Child Kidnappings by the Western-European States

[EUROPEANTURK]

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

i am very impressed by your words.. arresting means the total kidnapping but governments kidnap people legally .. they say that we have allegations over you for that reason we have to enserf..

[1714142752]

1714142752

[1714142752]

1714142752

[1714142752]

1714142752

[1714142752]

1714142752

[Nemo1024]

And apropos arresting... The following news are from USA, but are still related to the topic of the "state owning your kid".

Astakhov's office reported that a female Russian citizen was arrested in USA for taking he daughter to Russia 2 years ago. Both mother and daughter are Russian citizens and USA did not have any objections to the girl going to Russia back then.

Now, after having arrested the mother as a hostage, the court of Illinois demands that the girl - a Russian citizen - is brought back to USA.

Astakhov's office and the Russian Foreign Ministry view American actions as utter lawlessness and will be giving full assistance to the kidnapped mother.

http://tass.ru/obschestvo/3338411

[Marianne Skanland]

  
If anybody can get anywhere, it must be Astakhov.

Would you enlighten us non-Russian-readers and tell us whether there is perhaps an American father, living in Illinois, in the picture?

Custody disputes between parents are hellishly difficult most of the time. It is much easier to see that a child is better off with parents, or at least one parent, or other biological family, than in the hands of a CPS authority. For one thing, the results of foster care, from every country where good studies have been made, are shown to be statistically so much worse than even growing up in difficult social and economic circumstances but in one's own biological family. Certainly there is individual variation, but the statistics, and therefore the prognosis for foster care, are glum.
  
  

[bryant.coleman]

And apropos arresting... The following news are from USA, but are still related to the topic of the "state owning your kid".

Astakhov's office reported that a female Russian citizen was arrested in USA for taking he daughter to Russia 2 years ago. Both mother and daughter are Russian citizens and USA did not have any objections to the girl going to Russia back then.

Now, after having arrested the mother as a hostage, the court of Illinois demands that the girl - a Russian citizen - is brought back to USA.

Astakhov's office and the Russian Foreign Ministry consider view American actions as utter lawlessness and will be giving full assistance to the kidnapped mother.

http://tass.ru/obschestvo/3338411

The Americans are going overboard with their mutually destructive tactics. Remember the incidents a few months ago, when a Russian national was kidnapped from the resort he was staying in Maldives, and brought to the United States? What will be the reaction of the Americans, if one of their nationals is kidnapped in some third world country, and then brought to Russia?  

[Nemo1024]

 
If anybody can get anywhere, it must be Astakhov.

Would you enlighten us non-Russian-readers and tell us whether there is perhaps an American father, living in Illinois, in the picture?
  

I got more details on the case from another article:
http://www.vz.ru/society/2016/6/4/814383.html

Olga P. is divorced. Father is not specified in the girl's birth certificate.

Olga P. was arrested in the airport of Chicago upon arrival. She's been thrown into prison together with murderers, where she lost conciousness several times. She's been also equipped with GPS transmitter bracelet, so that she would not attempt to return to Russia.

She may be sentenced to life in prison for "abducting a person". Her ex-husband Horte Castillion filed the abduction report, saying that she didn't ask his permission to take her daughter to Russia. Castillio and Olga married in USA. the daughter was less than a year old back then. They divorced 1.5 years after. She says that if the man wanted to accept/acknowledge his daughter, he could have done that in Russia as well, but then he'd be forced to pay alimony. She sees it as his revenge on her.

Her daughter, the Russian citizen has been living in Russia with her grandparents for 2 years. The Illinois judge demand that the girl be sent to USA. However, the Russian Constitution prohibits extradition of an under-age Russian citizen to another country.

Russia has sent a note of protest to the US. State Department and is giving Olga P. legal assistance.

[Marianne Skanland]

  
Truly? He has not acknowledged his daughter and doesn't want to, but wants her to be sent to him?
Sounds like an ugly case.

  

[Marianne Skanland]

  
The Romanian-Norwegian family Bodnariu have got their children back, at least:

Official statement:
Bodnariu case – Finally home, REUNITED!

  

[Mayuyu48]

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

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

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

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

Norway had about 8000 such cases, 20 of which against Russian citizens. India made a TV documentary, called "Nightmare in Norway" - an Indian child got confiscated from its Indian parents in the same manner after the authorities learnt that the child crept into his parents bed after having nightmares (a child, according to the rules, must always sleep in its own bed).

The state-kidnapped children are often placed in care of families of "non-traditional orientation", which is in accordance with the Norwegian doctrine of de-genderaisation of children. A child should be an "it", until "it" is old enough to decide if it wants to be a "she" or "he".

In those cases when parents managed to prove their innocence, and children were returned, the families were still forced to leave Norway.

So, when visiting Norway with a child, make sure not to anger it so that it does not start tell tall tails of abuse to its teachers and don't feed it from your hands (falls under the transgression of "forced feeding")

This is insane. I'm so baffled by things happening around the globe.
This is practically like destroying families, and childhoods. I can't imagine the pain such parents and kids have to deal with.

[abugseuf]

yes it may be a fact because such kind of news are spreading in social media. a news agency also write an article of this statement. i think it is not a good think. the authorities like UNO should take a positve step against such activities.

[funkenstein]

This is not kidnapping. This is the value that the Norway gives to the children.

You can't abuse children in Norway...

Unless of course, you are the official regulator of child abuse.  In which case, abuse away. 

This is called "regulatory capture" and it happens everywhere that people put faith in uniformed gang members without recognizing the dangers of regulatory capture. 

I'm guessing this particular flavor is way more common in occupied North America.  I know half a dozen or so cases growing up here.  Even a wealthy doctor found with the wrong plants growing in the garden can have their kids taken.  Any type of claimed non-subservience to "authorities" is also plenty of reason to break up a family and create a fresh generation of mental illness.  Welcome to orcdom. 

[Marianne Skanland]

  

A recent case of flight from Norway:

Dramatic Escape from Barnevernet!
Delight in Truth, 2 July 2016

"Barnevernet" is the Norwegian child protection agency.

There are 178 comments to this article at the moment. The couple with their twin daughters have fled to Poland and are reportedly applying for political asylum there. Let's hope they succeed and are let in peace, although chances are that Norway will do everything they possibly can to get hold of the children and prosecute the parents.

It by any chance Poland turns their application down, next stop ought to be the Czech Republic. There, the president will be on their side. He has previously stated officially that Barnevernet are acting like the Nazis. – Russia too might take them in, but would probably be a more difficult place for them to live.
  

[escrowboy]

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

i am very impressed by your words.. arresting means the total kidnapping but governments kidnap people legally .. they say that we have allegations over you for that reason we have to enserf..

That's right. Government arrest children because they violated a certain law, maybe it is because they are caught within curfew hours or other thing that is under law.

[Nemo1024]

I've changed the title of this thread to better reflect the reality of the situation and the much more wider reach of the problem.

Here is the recent outrageous case from Germany:

http://www.aif.ru/society/people/organy_po_borbe_s_lyudmi_u_russkih_nemcev_otnimayut_novorozhdyonnogo_syna

Two of the children of Anjelina de Mejer, (24, born in Crimea, living in Germany, ethnic German, has Russian citizenship) were taken away from her. She came once to a doctor with her daughter 2-month old, who had a swollen foot. The girl had a fracture, so the mother was accused of torturing the children (no proof were ever given by the authorities), and the CPS came to their home and took both kids away (the other one is a 2.5 year-old son) . The children were then quickly adopted away to 2 separate foster families.

Anjelina was at the time pregnant with a third child, and CPS informed her that the yet-unborn child will be take away from her too.

The pregnant woman fled to Crimea together with her mother (they correctly judged that the suspended legal status of the peninsular in Europe would let them go there without hindrance), and then moved to Moscow, where she gave birth to the third child. The family already had 2 court hearings, trying to get the children back.  She now stands accused by Germany of kidnapping the child that was in her womb, and a German court ordered to get the newborn child from Russia! The court decision says that "her guilt is not proven yet the newborn child must be taken away from her and her husband  refuse to take the blame for something that they did not do in the past." Russia objects, saying that both the mother an the newborn (born on Russian soil) are Russian citizens, and that German court is thus violating the international law.

An interesting aside - German court at first refused to let Russian consular and lawyer in, saying that they have nothing to do with the case, but later there were let in, thus actually acknowledging Russian jurisdiction over Crimea.

Anjelina said in the interview that she heard of cases when children were taken away from families, but she never expected it to touch her life.

At the end of the article there is a reference to another case of Andrei and Tatjana Lorence from a few years back, whose 6(!) children were taken away by the German CPS. They too fled to Russia with a yet-unborn child, and Germany also tried to get its hands on the new-born girl from the Volgograd region. Back then the family saved the 7th child, but the price was loss of all possibility for contact with their other 6 children.

[Nemo1024]

An update:

http://www.aif.ru/society/law/vpervye_na_territorii_strany_es_sudebnyy_organ_oficialno_priznal_krym

An interesting fragment, at least boding well for the parents:

...
According to what the President of the European Information Centre for Human Rights in Vienna, Harry Murey told AiF.ru, the trial court issued on August 17 a ruling on the inadmissibility of  deprivation of a citizen of Russia, Angelina de Meyer, and her husband, Daniel de Meyer, of parental rights on the newborn baby. "The month-old child of De Meyer family is a citizen of the Russian Federation and at the moment is not residing in Germany. The Court emphasized that Jugendamt Paderborn CPS agency's appeal to the court is unreasonable and can not have a chance of success." - said Murey.

Recall that two years ago a court in the same city deprived Angelina de Meyer (citizen of Russia), and her husband, a native of Germany, of parental rights to two minor children - Abby and Jamie -accusing the parents without evidence of abusing the minors.

...

In that ruling, the German court has also acknowledged that Crimea, where the child was born, is in fact a part of the Russian Federation.

...
"Despite all the hardships and difficulties, August 17 can be called a truly significant day for Russia. Admitting Russian diplomats to participate in the hearing, the Court implicitly acknowledged the child, born in the heart of the Crimea, in Simferopol, for a fully-qualified citizen of the Russian Federation, according to the legislative acts of the Russian Constitution. It is obvious that there has not been set such precedents in the courts on the territory of the European Union, since Crimea became part of the Russian Federation.", - noted in the European information center for human rights.

[Marianne Skanland]

  


A very good, illustrative symposium recently in Vienna,
on the wayward Norwegian child protection system



Save The Children – Stop Violating Children's rights in Norway – Symposium LIVE
Save the Children, on youtube, 23 September 2016
(the symposium actually starts at around 35 minutes)

The organisers and hosts were Christian individuals of different denominations.
The speeches were in English, with interspersed German translation.


Some additional videos from the event,
the hosts welcoming the guests:

Symposium "Save the Children" - welcome to arriving guests
Save the Children, on youtube, 23 September 2016

How does it feel when your child is taken away?
Save the Children, on youtube, 23 September 2016

Marius Reikeras: "It is a war against human rights crimes!"
Save the Children, on youtube, 23 September 2016



Here in German, some days before the symposium. Very appopriately the
interviewed bishop says this is a problem in many countries:

Symposium "Save the Children"
Save the Children, on youtube, 14 September 2016

Weihbischof Scharl begrüßt das Symposium
(texted in English)
Save the Children, on youtube, 15 September 2016

  

  

[ice098]

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

i am very impressed by your words.. arresting means the total kidnapping but governments kidnap people legally .. they say that we have allegations over you for that reason we have to enserf..

That's right. Government arrest children because they violated a certain law, maybe it is because they are caught within curfew hours or other thing that is under law.

Strongly agree! A small sentence but big impact and a lot of message through it!. Curfew is one of the policy that is implementing by the government and if you are caught because of it they call it arresting -_- ! But i do agree on the side of government because they are just concern to those minors that is walking in the street though it is mid night.

[Marianne Skanland]

  

Positive development:
The European Court of Human Rights has woken up and seems about to give Norway's child protection system a proper scrutiny. Here is quite an informative article about it:

**************


25 October 2016


Resounding victory for the child protection demonstrators!
Demonstrators get outside help – and the child protection Minister becomes paralyzed!

By Olav Sylte, lawyer


• • •
Olav Sylte is a Norwegian lawyer who has represented the families in many child protection cases, and who is also active writing articles about such issues in e.g. periodicals, newspapers and on his website Rett og urett (Justice and injustice).
   The Norwegian original of this article, "Brakseier for 'barnevernsdemonstrantene'!", was published on October 19, 2016.
   This English version is published here with the author's kind consent.
• • •


They demonstrate in front of the Norwegian Parliament and are heatedly active on the internet, their common denominator being that they think the justice system is not working at all. At least not when it comes to Norwegian child protection (CPS) – Barnevernet. Now they may have found acceptance for being at least partially right.

Norway is in fact no longer considered to be typically best in class, at least not in an honest way, and this apparently also applies to child protection and the legal system.



The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The question I am raising here is not that of exploitation of natural resources, pollution or the use of dope in sports, but the basic issue of whether Barnevernet's intervention in families and homes has been "necessary" interference in these families in the human rights sense.

The alternative is that it may have been grave transgression of human rights.

Article 8-2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is the rule that states the requirement of "necessity", and this is what has been subject to debate lately.



The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

My reason for taking this up now is that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has set in motion this year something resembring a unique, grand action against our child protection and justice system.

In a European context, it is rare that something like this happens. So it does not really surprise me that our Minister of Children and Equality had to give a rather sensational statement to the daily news on October 18.

The action started with the ECtHR admitting a Norwegian child protection case about forced adoption, to be considered under the possibility of violation of ECHR Article 8 last year. Human rights jurist Marius Reikerås was the one to submit the case and according to the media, he has had to move abroad as a result of his activity.

This case has probably, in conjunction with extensive demonstrations and criticism of the Norwegian child protection system over the past year, opened a fertile ground for other cases to get through the narrow needle's eye which the ECtHR usually keeps.

The action revolves around the investigation of, so far, 7 Norwegian cases, several of them about adoption, and the question of whether ECHR article 8, including the requirement of "necessity", has been violated.

( About the action: "Angriper barnevernet – Storoffensiv mot Norge: Menneskerettsdomstolen skal granske sju norske barnevernsaker" (Attacks Barnevernet – Grand offensive against Norway: The ECtHR is to investigate 7 Norwegian child protection cases) )

Even the fact that so many cases on the same issue have been admitted for proceedings, justifies the assertion that child welfare critics have already achieved a resounding win over Norwegian Barnevernet and the legal system that we have.



No self-criticism on the part of Barnevernet

Norwegian child protection gives the impression that the opposite has happened, and pretends that they do not even know of the ECtHR's recent activity.

To illustrate this, I can mention a case on adoption in which I represented the parents before a County Board a few days ago.

In this case the municipality's lawyer held that the human rights provision is not even applicable in matters of adoption, even though adoption is the most intrusive and serious intervention which the authorities can use against parents who do not agree to having their child adopted away.

The municipal lawyer claimed not to have heard anything about the ECtHR being involved in any proceedings regarding forced adoption, and had absolutely no knowledge of any activity of the ECtHR this year.

Certainly the central child protection authorities do not seem to have issued any instruction to curtail anything.



The Attorney General

Even the Attorney General, who has a habit of supporting the practice of the authorities, has recently stated that he is aware that the Norwegian child protection system may have got "out of control".

This was in the summer. Subsequently, two more Norwegian cases were admitted to the ECtHR for consideration in the Court (the number of cases thus being increased from 5 to now 7).

( His statement: "Det norske barnevernet under lupen" (Norwegian Barnevernet under close scrutiny) )



Paralyzed Minister

The headline in the newspaper Dagbladet said that the Minister of Children and Equality, too, does not rule out the possibility that Norwegian Barnevernet and the justice system may systematically have violated human rights, like the critics have over several years claimed they do. This at least is my interpretation, based on the newspaper report, of what the Minister said.

I hope somebody will as soon as possible explain to Minister Horne that she is in fact responsible and can issue instructions as she sees fit.

The responsible Minister is expected to immediately have her Ministry instruct all Barnevern offices in the country to change tack before it is too late.



The correction may come from outside

The assertion and the lack of information about the media image shown by the municipal lawyer I mentioned above, may serve as an illustration of the Norwegian child protection system and the zealous legal system that we have.

We have a system which does not dare to admit that it may have made terrible errors, in matters of basic human rights and dignity. That is actually what ECHR Article 8 really is about.

When even the Minister does not manage to take action before it is too late, but just concludes that something may be wrong, there is perhaps only one option left, and that is that the correction must come from outside.

I assume that if this is the case, what happens might be somehat more brutal. Only time will tell and the minister still has a few months to clean house.



Further limitation of the freedom of expression of the involved parties

I have written about this subject for many years. I have also been reported to the Bar Association's disciplinary unit for it. This is the side of Minister Horne which I have seen, besides the article in Dagbladet.

( More here: "Bufdir til klagesak mot advokat" (The directorate for child protection makes complaint against lawyer))

Furthermore, a year ago I wrote the following:
   If someone is to be criticized besides the psychologist in the current case, it is above all the Norwegian courts with the Supreme Court in the lead. This because the threshold for intervention in private homes may have been set too low in general, and probably all too often in violation of ECHR Article 8. I have yet to see someone criticize, with similar campaigns, the Norwegian courts for this.

 – I believe this claim is just as relevant today – but this is of scant help for those who have already lost their children. They can, however, expect to be invited by Horne to seminars, in the election campaign of the Progress Party which has started.


**


  

[Marianne Skanland]

  
24 November 2016


The Norwegian child protection agency Barnevernet's use of duress and force against children

By Marianne Haslev Skånland


• • •
A slightly shorter version of this article in Norwegian has been published under the title Barnevernets bruk av tvang og makt mot barn.
The translation, including translation of quoted statements, is mine.
MH Skånland
• • •


(a)
In 1951, psychologist Mrs Gori Gunvald was employed at Bjerketun behandlingshjem og skole (Bjerketun treatment home and school), an institution for "unruly" young girls. She made strong objections against the abuse and neglect which the residents were exposed to. The girls could, for example, be punished for disobedience by having to stay in bed for a month. (The whole set-up was under the supervisory authority of the national director of health, Karl Evang. Everybody who has been confined to bed because of illness knows that the very fact of lying in bed, not being able to get up and take exercise, is detrimental to health.) Gulvald got the boot. However, she managed to mobilise the press and the case also drew attention in Stortinget (the Norwegian parliament). The institution had different answers when inconvenient questions were put to them: 1) The accusations were not true; 2) They were true, but the punishments were part of raising and teaching the girls; 3) The punishments were part of (psychiatric) treatment.


(b)
In 1996, two child protection workers at a private child protection institution in Vestfold county were convicted in the County Court for their methods of bringing up children (report on 11 April 1996 on the news of NRK, the national broadcasting company). The judgment especially emphasised their treatment of a 14-year-old boy, whom they had taken out in a copse without clothes, made to stand upright in a sleeping-bag for a long time, and forced to stand with his feet down in a puddle of icy water.

The two had to pay fines of NOK 5,000 (approx. US$600 - 900), but they were not deprived of their right to work in child protection, neither in the public nor in the private part of the system.


(c)
In 2001, some programs on TV2 showed children who against their will and against their strong protest were taken by physical force by Barnevernet with the help of the police (cf MH Skånland: En debatt om politi og presse som sporet av (A debate about police and press which derailed) 29 March 2002 / 22 October 2006). Mrs Karita Bekkemellem Orheim, the Minister for Child and Family Affairs of the Labour Government at that time, appeared on tv very shocked and angry, saying that no matter what, children in Norway were not to be treated like that.

One of the children was an 11-year-old boy, who strongly tried to resist being forced from his father's home in Norway to his mother in Denmark. He was brought to a psychiatric ward. The father was convicted of kidnapping and went to prison. But the boy came to his father for summer holidays the next year too, and now he had reached 12 years and had some legal rights, so this time the mother and the authorities had in the end to yield when he refused to be forced to go to Denmark once more. In 2006, his father instituted legal proceedings against the state and obtained satisfaction and a symbolic compensation for having been accused and sentenced. The son, now 16, gave evidence in court, confronting and blaming the public prosecutor very strongly for the way the prosecutor had conducted the case. In a news program on TV2 the son now asked what had happened to all the promises of the politicians "after the worst experiences of his life back in 2001". The Minister of Justice Knut Storberget (Labour Party) said in an interview: "I wish for a future in which we to a lesser degree make use of the police for that kind of assignments. I think it is natural for us to put some [proposals to Parliament], so that we tell the politicians, and the police too, by the way, how such difficult questions, among other things, are to be handled."


(d)
The fresh case about "The Glass Girl" is by now quite well known, through a series of articles in Stavanger Aftenblad (Saken Glassjenta is a thread of comments and links to articles in Norwegian).

"Ida", as she is called, has been repeatedly exposed to physical, brutal force, coercion, monitoring, restraint, and – in spite of originally having been persuaded to let herself be placed in Barnevernet voluntarily – has been brought back by force when she fled. All of it behaviour, by public employees, of a type and to a degree that would likely have interested an international torture commission with its eyes on ordinary prisons, if it had happened there. Ida has now been sentenced to imprisonment for crimes she has committed while in the institutions.

Everybody is "so upset", local and central authorities right up to Minister of Children and Equality Solveig Horne hold meetings and "confess" to "not having done enough" for The Glass Girl. Politicians and bureaucrats talk importantly about how "we must learn" from this case, it is presented as an exception due to lack of resources (but they have apparently paid out something in the neighbourghood of NOK 28,000 (≈US$ 3000) per day to keep her prisoner in institutions); the health authorities and the county governors are to intensify their supervision of institutions, in new ways, and the authorities want to make Barnevernet "even better" than today. Ida is apparently serving her prison sentence in some setting of "Forandringsfabrikken / Barneverns-proffene" (The change factory / The Barnevern professionals), a group of youths who, directed by the authorities, make propaganda for Barnevernet and for Barnevernet "leaning more". – The falsehood of all the propaganda ought to make all Norway take to its senses and blush. It stinks. It is certainly not a case of not having done enough, it is, on the contrary, one of having done far too much, all of it harmful.

*

No cases of these types between the dates mentioned above? Oh yes certainly, a steady stream rather, many of them easy to document quite openly. Allowed to take place not only under the social-state-idealists from the Labour Party and the Socialist Left Party, but also under the ministers Valgerd Svarstad Haugland and Laila Dåvøy, both of Kristelig Folkeparti (The Christian Democratic Party), which proclaims "the family" to be one of its very central concerns. What has been going on through the decades has been supported by all of them. Our politicians and bureaucrats have seen to it that there is a handy rule for themselves (possibly unlawful) saying that they "cannot go into individual cases". In this way they avoid responsibility and realism, and avoid keeping the individual cases in mind until the next time there is an "individual case". Just the way an article title in Stavanger Aftenblad hit the nail on the head. It can be paraphrased this way: It is not a failed case in the system. It is a system of betrayal.

How about pulling oneself together enough to face the totality? Our authorities permit themselves to act ignorant of history. This too they do repeatedly. They are "so shocked" at a few individual cases, but they babble on as before about "having to do more for the most vulnerable" and then the cases are hushed up. No admission or acknowledgement; eyes closely shut and sticking with one's buddies are tactics making sure of good protection for them. But here is a bit of reality which bears on exactly this matter:

Over the last 25-30 years, compensation schemes have been launched by the state, the municipalities and the counties, for people who have experienced neglect, force and abuse in Barnevernet's care. At first, compensation only covered care in children's homes / orphanages, and was limited to what had happened back in the 1950s and 1960s, at least 25 years before application for redress. At the same time, there was endless repetition of a refrain claiming that such things only happened long ago; now (in the 1990s) conditions were said to be altogether different. Then, new announcements kept coming, saying people could apply for compensation, they were broadened to include unwarranted treatment of children in foster homes, and the time limit has crept towards only about 10 years before the present. At the same time, nobody initiating a showdown about such abusive treatment, new cases of the same kind are created all the time, cases which will no doubt lead to compensation claims from the new generations in not too many years. The idea that Barnevernet is such a safe haven for children lives on. The naïve among us believe either that only in the olden days was Barnevernet bad, or that only the very last years are experiencing an unusual deviation from a system working well. In reality, Barnevernet's actions are about the same as before, they have just come to affect more children and families than before because of increased financing.

*

The Ministry of Children and Equality talks big practically every day, in the newspapers and in official statements, about child welfare and protecting children from abuse. They are active abroad, teaching their opposite numbers in other countries how to protect children from violence from their parents. Norway claims to be world leader in children's rights and scientific knowledge about children. (The Ministry's website, English version)

The present Minister Solveig Horne claims that the "investigation" of The Glass Girl case will change all of the Barnevern services. Really? – Why have no previous cases changed it?

Here, then, is a case only some days old: A 5-year-old boy was taken by the police and Barnevernet for questioning on Sunday 6 November of this year. Together with his family, he was kept waiting for two hours at the police station. Then he was questioned for an hour and a half, up to 11 pm, by two big and strong policemen he did not know. First, his grandmother was allowed to come with him when he was being questioned. Then the interrogators disliked a critical question from her and sent her out. Now afterwards, the boy is traumatised, according to the family and their lawyer, who was there. – Oh yes, everyone not blinded by all the official propaganda in favour of Barnevernet will quite likely understand that a boy 5 years old can be traumatised in the circumstances.
(5-åring skal ha blitt avhørt til klokka 23 (5-year-old apparently questioned until 11 pm),
nrk Oppland, 15 November 2016;
Avhørte femåring til klokka 23 (Questioned 5-year-old until 11 pm),
GD, 15 november 2016).

*

There is only one way to stop such brutality. It is to stop it. Stop. Cease. Not to carry it out. Stop those under one's management from carrying it out.

Not to cry crocodile tears. Not arrange meetings. Stop.


**
  

[Oppolee]

I think too many are paying attention to this problem. Children are not punished the parents do not get proper education and do not realize what is the punishment. This can lead to more serious consequences in the future.

[Nemo1024]

I am resurrecting this old thread of mine, on account of another hair-raising child state-kidnapping case, this time in Sweden.


A Russian citizen, who reclaimed his children from a foster family, asks for asylum in Poland
http://www.aif.ru/society/law/zabravshiy_svoih_detey_iz_priemnoy_semi_rossiyanin_poprosil_ubezhishcha_v_polshe

Moscow, April 3 - AIF-Moscow.

Russian citizen Denis Lisov, who took his children from a foster family in Sweden, asked for refugee status in Poland, writes RIA Novosti.

Advisor to the Russian Embassy in Poland Vladislav Vybornov explained that Lisov lived earlier in Khabarovsk, then asked for asylum in Sweden. When his wife was hospitalized with a serious illness, the guardianship authorities took his three children - four, six and twelve year-olds - and placed them in the foster home of Muslims from Lebanon living in Sweden. According to the official version, the children were given away due to the fact thatLisov allegedly coped poorly with their parental responsibilities.

Lisov decided to return home, but since he had no Russian documents, the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Swedish Gothenburg gave him a certificate, according to which he and his children could fly to Moscow through Warsaw.

The Swedish authorities placed the adopted children on the police wanted list. Lisov with his three children was detained at the airport of Warsaw.

Lisov's lawyer Bartosz Lewandowski said that he requested asylum in Poland to "protect themselves from the Swedish services." The defence insisted that at the time of trial the children would remain with the father. Levandovsky intends to file a petition for non-admission to participate in the trial for representatives of the family who adopted Lisov's children.