Demonstrations are planned in several cities
around the world
over the Bodnariu case:

January 8        Washington, DC
January 8        England
January 9        Romania
January 9        Belgium
January 9        Germany
January 9        Canada
January 10      Spain
January 16      Czech Republic
January 17      India
January 30      Poland

The facebook announcement of the coming demonstrations

From India I am told that there will be a demonstration in New Delhi and that they will also try to arrange one in Kolkata. Cf the photos from the first large demonstration against Norwegian Barnevern: reportedly about 6000 people took part in Kolkata when Stavanger barnevern had confiscated the Bhattacharya-children:
The demo in Kolkata January 2012

*

Without any comparison with the above:

Four of us held a little spontaneous "demonstration" outside the Norwegian Embassy in Prague in November! We were a little late with the posting of the teext and the photos, so we presented it as
Christmas greetings from Prague
Photos

  

  
Some news:

There have been several demonstrations regarding the CPS's removal of 5 children of a Norwegian/Romanian family in Norway:

Christian Family Whose 5 Kids Were Seized by Norway Planning International Protests:
"The Facebook post also explains that supporters are working to secure the ability to protest in other major cities in the United Kingdom, Ireland, United States, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands and even in Norway."

Demonstration in Bucuresti on 19 December 2015 (fine posters, photos, about 600 people)
Demonstration in Madrid on Boxing Day (fine photos)
Demonstration planned in London on 8 January 2016

Something about the case – as usual it starts with one accusation, then the CPS develops other charges:
The five children of a Rumanian-Norwegian family taken by Barnevernet (the child protection services, CPS) in Norway
  

  
Hello Fileanthropist, thank you from all of "us" for your encouragement! Good motto: Don't give up, this has to end!

You are certainly right that the initiative from the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (Nordisk Komité for Menneskelige Rettigheter) ought to have been mentioned. I know several of the people who signed their petition well, both Swedes and Norwegians. (They are not all members of the Committee.) There have been several other similar initiatives too in the Nordic countries. Our authorities - governments and bureaucracies - certainly know about them and have had every opportunity to take up the information they have provided, but it is unfortunately no accident that they do not; they know that their whole construction of "child protection" would topple if they were to listen.

Yes, the people on the list - certainly the ones I know - are reliable, but like the rest of us they have no actual power to stop the family-destructive cases and activities. Many receive cries of help from ever new persecuted families, but legislation and practice roll on ever more destructively, so it is practically impossible to help in individual cases, except if the family is able to flee, far away, in good time before the CPS gets their claws into them. I have come to believe that the only thing which has a hope of achieving a change in the long run may be publicising, especially bringing matters to the attention of people in countries which are not yet totally in the grips of the Western world's way of thinking.

(I was a vice-chairman of the NCHR/NKMR for some years, so I know a lot about their work. They have been active from the middle of the 1990s and are on the "right side", certainly. Like many NGOs working with difficult problems, however, and certainly like a stream of little organisations which have started out hopefully to combat CPS atrocities, they have had plenty of internal disagreements and worse, and a number of us left over questions of money and policy, and truth versus lies. They have since reorganised their website and done away with the old addresses to probably several thousand articles, so that even more links to their articles no longer function, which spoils a great deal of work done. - I just tell you this, it is no secret; it does not mean that I do not value the work done.)
  

  
A demonstration in Oslo on Saturday 5 December 2015, against 'Barnevernet' - the child protection 'service':

Some
photos
Videos

  

  

When Suranya demonstrated in Delhi

Another event in India in connection with the Czech case:

Shortly after the letters to the Czech and the Norwegian embassies in New Delhi were sent and Suranya Aiyar was invited to the celebration at the Czech embassy, the Norwegian Foreign Minister was to visit New Delhi. An energetic Mrs Aiyar followed up by a very imaginative and courageous demonstration. The letters had been signed by a group, but this time she chose to demonstrate single-handed.

Suranya has told us how her day went:

On the day that the Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende was visiting India, she fitted out her car with large posters or banners against the Norwegian child protection system (photos will follow). She drove around Delhi showing them, then parked her car close to the Norwegian embassy, where there was to be a lunch reception in honour of the Foreign Minister.

Guests coming to the reception could see the car, and so could the embassy staff. Complaints were made by the embassy to the police about the banners on her car and in a while the police arrived and asked her kindly to go away. Right – she drove off, but after driving around some blocks she returned.

While this was going on she posted on facebook, and had some 130 followers, mostly Scandinavians and Czechs (remember she sent her letters to the two embassies and to Czech media previously and got quite a few contacts in Czechia), cheering her and sharing the photos, and joining in the criticism of the child protection services.

When she kept coming back, the police, after having given her three warnings to take herself off, brought her to the police station.

The police, after asking to be explained what she was demonstrating about, offered to escort her to the embassy to deliver her memorandum. So they all went back to the embassy, where a memorandum was handed over.

Altogether Suranya had been able to demonstrate for about four hours around Delhi and at the Norwegian embassy. At the end of the day there were over 150 people on facebook cheering and congratulating the effort, mostly Scandinavians.

She sent out a press release:

***

PRESS RELEASE 2 November 2015

Protesting against visiting Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende, an activist, Suranya Aiyar, is driving around Delhi with the slogan “Norway Steals Children!” “Boycott Norway!”. Attached are photos [on facebook].

Under Norwegian laws child protection authorities can permanently remove children from parents, even of foreign nationals on holiday or short term work assignments there.

Aiyar, who has been campaigning against this form of child protection for some years, says that children are removed on frivolous and, often, racist grounds from innocent parents. Of particular concern to her and her supporters is the refusal of Norway to return such children even to extended family in their home countries.

In a case that occurred a few years ago with a Bengali family in Norway, the children were returned only after high level intervention by the Indian [authorities] and recently in a similar case of a Czech family, the Norwegian authorities have, so far, refused to repatriate such children to their extended family in Czechia and instead placed them for forced adoption to Norwegians. Norway has come under criticism from several countries for unjustifiably removing children from their parents.

***

The press release was quickly picked up and commented on on the website of Sirf News:
Activist protests Norwegian ‘child snatching’ practice
Sirf News, 2 November 2015

Along with the supporting Scandinavians on facebook, the story was also picked up by a Brazilian group protesting the case of a Brazilian mother who took refuge in the Brazilian embassy in Oslo (cf Brazil's Embassy helps mother and child against abuse from the child protection services and Children confiscated from parents in Norway and Sweden).

We really must pay tribute to Suranya's resourcefullness and good courage to stand up for children's and their families' rights.

  

  
Here is a little that I found about the Rumanian / Norwegian family which the petition in the posting above is concerned with:

The five children of a Rumanian family taken by Barnevernet (the child protection services, CPS) in Norway

The family Bodnariu lives in Naustdal on the west coast of Norway, north of Bergen. There are many websites describing the case in Rumanian, although the case is only a few days old. Since the children appear to have been taken on grounds of religious raising (the CPS call it "religious indoctrination"), Christian websites are awake to the case.

Marius & Ruth Bodnariu, a Christian family persecuted in Norway! (The English version)
Popas pentru suflet, Christian Ionescu, 19 November 2015

"I am writing in support of my brother, Bodnariu Marian Constantin (Marius), a Romanian citizen, his wife Ruth Johanne Bodnariu, a Norwegian citizen, and their 5 children (Eliana, Naomi Matthew, John and baby Ezekiel who is only three months old) with joint citizenship in Romania and Norway."

"This past Monday, November 16th, Child Welfare Services (Barnevernet) “kidnapped” the two oldest children (Eliana and Naomi) from school without the knowledge of their parents.    Barnevarnet, accompanied by police, then came to the Bodnariu home and forcibly took custody of the two older boys (Matthew and John); leaving a devastated Ruth at home with only three month old Ezekiel while Marius was at work. Marius promptly came home from work to understand what was taking place and, together with Ruth, visited the police station and Barnevernet to resolve the situation.  Because Ruth was crying and devastated by the events, Barnevernet and four policemen showed up at their family home on Tuesday, November 17, without any court order or documentation, and also took 3 month old Ezekiel on the stated grounds that the mother posed a danger to her child."

The article goes on to describe with some insight the general activities of Barnevernet (although the writer does not seem informed about similar actions in the other countries of the Western world nor quite of the very many ethnic Norwegian families affected, although it is quite right that foreigners are over-represented):

"What happens in Norway via the Barneverent, under the guise of “child welfare,” is outrageous and unfathomable!  Children are considered property of the state; a premise utilized by the Barnevernet to abduct children and place them in foster family care for any unchecked/unregulated/unaudited reason as upheld by the Barnevernet. A quick search on the internet will yield results highlighting hundreds of cases of abuse and testimonies from affected families. The Barnevernet has a history of prevalently focusing their efforts on immigrant families or on families in which one of the parents is of a different nationality (as in my brother’s case, Romanian)."

*

Norway Return the children to Bodnariu Family!
Blog on facebook, November 2015 –

*

Norvegia: cinci copii de origine română preluați de Protecția Copilului, de la o familie din zona Bergen
Jurnal de Nord, Publicatie Romaneasca din Norvegia, 20 November 2015

This publication has a page in English and one in Norwegian too, but this article has not (not yet) been translated.

*

Sustinem Familia Bodnariu Marius si Ruth si cei cinci copii ai lor – alaturati-va acestei familii
agnus dei, english + romanian blog, 19 November 2015


  

  
People in India have shown support for the Czech mother Eva Michaláková and her two sons. Led by a determined Suranya Aiyar, they have sent a letter of support to the Czech embassy in Delhi and a letter of complaint to the Norwegian embassy there, and have sent out a press release about this.

The publicity and support initiative taken in India re the Czech case
Press Release: Concerned Indians stand with Czech Republic in yet another Norway foster case
New Delhi, 14 October 2015

The letter of support to the Czech embassy in New Delhi from Indians who observe with concern the actions of Norwegian 'barnevernet' in the Czech case
New Delhi, 9 October 2014

The letter to the Norwegian embassy in New Delhi from Indians who observe with concern the actions of Norwegian 'barnevernet' in the Czech case
New Delhi, 9 October 2015


At the end of October, there was a large celebration at the Czech embassy in New Delhi in honour of their country's independence, and Mrs Aiyar was invited to it. (Cf my posting on 13 October above: The similar invitation in Prague to the Norwegian ambassador was withdrawn: Norwegian Ambassador Not Welcomed at Czech Presidential Seat). Mrs Aiyar brought with her and presented to the Czech ambassador a large card of congratulations, shaped like a heart, which on the "heart side" had a message of thanks to the Czech president Miloš Zeman for his support of Michaláková's family.
  

 

  
In this last case, that of a German father and Ukrainian mother fleeing from Norway and being arrested in Denmark:

The legislation making it illegal to take one's children out of Norway when they have been taken by the cnild protection services on a 'temporary, emergency measure' which has not yet been confirmed by the County Committee or a court, has not yet been implemented. It seems to have passed through the parliament for legislation, but is not yet in effect (this sometimes takes a while). So, the Norwegian police at first called on the Danish police to arrest the parents and send the children back to the emergency placement in Norway (the emergency had already lasted for 6 months), which the Danish police duly did. Then the Norwegian police sat down to look at the law and came to the conclusion that what the couple had done was not illegal. So they told Denmark to let the parents out of jail again. – The tragedy is that there is no question of the children being given back to the parents, of course; it is taken for granted that the children were 'saved' by being sent back to the CPS. I expect the children are now moved to a secret address and kept strictly from communicating with their parents or others who could pass on information.

Foreldrene skal slippes fri  (The parents are to be set free)
De to foreldrene som ble arrestert på Fyn etter å ha tatt med seg barna sine fra Moss sist torsdag har ikke gjort noe straffbart, har politiet funnet ut.  (The two parents who were arrested on Fyn after having taken their children with them from Moss last Thursday were not doing anything illegal, is what the police have found out.)
nrk Østfold, 16 November 2015

"Planen var å hente de to foreldrene i morgen, avhøre dem og fremstille dem for varetektsfengsling. Barna er tilbake hos Barnevernet."  (The plan was to fetch the two parents tomorrow, take them for questioning and ask the court to put them in jail pending trial. The children are back with the child protective services.)

"Det er fremmet et lovendringsforslag for Straffelovens §261 for Stortinget, som sannsynligvis vil gjøre dette straffbart på nyåret." (A change to the Criminal law §261 has been proposed in Parliament, which will probably make it criminal over the New Year.)

Fremskrittspartiet (The Progress Party) was, 15-20 years ago, the one party that, under the leadership of parliamentary representative John Alvheim in such matters, took the side of CPS victims. They even presented a parliamentary proposal to amend the law and several matters of practice connected with the CPS in 1995/96 (it was turned down with contempt by the other parties, of course). Around 2005, however, they had completely changed their tune and are now as cruel as everyone else. The ministry concerned with CPS matters even have the cabinet secretary, and she is just about the worst I can remember, is apparently unable to think for herself and does and says exactly what her ministry's bureaucrats instruct her to say. – Here we have a rather triumphant parliament member of the Progress Party 'promising' that even tighter dictatorship is coming very soon:

– Vi tetter smutthull i loven  (We are closing loopholes in the law)
Det skal bli slutt på at foreldre lovlig kan bortføre barna til utlandet etter at Barnevernet har gjort akuttvedtak, sier Ulf Leirstein i Stortingets justiskomité.  (There is going to be an end to parents being legally able to abduct the children to another country after the CPS has made an emergency decision, says Ulf Leirstein in the parliamentary justice committee.)
nrk Østfold, 17 November 2015

  

  
 
Yes, Bryant, it is a big chance to take. The parents believe what they want to believe: that the CPS action must have been some kind of mistake, and now things are in order again. Many Norwegians (and other immigrants here) do the same. They reason with their emotions, not with their rational sense and the information that is available. Those who have been incredibly lucky and excaped with their children to some other country which does not hand them back to Norway, keep planning to go back, and often do so when the case has seemingly calmed down. But the case has not died. The CPS people have not forgotten it, nor the municipality's lawyers and other authorities.

Our local administrations still devote extremely much time preventing anybody they can from escaping the CPS, however much time and money it takes to get them back and punish the parents. The situation just now is that all Norwegian districts have enough troubles, one would think, with people from everywhere pouring into the country to seek asylum and having to be quartered and fed and interviewed and registered. The newspapers are full of articles about the CPS having to be strengthened to take care of all the children coming in (the majority coming now are young, single men coming alone, but Norwegian ideology persists in calling everybody under 18 children). It still does not make the CPS any less hyperactive towards all those who seek to escape from their care. They just ask for more money and more personnel.

An example: Just a few days ago a German-Ukrainian family from Bergen, whose two daughters had been taken by the CPS and had for 6 months or so been placed in a temporary, emergency foster home in Moss south of Oslo, managed to get hold of the children and drive out of the country. They evidently used their own car driving south, though. When children have been taken by the CPS or are even under their attention, such items as the number of the family's car will be registered by the border posts and ferry companies. This family's car number "plinged" when they passed the border to Sweden and Denmark, and they were taken by the Danish police down on Fyn (the island between Copenhagen and Jutland, where they were headed to drive down to Germany). The Danish police cooperate willingly and totally without misgivings with Norway, of course. The parents were arrested and the daughters returned to the Norwegian CPS. The CPS lawyer said that this was an extremely serious offence on the part of the parents. The parents were put in detention in Denmark, and will remain imprisoned until they are extradited to Norway. – Lots of newspaper articles about the case, of a 'cops-and-robbers' type, entirely sympathetic to the authorities:

Etterlyser sort bil etter at to barn ble bortført i Moss (A wanted notice out for a black car after two children have been abducted in Moss)
Østlandets Blad, 12 November 2015  at 11:21 a.m.

Dansk politi: - Glad for å kunne hjelpe jentene (Danish police: - Glad to be able to help the girls)
abc News, 12 November 2015, at 7:21 p.m.

    
  

  
Unfortunately, kydranel, that is not the way it is in reality. This is no game of psychological vigilance, nor are the results of the CPS taking children into care positive or saving. On the contrary, both foster care and institutional care by the CPS have devastatingly bad results for children in all reliable statistics in the Western world, even when compared with children who live under the same conditions or worse than the children who are taken, but with their own families. You would do well to read more about it, without speculating too much until you know more. Why not start with some of Christopher Booker's articles about the activities of the British child protection 'services'?:

British press discovers the child 'protection' racket?
  
You don't have to believe anything I say, just click into Booker's articles in The Telegraph and the Daily Mail. Booker is a very respected, senior reporter.
  

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.

 

  
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.)

  
  

Certainly those are good species. I would add some more, my fancy for mushrooms is getting the better of me.

Italians are mushroom-mad, the authorities have had to put firm restrictions on how much one is allowed to pick, or else several good species would be eradicated completely.

Anglo-saxons have always been primitive regarding mushrooms, so their names for them are a sorry, inadequate, despicable little vocabulary also. They tend to call the edible species "mushrooms" and the inedible and poisonous ones "toadstools" and leave it at that. (Funny thing, did anyone ever see a toad/frog sitting on a mushroom, or how did it get that name?) But anyway:

Among the "boletus", the types with something like sponge with pores opening on the underside of the hat (rørsopp), there are also

smørsopp (butter mushroom);
lerkesopp (larch mushroom, grows only under larch trees, since they are in symbiosis with larch trees);
sandsopp (sand mushroom) - which has orange-yellow "meat" which turns a vivid ink blue when you cut it and it is exposed to air;
fløyelsrørsopp (velvet sponge mushroom), and a few more.

Among the "gill mushrooms", the types with sort of sections under the hat, from the stem outwards (skivesopp):

the best of all I hold to be ekte riske (genuine riske (whatever "riske" can be translated as)). It is yellow, with green rings and a dip at the centre of the hat, grows rather deep in grass meadows, not so much in forests, delightful nut-like taste, the only trouble is that maggots and worms like them as well as we do, so they are usually worm-eaten;

rimsopp (white frost mushroom), beige-yellow, with a ring under the hat and sort of shiny shells over the ring, beige gills;

then there is vanlig sleipsopp (common sticky mushroom) which has a brown/darkish hat, often with darker spots which make it look rotten, grey gills rather far apart under the hat, lemon-coloured "socks" at the bottom of the stem. The "sticky" part of its name stems from a sort of sticky "veil", which prevents flies from getting at it and laying eggs. So it is almost always completely clean and nice. The lemon-yellow sock makes it uniquely identifiable, no danger of mistaking something poisonous for vanlig sleipsopp. Yum yum;

honningsopp (honey mushroom) grows on rotting wood. It used to be quite popular and it tastes good, but some years ago the botanists found that it does contain a poison which slowly nibbles at your liver!, so there is now a warning out in "mushroom circles" against it;

then there is frostsopp - no, I think the proper name is frostvokssopp (frost wax mushroom, grows very late in the autumn), of different colours;

blåmusseron (blue mushroom, also late, electric blue colour), grows on fermenting rubbish dumps, you can take some soil on which it grows home with you, and if you are lucky, the "roots" (mycel) will manage to grow again, so you can grow it in your garden if you take care to give it some wet, rotten leaves.

And of course all the kremle types, some are more or less poisonous, but not terribly to, and you can test it by tasting a little bite, if it is unpleasant, then you spit it out and throw the mushroom away, if it tastes good, then it IS good.

Actually, the disreputable "fly agaric" family, whose members include deadly poisonous green, brown, yellow and white fly agaric species (in addition to the very well known red one, with white spots - it is poisonous, but not usually deadly, I believe one vomits and it doesn't exactly improve your intestines, kidneys and liver - the vikings were reputed to eat red fly agaric to make them angry-wild and combative, it sounds very unpleasant) - - but anyway, that family also has some species which are edible and very good: ringløs fluesopp (ring-less fly agaric, no ring under the hat, different colours), and then rødnende fluesopp (blushing fly agaric), whose meat turns rose-coloured, but take care not to confuse it with the brown species.
Actually, I saw a kind of landscape exhibition once in France, with green fly agaric thrown in, growing in moss. The guide who commented on the exhibition said that e.g. in Greece green fly agaric can be eaten, because the weather is so dry that the mushroom does not have the necessary moisture to develop the poison. - I wouldn't like to try it out.

This excursion is getting far away from Russia, I am afraid. But mushrooms can be a passion.

The question about mushrooms is to the point, since Russians & co are mushroom experts. The Finns and the Germans are too, very knowledgeable. From them "mushroom knowledge" has sifted into Sweden and Norway.

I have a little Russian wooden figure of a mushroom (Gribok) - you know, rather like those little dolls with smaller dolls inside; it was given to me by a Russian colleague who went mushroom hunting with me in the Bergen area (west coast of Norway) once.

My mother was very knowledgeable indeed, knew umpty sorts of edible mushrooms. There are mushroom clubs/associations in Norway, usually led by botanists; they do scientific work as well as arrange excursions to different areas in the season.

The best places of all are those where there are animals grazing, they spread the "seeds". Grazing horses are good "providers" of champignon. Up in Finnmark (up towards the North Pole) there were so many mushrooms everywhere you got completely cross-eyed. They had sheep as well as raindeer herds.

  

  
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.

  

  

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, rolfsen@advokathuset-kristiansund.no

* * * * *

  

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.