Child Kidnappings by the Western-European States

[hofor]

hofor also resorts to a logical fallacy in "Many of the claims are simply false, and anyone who bothered to look it up would see that they are false." referring to some unspecified claims that are allegedly false and not saying what is exactly false.

I did say exactly what is false. I was very specific, in fact.

I pointed out your false claim that an insignificant suspicion of mistreatment leads to the child being taken form its parents.

I pointed out your false claim that a child can be taken away for losing a milk tooth.

I pointed out your false claim that there are rules in Norway that children must always sleep in their own beds otherwise the child will be taken away.

I pointed out your false claim that there is "de-genderization" going on.

I pointed out your false claim that feeding a child from one's hand is considered force-feeding.

I also asked you for the sources of all these demonstrably false claims.

Actually, hofor states that in direct opposition to all the evidence that's been collected in this thread and to the evidence/articles  pointed to on related forums.

I'm sorry, but unfounded claims from individuals with a vested interest in cases is not evidence. When you make outrageous claims that are demonstrably false, that says a lot about your so-called "evidence" or rather the lack of it.

You are automatically and without a grain of critical thinking accepting claims of parents who have had their children taken away from them, and you are posting demonstrably false claims about rules and regulations in Norway.

Now that we have this out of the way, let me reiterate some of the evidence, by asking three questions.

None of this is evidence. All of it is hearsay. There are no objective, verifiable sources.

1. How would you classify an act of a country that detains a child with a foreign citizenship despite protests of this child's guardians and the childs home-country. Further this country provides shaky or no evidence to extradite this child to his home-country? In my book that's kidnapping/abduction. And that's exactly what happened in the case of the 3 Russian families, mentioned in the OP and in subsequent posts, as well as to Czech families, Polish families and the recent Lithuanian families, whose case hofor so viciously attacked.

Why are you assuming that the stories of these people are accurate, and that they are not simply lying or omitting inconvenient facts to further their own cause? How do you know that the CPS did not rightfully take the children away from abusive parents?

2. What would you say face-to-face, to the father, who's daughters are held in captivity by the Norwegian state:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=828129.msg10752510#msg10752510

This is just another example of how you automatically assume that you are given an accurate description of the situation. How do you know that the parents did not abuse the children?

3. How would you describe the following selection of official reasons, given in order to deprive parents of their children and children of their parents?
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page122/page122.html

I see no sources, and no evidence. Just a list of unsourced claims.

I do like this sentence from the page: "And why does anybody believe that 'child experts' who come up with that kind of argument – even had it been only in a single case – can be trusted in their 'diagnosing' of other cases?"

It is highly relevant, because we see a number of false claims from you and the owner of that site. No child will be taken away from its parents because there is no "military order" in the clothing cabinet. That's a preposterous claim. I also list several preposterous claims from you above. With all of these misleading and false claims, how can either of you be trusted to be factual and objective/unbiased when it comes to the CPS?

Now for my questions:

Do you really think one of the top countries on human rights would have an entire system in place just to terrorize innocent parents?

Do you really believe that a child was taken away from its parents because it lost a milk tooth?

Finally, do read Marianne Skanland's posts, and keep an eye on the following sites
Save our children: http://forum.r-b-v.net/
English subsection: http://www.barnevern.org/category/utenlandske-nyheter/

Unfortunately, the quality of these sites is rather bad. Claims are appearing out of thin air and people on the forums are accepting them without a single critical thought. This is what a cult does.

As a thought experiment, let's consider a child who's being beaten and sexually abused by both of its parents. Should this child not be taken away from them?

I can answer this one. Yes.

Good. Now, please provide evidence that these cases you have mentioned are in fact not cases where the children have been mistreated.

But that's not the majority of child extraction cases. What about the cases, when the child is a foreign citizen? Why should Norway so desperately hold onto a citizen of another country, breaking every thinkable international law?

Please cite some of these laws. Furthermore, please cite the relevant Norwegian laws. Because you are not just making assumptions with no real evidence, are you?

What about the cases, where the child, after having been taken from his parents, is beaten and mistreated by the foster parents, but is return to those abusers even if he managers to escape?

There are cases of children being mistreated by foster parents, and that is of course completely unacceptable. As unacceptable as when the real parents mistreat a child. In both cases, the child should be taken away from them, do you not agree?

Another case:
http://www.barnevern.org/aistei-ramoskienei-fra-litauen-mistet-sonnen-til-norske-barnevernet/
A Lithuanian woman lost her 5-yo child to Norwegian CPS, after she left her husband, who displayed violent attitude. I'll write an English translation of the article later.

And not a single critical thought and no critical questions asked. Every wild story about the evil CPS is accepted as Truth.

[1715615861]

1715615861

[1715615861]

1715615861

[1715615861]

1715615861

[1715615861]

1715615861

[Okurkabinladin]

Grinder, "Those who participate in this part of the forum are all conspiracy nuts" is not an argument, abut a logical fallacy, called Ad Hominem.

It´s actually quite telling. Are Grinder/Hofor Norwegians by any chance? These personal attacks in response to legit criticism of their inhuman government system would be in line with HerrenVolk idea.

Mother of Michalak brothers repeatedly adressed Barnevernet (in front of czech-eu MP Hassenkopf), WHAT SHE DID DO WRONG and HOW COULD SHE RECTIFY errors on her part, that were never even told to her. Response? Barnevernet at first stated, that it is not ready to answer such questions, then its deputies simply walked off.

You nazis here find it completely fine, that biological mother is forbidden to use native language to the boys two times a year, when she is allowed visits by gestapo. You are completely fine with the fact, that norwegian state took foreign citizens without notifying their home country. You are completely fine, that not even your own courts and police can do anything to thwart decision by your Über-bureau.

Only thing you are capable of, is accusing millions of foreign citizens, who took notice of your criminal system to be "conspiracy nuts". Good job, Norway!

http://motls.blogspot.cz/2015/01/norways-theft-of-two-czech-boys-is.html

[Okurkabinladin]

Hofor: "Now for my questions:
1) Do you really think one of the top countries on human rights would have an entire system in place just to terrorize innocent parents?"

Hilarious   Is your entire existence tied to some random list? United States is by most such lists, extremely rich country, yet third of its population is living on food tickets.

2) "Do you really believe that a child was taken away from its parents because it lost a milk tooth?"

Now, this is really continuation of the first, right? Well, I actually DO believe, that social workers in Norway believe, that they are doing greater good (so did Pol Pot). They also believe, thanks to their misguided postmodern education, that family is merely biological construct and its members are really property of the state, they have also zero understanding of international law for they hold and keep foreign citizens without dealing with respective embassies.

Andrej Ruščák, who lived in Norway for many years (and actually raises his son there), told me, that while Norway´s social workers are not inherently bad people, they see biological parents as merely temporary caretakers of the children   Yes, in fact eating "too much" chocolate is a reason in Norway for Barnevernet attention, as is appearing "sad" in school or oh god forbid, being spanked by parent (thats pretty much outlawed already).

HOFOR, I dare you, will you comment on the fact, that not even your own courts are capable of overturning decision of local Barnevernet workers? It this how Norwegians see rule of law?

EDIT: Since you want citation of the law, but are completely unable to provide any yourself. Here is european framework for you. Have a nice read. Custody is always decided by court of law, not by random batshit insane, norwegian activist from Barnevernet. http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/children/parental-responsibility/index_en.htm

[hofor]

You nazis here find it completely fine, that biological mother is forbidden to use native language to the boys two times a year, when she is allowed visits by gestapo. You are completely fine with the fact, that norwegian state took foreign citizens without notifying their home country. You are completely fine, that not even your own courts and police can do anything to thwart decision by your Über-bureau.

It makes sense that once the child has been taken away from an abusive parent, the parent's meetings with the formerly abused child need to be supervised. And that isn't possible if the supervisors don't understand the language.

Hofor: "Now for my questions:
1) Do you really think one of the top countries on human rights would have an entire system in place just to terrorize innocent parents?"

Hilarious   Is your entire existence tied to some random list? United States is by most such lists, extremely rich country, yet third of its population is living on food tickets.

No, it is not some random list. Norway is, in fact, known for its respect for human rights. Do you know anything about Norway at all?

2) "Do you really believe that a child was taken away from its parents because it lost a milk tooth?"

Now, this is really continuation of the first, right? Well, I actually DO believe, that social workers in Norway believe, that they are doing greater good (so did Pol Pot). They also believe, thanks to their misguided postmodern education, that family is merely biological construct and its members are really property of the state, they have also zero understanding of international law for they hold and keep foreign citizens without dealing with respective embassies.

You didn't really answer the question, but I'll bite.

It doesn't matter what individual CPS workers think (of course they are individuals like everyone else, and have different opinions on different things). It matters what the law says, and the law states that biology is in fact important. So once again the people criticizing the Norwegian CPS are making demonstrably false claims.

I'm still not sure what international laws you are referring to. Care to elaborate?

Andrej Ruščák, who lived in Norway for many years (and actually raises his son there), told me, that while Norway´s social workers are not inherently bad people, they see biological parents as merely temporary caretakers of the children   Yes, in fact eating "too much" chocolate is a reason in Norway for Barnevernet attention, as is appearing "sad" in school or oh god forbid, being spanked by parent (thats pretty much outlawed already).

I don't know who this person is, but I do know that he is wrong. Why should one listen to someone who is spreading demonstrably false claims?

Yes, spanking is outlawed. Not just "pretty much", physical abuse of children is completely forbidden in Norway. It's an excellent example of Norway caring for the rights of the individual, in this case the child. Spanking is physical abuse, and research also shows that even spanking causes permanent brain issues, including slower development, etc. What gives you the right to physically abuse another human being, if I might ask?

It seems that those who criticize the CPS support the physical abuse of children. Things are becoming clearer... Can the rest of the people criticizing the CPS here clarify whether they think physical abuse, such as spanking a child, is acceptable?

HOFOR, I dare you, will you comment on the fact, that not even your own courts are capable of overturning decision of local Barnevernet workers? It this how Norwegians see rule of law?

Of course the courts are able to overturn such decisions. The problem for your argument is that those decisions are strongly founded in the first place, and every time the CPS wants to take a child away from its parents it has to be approved by  separate "court" of sorts ("fylkesnemnda", which consists of, among other things, ordinary people called in for duty). That can then be appealed to the courts, but since independent people have already looked into the matter you know that the CPS has a strong case.

EDIT: Since you want citation of the law, but are completely unable to provide any yourself. Here is european framework for you. Have a nice read. Custody is always decided by court of law, not by random batshit insane, norwegian activist from Barnevernet. http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/children/parental-responsibility/index_en.htm

It isn't decided by CPS in Norway either. It's decided by Fylkesnemnda.

Your link doesn't really support your claim, by the way:

"The rules on custody and visiting rights are unique to each country. National laws determine who will have custody, whether custody will be single or shared, who will decide on the child's education, who will administer the child's property and similar issues."

It does say that court rulings are recognized across the EU, but that's not really the issue we're debating.

[Okurkabinladin]

Hofor,

"maybe" you have misread EU statement. Indeed child custody is decided by national laws, after court proceedings, nothing like that takes place in Norway, where children are taken away by state after mere psychologist statement and lended to well payed foster parents after as little as one month, thus negating your statemenet about any significance of biological family in the first place.

In the case of Michalak family, Barnevernet took the children away after alleged sexual abuse, that was negated as false by both local police and norwegian court. Both boys were parted into different families (why?). Barnevernet however refused to overturn its original decision and even forbidden mother to speak to her children in czech (it wasnt issue until she made appeal to court - negating your statement, that supervision would be impossible). Czech state was not notified by Norway at any point, that its citizens were kept in Norway. After national media and politicians took notice, Barnevernet once again refused to cooperate, unable to even state reasons, why the children were taken away (they couldnt state sexual abuse, as it was already stated to be false by Norway´s justice department) or how should Miss Michalak change her behavior. Deputies of Barnevernet walked out. And why not? Since nobody in Norway is above them, they have nice socialist state within another socialist state.

http://www.praguemonitor.com/2015/01/23/ministry-hand-second-note-norway-over-michal%C3%A1k-kids

Stance of head of state: http://rt.com/news/230951-czech-president-norway-nazi/

As to your personal view, that spanking is not acceptable under any circumstances, how far are your compatriots willing to go in this? Is breaking apart family from different culture enough or should the biological relatives of disciplined ones be jailed along with Mr. Breivik in psychiatric asylum?

EDIT: Those cases are not isolated. Norway already recieved 420+ official notices concerning its abuse of children with foreign passports. Quite a deed, considering it si country of mere five million people.

[Okurkabinladin]

It doesn't matter what individual CPS workers think (of course they are individuals like everyone else, and have different opinions on different things). It matters what the law says, and the law states that biology is in fact important. So once again the people criticizing the Norwegian CPS are making demonstrably false claims.

I'm still not sure what international laws you are referring to. Care to elaborate?

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

[SirChiko]

Governments kidnap people all the time. But they call it "arresting".

however kidnapping a citizen of the former USSR may have consequences far darker than any Norwegians nosun may bring to the kidnappers... R.I.P.

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

[hofor]

"maybe" you have misread EU statement. Indeed child custody is decided by national laws, after court proceedings, nothing like that takes place in Norway, where children are taken away by state after mere psychologist statement and lended to well payed foster parents after as little as one month, thus negating your statemenet about any significance of biological family in the first place.

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.

In the case of Michalak family, Barnevernet took the children away after alleged sexual abuse, that was negated as false by both local police and norwegian court.

Once again we only have claims with no evidence. Of course parents don't want to admit to abusing their children. But running to one's local press to state one's case is not evidence. It is just more hearsay. You can't link to random articles with an obvious bias towards the abusive parents.

Barnevernet however refused to overturn its original decision

You still don't know about "Fylkesnemnda" and that a decision there needs to be appealed to the courts? If the CPS finds that there is evidence of abuse and Fylkesnemnda and the courts agree, I see no reason to change the decision.

After national media and politicians took notice, Barnevernet once again refused to cooperate, unable to even state reasons, why the children were taken away

That's because they are bound by confidentiality laws. They can't comment on individual cases (I can't recall any cases they have commented specifically on in public). It might be a good idea for you to educate yourself a bit before forming opinions on something.

Deputies of Barnevernet walked out. And why not? Since nobody in Norway is above them, they have nice socialist state within another socialist state.

Once again you seem to "forget" about Fylkesnemnda and the courts.

Stance of head of state: http://rt.com/news/230951-czech-president-norway-nazi/

Yes, this certainly makes your claims more credible. I love it how you basically shoot yourself in the foot by posting things like this.

As to your personal view, that spanking is not acceptable under any circumstances, how far are your compatriots willing to go in this? Is breaking apart family from different culture enough or should the biological relatives of disciplined ones be jailed along with Mr. Breivik in psychiatric asylum?

While it is my personal view that physically abusing children is wrong, that is not really important here. What's important is the human rights of the child, and the fact that physical abuse leaves permanent scars. The fact that research shows that physical abuse such as spanking actually affects the child's brain.

Of course, you don't really seem to care about the rights of the child. You think it should stay with abusive parents, and you think it's OK to physically abuse a child.

But I'm sorry. If you come to Norway thinking you can keep abusing your child, you are seriously mistaken. And this I believe might be the problem: People from cultures where physical abuse of children is accepted are perhaps often unable to understand that a country has actually banned physical abuse of chidren.

In Norway, you abide by Norwegian law. There's no point in debating that.

EDIT: Those cases are not isolated. Norway already recieved 420+ official notices concerning its abuse of children with foreign passports. Quite a deed, considering it si country of mere five million people.

What official notices? From where?

Lots of unsourced claims. Lots of false claims. No evidence. That's a description of your posts.

It doesn't matter what individual CPS workers think (of course they are individuals like everyone else, and have different opinions on different things). It matters what the law says, and the law states that biology is in fact important. So once again the people criticizing the Norwegian CPS are making demonstrably false claims.

I'm still not sure what international laws you are referring to. Care to elaborate?

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

Which part of this is Norway violating, and how?

[Okurkabinladin]

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.

[Okurkabinladin]

It doesn't matter what individual CPS workers think (of course they are individuals like everyone else, and have different opinions on different things). It matters what the law says, and the law states that biology is in fact important. So once again the people criticizing the Norwegian CPS are making demonstrably false claims.

I'm still not sure what international laws you are referring to. Care to elaborate?

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

Which part of this is Norway violating, and how?

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.

[Marianne Skanland]

  
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. )

[Nemo1024]

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/

5 years ago, 25 years old Aiste Ramoškienei lost her son Christopher Robin to the Norwegian child welfare services. The story began when she packed up and left her husband in northern Norway, for his violent behavior.

CPS was engaged and Aistei had to undergo a medical examination at two psychiatric hospitals because of the reaction to the meeting with the Norwegian child welfare services. Although doctors said that the mother is okay, the child was taken away and placed in a foster home with a lesbian couple.

On January 13, 2015, the boy turned 6 years old. Mom could not even greet him on the phone, because the court had prohibited contact between mother and child, once the Norwegian child welfare became aware of a statement she made in Lithuanian TV3, where she alluded that she had tried everything except kidnapping the child. They now believe that there is a danger that the mother will fetch the child and bring it to Lithuania...

County Tribunal decision was that the mother's explanations and other evidence in the case indicated that the mother did not know that the child needed special care, and that there were deficiencies in the mother's understanding of how she could ensure the child's development process.

Child Welfare psychologist Inger Lise Kvaale described Christopher Robin as a boy with mental injuries. She believed that he should not be returned to his biological family.

Barely eight months later an appointed psychologist Marianne Kaspersen wrote a report that said the boy was a normally functioning child.

Mother learned Norwegian and worked as a waiter, cleaner and saleswoman, but CPS would not return the child. They believe that support measures would not be of help.

She says that a criminal get a judgement and serves a penalty and can start anew. But victims of child welfare do not get the same chance, as there is prestige connected to a case and foster parents oppose return.

But she will never stop fighting to get her son back.

[Souldream]

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 ...

[Okurkabinladin]

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

[bryant.coleman]

Although doctors said that the mother is okay, the child was taken away and placed in a foster home with a lesbian couple.

This is the ultimate aim of this whole exercise. Kidnap normal children, and place them with homosexuals. More than 50% of these children will end up sexually abused, and some of them will become serial killers and rapists in the future.

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

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

[BitMos]

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.

[Marianne Skanland]

  
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!

  

[BitMos]

1 is already too much.

[sam-paul]

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

.

.

[sam-paul]

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.