never been any revolutionary change in the CWS!

NIBR-report 2006:7: Hjelpetiltak i barnevernet – virker de? (Assistance to families in the CWS - does it work?)

"Det synes som norsk barnevern sliter med et paradoks: Barnevernet bruker i stor grad tiltak som vi har lite systematisk, forskningsbasert kunnskap om og som vi ”er usikre på” eller ”tror på” mye ut fra tradisjoner. Disse tiltakene har vært brukt i årtier, og man har verken klart å finne ut nøyaktig hvordan de virker eller klart å sette noe annet i stedet (”nye tiltaksformer”)." [14]
("It seems that Norwegian child protection is struggling with a paradox: The CWS to a large degree make use of remedies of which we have little systematic, research-based knowledge, and which we are "uncertain of" or "believe in" very much based on tradition. These remedies have been used for decades, and no-one has been able to find out exactly how they function, nor managed to put something else in their place ("new initiatives").")

In dealing with Norwegian child protection matters, Czech authorities will meet an old discipline full of pretence, with New-speak and impressive titles, poorly substatiated assumptions about human beings, and with a high degree of rationalisation and whitewashing of the situation in Norwegian child protection of today. This, Norway will attempt to use to obtain and maintain a deceitful power which violates nature's most important bonds of love - the family. This will come from Norwegian authorities and professionals who should be real child and family experts, people who hold a fanatical belief in all that is going on in Norway in the name of child protection.

.

.

.

References:

1. https://www.google.no/?gws_rd=ssl#q=barnevernet+lovbrudd

2. http://www.krisesenter.org/kritikk_sakkyndige/jt_undersokelse_sakkyndige_utredninger.pdf

3. http://forskning.no/sprak-barn-og-ungdom/2008/02/avdekker-barnevernets-skjulte-sprakmakt

4. http://www.barnasrett.no/Artikler/barnevernets_metoder.htm

5. http://statensnet.dk/pligtarkiv/fremvis.pl?vaerkid=23614&reprid=0&filid=22&iarkiv=1

6. [Suspicious link removed]u.edu/media/Course_files/anth-260-edward-h-hagen/daly-1980-discriminative-parental-solicitude-a-biological-perspective-copy.pdf

7. http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/buller/cinderella%20effect%20facts.pdf

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect

9. http://www.mhskanland.net/page62/page131/page131.html

10. http://www.nibr.no/pub109

11. http://www.pravasitoday.com/the-media-gives-victims-social-services-the-silent-treatment-arild-holta

12. http://dokument.r-b-v.net/barnevernet_i_media_kandidat_820.pdf

13. http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/i-tsjekkia-sier-de-ikke-dra-til-norge-der-tar-de-barna-dine/8522314.html

14. http://www.nibr.no/filer/2006-7.pdf

.

.

1 is already too much.

  
A statistic concerning Baltic, Polish and Russian children turned up, which I thought deserved some comments.

Few or many children taken from Lithuanian families in Norway?
The child protection services now present a statistic from the official source Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway) showing that children from Lithuania, Latvia and Poland are taken by the Norwegian child protection services less frequently than Norwegian children:

Litauiske barn overtas sjelden av barnevernet (Lithuanian children are rarely taken over by the CPS)
"Litauen er i harnisk over norske omsorgsovertakelser. Men barn av litauere overtas bare halvparten så ofte som barn av nordmenn, ifølge tall fra barnevernet." (Lithuania is enraged by Norwegian taking into care. But children of Lithuanians are taken into care only half as often as children of Norwegians, according to figures from the CPS.)
Fontene, 17 April 2015

Some comparisons are given:
"• Litauen: 2,8 per 1000
• Latvia: 3,5 per 1000
• Polen: 2,1 per 1000
• Russland: 8,6 per 1000
• Til sammenlikning er det gjennomført omsorgsovertakelse for 6,9 per 1000 norske barn uten innvandrerbakgrun[n].
(Tallene, som gjelder barn innvandret til Norge per 1. januar 2013, ble publisert av Statistisk sentralbyrå i mars 2015)"
(• Lithuania: 2.8 per 1000
• Latvia: 3.5 per 1000
• Poland: 2.1 per 1000
• Russia: 8.6 per 1000
• In comparison, taking into care has been done for 6.9 per 1000 Norwegian children with no immigrant background.
(The figures, which pertain children immigrated to Norway per 1 January 2013, were published by Statistisk sentralbyrå in March of 2015) )


Nina Langfeldt has entered a couple of sensible comments in the comment column under the article. It remains to be seen how long such comments, critical to the CPS, are allowed to stand on the website of Fontene, which is the organ of the trade union of child protection workers. In my experience, they have previously been rather resolute in removing criticism.

*

The most interesting aspect is probably what these figures will be used for by the child protection circles. The writer of the article not surprisingly points to the surmise in Lithuania that Norway is out to get "healthy" genes for its population. Taken in conjunction with the information of how few Lithuanian children have been taken by the CPS, this is probably aimed at showing how uninformed and unreliable Lithuanians are about Norwegian child protection, plus reassure Lithuanians about Norwegian CPS.

However, it seems natural to turn one's thoughts about numbers around somewhat:

When it comes to CPS questions, business as usual on the part of all Norwegian authorities and authority-subservient groups, such as the Ministry, politicians and the CPS themselves, is to refuse to discuss single, concrete cases. If challenged on this point so that they have to answer, they claim to be protecting the family and in particular the children. Whether the family publicises its side of the case or not, while the authorities keep silence, an implicit allegation is conveyed of shameful things having passed in the family, of the family keeping these shameful matters secret, and of the children as being ashamed of their family. This is rarely the reality. Most CPS victims are loving families who want to be together, and the result for the children of the "care" and "help" of the CPS is generally very bad. The CPS actions against children and families is the shameful fact and our authorities and our politicians, who protect and boost these child protection services are the ones who ought to be ashamed.

Realistic exposure of the destinies of all the families affected is prevented by official Norway refusing to face concrete facts about single cases, and relying instead on figures and general arguments. When, for example, the number of children taken into care increases, the impression conveyed without words is that the reason lies in more and more parents being violent, abusive or drug addicts, or else that the CPS are succeeding in exposing more and more such cases in which children have a horrible time at home. The reality is probably rather that increases are due to the CPS receiving even more political, legal and other support to take children, support given in extreme trust in the CPS's assessments always being "in the best interest of the child" and their account always being truthful, and that parents are on principle unimportant for their children.

Of course, it is in reality quite revealing that there are, parallel to the steady increase in CPS actions, an increase in compensation arrangements for "former children in CPS care who have been exposed to abuse and neglect" both in the CPS's private foster homes and in CPS institutions. The time limits for what is accepted as "former" har been drawing steadily closer; in some districts they cover cases up to some years into the 2000s. But Norwegian ideology about our own excellence is not concerned to reveal anything.

The fact that Norwegian authorities carry out their "protection" of children in this way give Lithuanians an extra opportunity to understand what conditions are like in Norway: The way Gabrielius and his family are being treated, the way the 9-year-old Lithuanian girl and her mother have been treated, that is the way an even larger percentage of children of Norwegian descent are treated. The Lithuanians are comforted by telling them that there are relatively fewer of them who are treated like that than there are of Norwegian children.

Lithuanians should not let themselves be appeased by any suggestion that this should be some kind of proof that Norwegian CPS is humane, beneficial or favourable to children, or sensible or that they "only take children away from their family when absolutely necessary and after every other kind of help has been attempted".


Two interesting pieces of information have recently come my way:

(a) In Estonia people have begun to question the advance of Western style child protection in their country. They are apparently concerned that ideas of "what kind of conditions a child ought to be offered" leads or will lead to the CPS taking children from poor people. – Their fear is entirely realistic.

(b) Lithuanian media has apparently reported that six families, originally from Lithuania but having lived in Norway for some time, have lately left Norway because they have been approached by Norwegian CPS. – It sounds as very sensible realism. If only Norwegian families too would leave the country in time!

  

What a beautiful discussion. my remarks:

1. in such situation there is only force.
2. in such situation there is only force.
3. in such situation there is only force.

example: I want to drink fresh white wine while smoking some weeds on the south coast of the med. sea :

there are 2 options :

A. I don't have overwhelming force, ie I may end up dead in certain places due to their legislation that will be imposed on me.
B. I do have overwhelming force, ie I can send ALL the people living on this jurisdiction to death before they can reach me, I do as I want.

On a more theoretical aspect: when a pr firm side with an enemy combatant (all states agents are by definition combatant, even in support role), does the pr firm have to bear the cost of their choices?

Example: once upon a time a King, somewhere where history is drawn said to a black smith (ain't too racist I hope?) guild members in close by city don't sell any weapon to this city. the black smith backed by the power to was of his city didn't respect the will of the king. What happen to the city of the blacksmith? like some one said, walking on human grease ain't pleasing. understand who can.

advice:

1. pr firm works for money.
2. they don't have any power to kill
3. if you ignore them they can't touch you (including all the entertainment industry).
4. Trust only in God, if you do, you can trust in yourself, you have the BEST guide.

I added him to the ignore list years ago. You should have done this earlier.

Souldream,
you are now on my ignore list, mouth breathing moron.

TO all ... this propaganda has been pushed by Russian Gov ... some emails leaked early ... showed that some Kremlin dictators pushed some Russian media to publish such bullshit ...

https://cgrozev.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/proven-kremlin-leaked-story-of-navalny-is-sponsored-by-kremlin/

Of course they will try to explain this is full invented ...

http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/31aaax/hackers_leaks_several_texting_between_the_kremlin/

In these leaked emails ... you have communication ... how kremlin acknowledge the propagande about this story ...

Marianne, I agree that replying to hofor is a lost cause - I felt it once I read his reply to my post. However, Okurkabinladin replies are important for the benefit of those honestly seeking information on the issue. It is also worth reiterating that a lot of information can already be found in this thread, a lot of it demonstrating that the problem carries a systemic scale.

For example, the fact that the issue is taken up in the European Parliament and that there was a report made for the Council of Europe:
http://www.barnevern.org/conference-on-the-child-removal-proceedings-in-the-council-of-europe-member-states-and-related-human-rights-issues/
http://website-pace.net/documents/10643/1127812/EDOC_Social+services+in+Europe.pdf/dc06054e-2051-49f5-bfbd-31c9c0144a32

I find it suspicious (though it might be a coincidence), that after almost a month of this thread's inactivity, hofor appears out of the blue and revives it just about at the same time that the Lithuanian cases get a large media attention abroad, leading to Norwegian authorities announcing the need for PR services. As we know, PR can also be of a black variety....

---

Now to the promised translation of
http://www.barnevern.org/aistei-ramoskienei-fra-litauen-mistet-sonnen-til-norske-barnevernet/

  
I actually find the new writer hofor's postings in this thread quite useful and welcome. They give a realistic illustration, for all of you who have never observed Norwegian child 'protection' close to, of what CPS victims and CPS critics regularly encounter, what Eva Michaláková is up against, what Gabrielius' family is up against. This is the way they are treated, by most of the general population, who are incredibly trustful of everything emanating from the authorities, and certainly by people close to the system (and that means some tens of thousands of people, actually, in professions which work along with the CPS).

I value your postings, Okurkabinladin. But as far as the person you are most obviously directing them to is concerned, you could probably have saved yourself the trouble. Of course hofor is not here at all for the reason he initially claimed in his first posting: to search for information. He does not follow up on any of Nemo's suggestions of reading properly what has gone before in the thread, if he had done that, he would have found information about most of the points he denies the existence of. He does not follow links, search for possible verification, read reports. He dishes out the usual propaganda we know so well (we see and hear it here in Norway certainly every week if not more often), does so in rather a police manner, talks disparagingly of people who have had their most important bonds of love violated, of the rest of us as ridden by conspiracy thinking and void of truthfulness, has unlimited admiration for official Norway.

This is the reason why the Norwegian population is so vulnerable to the CPS: this is the way people think. Norwegians are on the whole seldom liberal in any sense. Again and again I have had people contact me when they are being ravaged by the CPS, saying "But we never knew it was like this". No, they never took care to know, to inform themselves of the reality beneath the surface, and the result is that the authorities can rely on a docile population. I have quite often said and written that I think in some measure people living in countries run by obvious bandits have the possibility of being of sounder mind, for the reason of knowing that the authorities are bandits. They don't expect anything but banditry from the people in power. In Norway, most authorities are not bandits, therefore, if any 'services' or groups develop unhealthily, they may do so with impunity. People trust them.

Enough of that. I really wanted to post a reference to a new report – one of the many which is in reality considerably revealing of what the CPS produces, and which is (as such warning signals always are) interpreted by our trusting authorities (and of course by all who benefit from the ceaseless activities of the system) as the opposite. The report has surveyed youths from 12 to 20 years of age living in CPS institutions. No asylum seekers were included and 78.5% were ethnic Norwegian. 76% of them turned out to suffer from some serious psychiatric/psychological illness.

Sjokkerende barnevernsrapport: – Tilbudet har ikke vært godt nok (Shocking child protection report: – The offer / assistance has not been good enough)
Tre av fire ungdom i norsk barnevern har en psykisk diagnose (Three out of four youths in Norwegian CPS care have a psychiatric/psychological diagnosis)
VG, 23 March 2015

So of course the Minister for children is so shocked and says that these children must have more of the same, more "barnevern", more therapy, more "help".

Not one word about their being deprived of their own family and deprived of their freedom to return to the family if they want to.

Your friend Ruščák, Okurkabinladin, was quite right. The attitude that parents are irrelevant has been building up for some decades, and certainly the conviction that official employees are the only trustworthy people is deep-rooted in the Norwegian soul. Now this is official policy, it is what the Raundalen committee came up with: Biologically based attachment is nothing, now they are all practicing "utviklingsfremmende tilknytning" - - quite a mouthful, it means "development-enhancing attachment". Hmm, attachment to foster "parents" and CPS personnel and CPS institution personnel, of course – I suppose they are the only people who can enhance development - -. Even some 17 years ago they recommended this for a little boy: if he were kept at the institution where they had put him, he would have fresh, energetic persons to take care of him every day and this would make him so harmonious and "attached", the CPS and the municipality claimed. (I was one of the expert witnesses in the court case and we finally managed to get him back to his mother and grandmother, but I am not going to "prove it" to our Norwegian CPS defender, 'cause it would no doubt galvanise him even further about my unreliability. )

All of those points, if Barnevernet made a mistake, destroyed foreign family and now refuses to abide by court ruling, common sense (ever heard of it?), basic human decency and United Nation Convention on Child Rights.

I find it funny, that you insist, because of high listings of Norway on some random lists in "human rights", that its institutions are above making mistakes, even questioning their decisions seems "weird" to you snow people.

As I already said, your own courts labeled case of sexual abuse as false. Therefore forfeiting stated reason for family liquidation in the first place.

You seem to ignore your own justice system aswell.

If Barnevernet indeed made a mistake in this (not its first) case, then it is responsible for psychological damage to everybody involved. And through Barnevernet entire norwegian state and its citizens, as it was you, not some mythological beast, that gave bureau such immense power in the first place.

Logical fallacy at its finest: We took your children, because we want to protect them. We cannot tell you the reason, because we want to protect yours and theirs privacy (little late, eh?), we cannot overturn our own decision, because the reason for child nationalization didnt change, we cannot tell you the reason why we took your children... repeat ad absurdum and dont forget to mention that Norway is highly developed country (unlike your shithole, childless Untermenschen), so it never makes mistakes. This very modus operandi and lack of transparent reasoning behind it makes norwegian state institutions about as trust worthy as those of equatorial Guinea and its employes as reasonable as ISIS jihadists.

Children are not taken away after "mere psychologist statement" as I pointed out several times. CPS can only take over custody after "Fylkesnemnda" has ruled on the case. Once again you have been caught making claims that are demonstrably false. I am sensing a pattern here.

Which part of this is Norway violating, and how?

Lol hold your fantasy tighter please...you think that now russia will attack Norwegia or what?

Norwegian CPS-Barnevernet is violating United Nation Convention on Child Rights

Article 20 1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State. 3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx