Similar to BODNARIU: Judge in Norway Rules Against “Leading Questions”

A fascinating article was just published in the Norwegian press. A woman had her 4 kids confiscated and then sentenced to jail for “violence” against the children. What was the offense? Giving the children pats on their bottom, grabbing them by the arm and embracing their body and neck to arouse their attention.

As a result the kids were taken and the mother sentenced to jail time.

Fast forward to present. The criminal case was appealed and the conviction was reversed due to lack of evidence against the mother!

HOW WAS THIS MOTHER CONVICTED AND SENT TO PRISON????

This is a key question because the same method was used against the Bodnariu family!

It turns out that the appeals judge noticed serious issues with how the children were interviewed! The new judge realized that the answers the kids were giving under pressure were contradictory and the children were not sure about what they experienced.

WHY WERE THE CHILDREN’S ANSWERS CONTRADICTORY AND UNCLEAR?

Because psychologists used leading questions when they interviewed them. Leading questions prompt or encourage the desired answer.  You can make a child say almost anything using leading questions. And the appeals court recognized this issue.

Delight in Truth is bringing this to light because we know that the Bodnariu children were bombarded with leading questions. One of the girls said the following during an interview:

“I am tired, I do not know what else to make up”

This is the kind of forced testimony that Barnevernet uses to remove children from good and loving homes. I am glad to see that at least some elements of the system recognize the problem. This recognition may have to do with the international protests against the system and with serious cases of abuse and even death within the system.

If the Bodnariu children are not returned home and Barnevernet not reformed, April 16th, 2016 the international D-Day of world-wide protest will be just the beginning of tremendous exposure and shame for Norway.

Norwegian government, is this how you want your country to be seen by the whole world?

115 comments on “Similar to BODNARIU: Judge in Norway Rules Against “Leading Questions”

  1. The mother of eight who had four of her children confiscated by Barnevernet, was also thrown in jail by the police. She had to endure three days in arrest before she was released. This is a police video showing the kind of cells where the mother was kept isolated for three days:

  2.   
    Here is the article I think you’re referring to (or another about the same case), in case anyone wants to google-translate it:

    “Mor først dømt, så frikjent for vold mot barna sine”
    (Mother first found guilty, then found not guilty of violence against her children)
    NRK [the national broadcasting co] division Vestfold county, 5 March 2016
    http://www.nrk.no/vestfold/mor-frikjent-for-vold-mot-sine-fire-barn-1.12831405

    Some other points in the article are noteworthy:

    ” Politiadvokat Hanne Solheim opplyser til NRK at det foreløpig ikke er tatt stilling til om dommen skal ankes.”
    (Lawyer for the police Hanne Solheim says to NRK that so far no decision has been made whether to appeal the verdict [presumably to the Supreme Court].)

    ” Moren er altså frikjent for vold og krenkelser mot barna, men det er ikke sikkert at hun får barna hjem igjen. Den ankesaken skal opp for lagmannsretten senere i år.
    – Barnevernssaken er løsrevet fra straffesaken. Det lagmannsretten har kommet til i straffesaken, gir ikke det hele bildet, sier Urå.”
    (The mother has been found not guilty of violence and violations against the children, but it is not certain that she gets the children back home. That appeal case is due to be processed in the Appeal Court later this year.
    – The CPS case is separate from the criminal case. What the Appeal Court has arrived at in the criminal case does not give the whole picture, says Urå.)

    ” Barnevernstjenesten mener det er flere forhold enn vold som er avgjørende, og kommer til å fastholde de barnefaglige og barnevernsfaglige vurderingene gjort av Tønsberg tingrett i barnevernssaken.”
    (Barnevernet is of the opinion that there are more issues than violence which are decisive, and in the child protection [custody] case they maintain that the child-expert assessments done by Tønsberg district court are right.)

    Dag Inge Urå is the municipality’s lawyer. Mr Urå is known to some of us from other cases. He is rather typical in his going all out to further the point of view of his client, in this case the municipality. So what is the point of view of the municipality? It is the point of view of their child protection office. Norwegian municipalities have been schooled to think of themselves only as employers, and as employers only to defend and protect their employees – here the CPS workers – and everything they do, and to disregard what municipal organisations are for: to give service to the citizens.

    The article also says that nobody around the children in their life with their family had seen any sign of abuse or unsatisfactory conditions. But the municipality comes up with this:

    “Barnas beredskapshjem har fortalt noe annet, men retten mener det kan skyldes reaksjoner på barnevernets og politiets pågang i hjemmet.”
    (The temporary, emergency foster home of the children has said differently, but [the appeal] court holds that to be possibly due to reactions against the energetic interference of Barnevernet and the police in the home.)

    This, again, is typical of such cases: If you take on being a foster home or do other work for Barnevernet, you are “advised” and “taught” their ideology, which they claim to be scientifically based, about parents and children, and you have to practice it or else your employment is terminated. You are taught that you must “help the children open up” about “all they have been exposed to at home”. So in a foster home children are examined and brain-washed to a considerable extent, and everything they say is passed back to Barnevernet. Especially they are taught that their parents are incapable or do not care enough for them to do what is necessary to be allowed to have them with them.

    • You have been a foster parent? You have the guidance of foster parents? You have had the supervison of foster homes? What is qualification for this “expert” statement?

      • I have no intention of answering for Marianne. I’m sure she will reply when she sees this. From what I’ve learned from this blog, I’d do a bit of checking still but I would be comfortable leaving my children with Marianne.

        You, on the other hand, I would not trust with anyone.

        •   
          I don’t think there is much point in letting Mr Nygaard decide what questions one should answer and how, after which he should decide on qualification. In the present case it would be like saying that a male doctor can not qualify as a gynecologist and obstetrician. When it has been relevant, like when I have witnessed as an expert in court in CPS cases, I have of course let the court decide on my qualifications for giving the evidence I have.

          But there are better witnesses than myself regarding fostering, and I have spoken with quite a number. There are especially a number of former foster children who have escaped back to their parents and who have given quite dependable accounts of what foster parents and CPS workers have said to them in order to make them accept being away from their family. There are also reports from some would-be fosterers who have changed their minds when they experienced the “teaching” dished out to them, and chosen not to become foster parents after all, and the odd account from foster parents who leave the system.

          But you people should know that Minister Solveig Horne does not speak to such witnesses. She speaks instead to some former foster children organised in something called “Landsforeningen for barnevernsbarn” (the national association of Barnevern children), who are entirely indifferent to their parents and other family, and only o propaganda for more and more CPS-and-foster-home money and effort. This association is the state’s own creation, and as far as I know the state assists their efforts with money to run their association. What is particularly absent from what they say, is any mention of those children who want to go back to their parents. Why do they not say, “All right, I am/was better off in a foster family, but of course those who are not and who instead love their family should at any time be free to leave CPS care and go back to their family.

      • My parents are foster parents for a little girl (for the last 10 years or so). They do not receive any money from the government or any other entity. They pay for her private school out of their own pocket, because they want the best for her. They cover all her expenses from their own money. That is a real foster parent, not those payed big money sometimes. They are just employees for a mafia stile organization. When too much money exchange hands, it is just a job, not a love endeavor.

        • I absolutely believe, that there are great foster and adoptive parents as well. Some children are abandoned by their parents, some are really at harm in their biological family and there is nobody who can care for them. My two cousins have adopted babies form an institution and my neighbors are great foster parents. I dont hate foster and adoptive parents, but indeed, that has to be only in exceptional cases.

      • Marianne Haslev Skånland has intelligence, something which is missing in Barnevernet. I have never met more stupid people in my whole life. What do you have, Mr, Nygaard? Qualifications as a social worker? That’s really something. You are too tight to understand even the simplest concepts. Just your idiot-thinking is guiding you when you make decisions about children.

        • I pay you with my tax money. You have already received millions of Norwegian crowns for your unwanted and unnecessary “services”. But you are greedy. No sane person would volontarily pay for your “advice” or “theraphy”. Only the poor children have to endure it when you come visiting in the foster home. In stead of their parents, the children get to see you, Knut Nygaard. I am sure you are a very surrogate for parents, (not).

          PS: If you really need money I can spare 10 NOK.

        • Either Knut is getting no sleep or he is doing this on the job. He may be getting paid for his hours here. We can’t trust him to tell the truth, Cecilie (as you well know). If he is a propaganda man, he is not very good at it.

  3. It is ridiculous that they can decide to take children away from parents based solely on some interviews with the kids! Obviously, young children will be overburdened in such a situation where they are bombarded with endless weird questions from some weird people. It just wears the children completely out when the barnevernet people ask endlessly. The concentration span is, as everybody ought to know, not so long with young children. They will soon get tired and just want to go and play.It is only too understandable what one of the Bodnariu girls said in such an interview;” I am tired, I do not know what else to make up”. And can you imagine; She was actually “making things up” in an effort to make them stop questioning her!!!!That means, that a lot of what she said was drawn from her world of phantasy!!!

    Children don`t see and understand the world quite as we do either. They very often say things that don`t quite line up with reality. It is not that they lie, but that they simply aren`t mature enough yet to have the same conceptions as we grown ups have.

    You cannot draw conclusions based solely on the way the child behaves either. If the child is fearful or aggressive it doesn`t have to mean that their parents have done anything wrong. There could be one or more out of hundreds of other reasons for it.

    Sadly, the barnevernet seem to believe that taking the children away from their parents even if they really are not quite sure, is not so bad. How wrong can someone be!!!! By taking away the children from their parents they definitely add up hundreds of new problems that will harm them more than anything else!

    Unless there is some really serious case in a family, where children are severely beaten up to the point where they could be seriously wounded, the barnevernet would do better if they take their time to talk with both parents and children, and look into more aspects of their family life before they make any decisions. Surely they will get a much clearer picture then. Maybe they will even find some hidden family treasures. And by that I don`t mean material treasures, but those unique bonds within a family built on love.

    • An acute intervention is done in accordance with this § in the child welfare act:
      Section 4-6. Interim orders in emergencies.

      If a child is without care because the parents are ill or for other reasons, the child welfare service shall implement such assistance as is immediately required. Such measures may not be maintained against the will of the parents.

      If there is a risk that a child will suffer material harm by remaining at home, the head of the child welfare administration or the prosecuting authority may immediately make an interim care order without the consent of the parents. This is used in the Bodnariu case.

      In such a case the head of the child welfare administration may also make an interim order under section 4-19.

      If an order has been made under the second paragraph, an application for measures as mentioned in section 7-11 shall be sent to the county social welfare board as soon as possible, and within six weeks at the latest, but within two weeks if it is a matter of measures under section 4-24.

      If the matter has not been sent to the county social welfare board within the time-limits mentioned in the fourth paragraph, the order lapses.

      • How can barnevernet know there is a risk that a child/ children will suffer harm by remaining at home? Can such suspicions be based only on the answers a child / children deliver after having been questioned by barnevernet? And when it turns out that barnevernet was wrong about there assumptions and that there wasn’t any danger involved, why are children then still kept by barnevernet and not returned to their parents?

        • The Norwegian Child Welfare Act applies to all children in Norway, regardless of their background, religion, nationality or residential status. The best interest of the child is the primary consideration in the work of the child welfare service.

          The child welfare service is primarily a help service for children and families. The child welfare system places great importance on family ties and continuity in the child’s upbringing. The underlying assumption is that children should grow up with their parents.

          The Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion is responsible for the general child welfare policy. The local child welfare services in the municipalities handles child welfare cases. The Ministry does not have the authority to intervene nor instruct the child welfare services in individual child welfare cases.

          Norway has incorporated the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Norwegian law. The convention states that the state where the child is present has a duty to protect children in accordance with its legislation.

          Each year approximately 53.000 children receive some kind of help from the child welfare service in Norway. More than eight out of ten of these cases were voluntarily assistive measures for children and families. Help may be provided in the form of advice and guidance to parents on parental practices, counselling, economic aid, day care services etc.

          A Care Order is issued by the County Social Welfare Board or District Court and only when the child is subject to serious neglect, maltreatment or abuse. Additionally the care order must be necessary and in the best interest of the child.

          Placing a child outside the home without the parents’ consent is always a measure of last resort. A recent Council of Europe report shows that Norway is in the low range of countries with respect to the number of children in alternative care.

          Parents are entitled to a due process, including free legal services, the right to be heard and the right to appeal the decision of the Board or District Court. Parents may file for revocation of the care order yearly.

          The Pentecostal Movement in Norway has issued a statement. They find that Norwegian authorities, including Child Welfare Services, treats various religious groups in a fair and satisfactory manner. “We have no reason to believe that we are treated differently than other groups in Norway due to our faith.”
          Full press release: http://www.norway.org/PageFiles/786906/Pentecostal%20Press%20release%2012%20jan%202016.pdf

          The Norwegian Government has issued specific guidelines. English translation is forthcoming: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/nye-retningslinjer-om-barnevern-over-landegrensene/id2467854/

          For more information: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/families-and-children/child-welfare/id1058/

          I have answered your and similar questions a hundred times and you in Norwegian over a month ago.

        • “Placing a child outside the home without the parents’ consent is always a measure of last resort. ”

          I guarantee thsi was not followed in the Bodnariu case.

          There was no warning, no counseling, no social investigation.

          They went straight to “last resort” after a witch hunt

        • None of your answers satisfy me, Knut. I don’t think you answered one of Hildi’s questions.

          If your numbers are correct, over 10,000 children receive involuntary “assistance” annually. That’s a lot of kids in one year.

          You wrote:

          “The Pentecostal Movement in Norway has issued a statement. They find that Norwegian authorities, including Child Welfare Services, treats various religious groups in a fair and satisfactory manner. “We have no reason to believe that we are treated differently than other groups in Norway due to our faith.”

          I don’t know much about this Pentecostal Movement, but it seems that they are correct. Your organization targets those who are the most vulnerable in spite of what they believe.

      • Knut, you keep quoting your welfare act manual. What does it say about interviewing children?

        Clearly the psychologists broke the law in the case above.

        And I can tell you they broke the law in the Bondariu case (please don’t say that we do not know the facts, because we do know them). The Bodnariu girls said: “I am tired of making up things.”

        You can make an 8-year-old girl say almost anything if you use leading questions and pressure.

        How can this be allowed in Barnevernet???

        • Psychologist enter the stage as expert psychologists in court (as one of normally two associate judges) or as psychologist expert witness, after writing a pscychologist expert report (This is not always happening). As Carlos Morales tells us in Legally Kidnapped, the conversations with the children are done by CPS case handlers. We know that their educational level is quite low. Simular education provides case handling in other departmens like the employment office. Morales shows us the context of these conversations; children are thougt to do what grown ups tell them. Out of my work experience from school I can add; especially at school. The identity of a pupil make sure you understand what the grown up wants you to do and not do, say and not say. In my friends case, a 23 year old woman, never without her chewing gum, was the one to start the process. The children were not speaking the norwegian language fluently. They were using a word like “hit” for all kinds of descriptions of unpleasent behaviour. This fact they have in common with so many foreign children. The case handlers never show up with a interprete. Sound or pictures are not recorded. Can someone tell me how this might represent any rule of laws?

      • mr knut! you are nuts! It’s acute intervention that you are so dangerous! Go away or better yet you need to be put away!

    • I agree with Hildi until the sixth last sentence. Please let professionals to the talking when families need therapy, consulting or guidance. The CPS case handlers, or contact persons, are not even close having the necessary competence doing that. They are also not in position – you just cant help and threaten at the same time. Neither can you force help on people, the initiativ of course must come from the family itself, or at least one of the family members.(According to the new law of 1. of April, letting the CPS force themself into the families to “help”). In my opinion you need to be a clinical experienced and pesonally suitable psychologist, or a gestalt therapis, like my self to do a job like that. In gestalt theory we think that people have their reasons, and are doing their best. We dont think anyone can be fixed, or able to fix others, but believe in personal responsibility and need for change. A person like me can offer some hours of therapy (contactful conversations based on awareness and communication knowledge, briefly said). Then the family itself is up to do the work. In their daily life. This is also the task when children are reunited with their families after traumatic seperation by the CPS. The treatment or healing is (as far as possible) done by family members, friends, school mates and teachers. My impression is that children psychiatry often offer limited treatment. They investigates, provide diagnoses an hand out medicines. To heal children need real relations. They need contact, love, understanding, time. They need to speak and be spoken to in so many ways and “languages”, which all need to be congruently and transparent. If not they simply dont open up the door.

  4. Pingback: Similar to BODNARIU: Judge in Norway Rules Against “Leading Questions” | ARMONIA MAGAZINE - USA

  5. Horrible, how can someone trust them that they want the best for the children?? Using leading questions to get the answer they need? Where are the rights of the children and parents..and the grandparents? Hier a grandmother asking, why she can not see her grandchildren. She never did anything wrong and does not understand that a court has to decide, whether she might see her grandchildren.
    http://www.oa.no/leserbrev/hvorfor-far-jeg-ikke-samvarsrett-med-mine-barnebarn/s/1-81-7253810

  6. I quote from Ms Skanlund’ commentary above something terrible, especially from us Romanians who knew life under a totalitarian regime. We detect even every atom of a totalitarian behaviour in a group/society. And yet most of us did not believe a word of the totalitarian blala… thanks to our parents, mainly. No one I know was really brainwashed.
    The following lines explain might explain what happened to the person or invented person Knut Nygard.

    “If you take on being a foster home or do other work for Barnevernet, you are “advised” and “taught” their ideology, which they claim to be scientifically based, about parents and children, and you have to practice it or else your employment is terminated. You are taught that you must “help the children open up” about “all they have been exposed to at home”. So in a foster home children are examined and brain-washed to a considerable extent, and everything they say is passed back to Barnevernet. Especially they are taught that their parents are incapable or do not care enough for them to do what is necessary to be allowed to have them with them.”

    • According to Bunkholdt (2010) foster care is one of the most complex areas of Norwegian child welfare. It is also an area that is constantly developing and new research has created a much better understanding of foster care than what earlier was known about it. The most central finding of this research is that when working within foster care, one has to seek flexible solutions.

      Norwegian child welfare services designate three different types of foster homes. Bunkholdt (2010) describes these as:

      Foster home – a home for children who need an alternative care situation because they do not receive adequate care from their parents.
      Stand-by home and crisis foster home – a home for children who have an acute need for placement for a limited period of time in a crisis situation.
      Enhanced foster home – a home where special conditions are agreed upon because of the child’s special problems. Some of these foster homes are called treatment foster homes, and are especially set up to handle behavior problems unique to a particular youngster.

      The main idea of foster care is that some children and young people need to be moved to a safe and affirmative family environment to feel safe and to develop normally through childhood and teen-age years.

      Earlier, Norwegian foster homes were basically meant as a substitute for the child’s biological home, when the parents no longer were able to provide adequate care for the child. Then, foster parents were expected to be “replacement parents” possessing good parenting skills and able to provide the child with a stable family environment. During recent years there has been a development where many foster children have problems demanding a new role for foster parents (Bunkholdt 2010). Increasingly, children and young people in Norway today who carry with them major burdens of problems are placed in foster homes. Their problems are often extremely complex ones. According to Havik (2007), the tasks and roles of foster parents in Norwegian society are rapidly changing. Some foster parents today are expected to have a more professional approach, and possess skills for helping children with highly problematic backgrounds. This also connects to the situation of residential care for children and young people in Norway. State policy says that residential care should not be used if another alternative, such as foster care, is possible. This policy is widely discussed in the practice field and among researchers, too (Storø et. al 2010)

      It is increasingly necessary that foster parents can handle children and young people with many and compound problems. This has lead to other forms of foster homes than the traditional form; mainly what are called enhanced foster homes. These reflect the fact that a somewhat more professionalized foster care has become a reality in recent years. In these kinds of foster homes, one of the foster parents is employed full time to follow up children or young people with special needs. The foster child lives in the foster home on a regular basis, and the difference from “ordinary” foster homes is that one of the foster parents is at home full time for the well-being of the foster child as his or her main task.

      In Norwegian child welfare policy, it is generally assumed as important that children and young people in foster care have contact with their biological parents because this contributes to a feeling of continuity and coherence in their lives (Backe-Hansen et al. 2010). It is important to organize the way that this contact is to be carried out, so that the children (and the parents) do not suffer from conflicts and different views on how the child should be brought up. Backe-Hansen and her associates (2010) have found that children and young people in foster care want contact with their parents, but also that they are ambivalent to this contact.

      Kinship care is a relatively new form of foster care in Norway. Therefore we do not have much research on this form of placement. In the previously mentioned review of Nordic/British research on foster care, kinship care was also included. Here it was noted that children placed in such care often have no siblings, and that they have less problems than other foster children. This type of placement is relatively stable, compared to other foster care arrangements. Kinship foster homes are most often done with grandparents or aunts and uncles, mostly on mother’s side of the family. Kinship foster parents are, according to Backe-Hansen and her associates (2010) not followed up to the same extent by child welfare authorities as are “ordinary” foster homes.

      Stability and continuity

      There are different ways to conceptualize qualities concerning the care of children. Bunkholdt (2010) has emphasized continuity and stability as two central concepts in this regard. Continuity is connected to having a coherent life history. The people that we have around us often represent continuity. But also places that we have lived, and memories made live by pictures from our life and things we have had also help connect us to a feeling of coherence. Continuity influences our identity by helping us to be connected. Stability is another quality of care. Seen from the child’s view it is important that the adults are trustworthy and predictable. Their care for the child should be warm, with an interest for the child, and the reactions on the child’s behavior should be understandable, reasonable and adequate. In the light of this concept it is crucial that the child is secured a stable supply of emotional nourishment.

      These two concepts are useful to discuss in relation to foster care. As Bunkholdt (2010) has shows, some professionals feel that continuity is the most important quality of care. They will often argue that children should live in their families even if the care is not at its best. In their view children can handle some disadvantages concerning stability if continuity is not broken. The biological bonds between children and parents are seen as the most important issue, and placements in foster care therefore are seen as options that should not be used before they are absolutely necessary. Other professionals are more concerned about stability. They argue that the everyday qualities of care are more important for the child’s well-being than who the care giver is (the biological parent or a foster parent). In their opinion it is not so dramatic to move a child to a foster home, if the care received there is of high quality and it is stable and brings the child into a new stage of continuity.

      Research on children and young people in foster care

      According to Egelund et.al (2009) and Backe-Hansen et.al (2010) there is no Nordic/British research with strong enough methodology that can predict outcomes of out-of-home placements. Clausen and Kristofersen (2008) have found that young Norwegian adults with care careers (both foster homes and residential care) have severe problems after the transition to adult life. They face a larger risk than their peers to have low income and no higher education. They are more likely to suffer various illnesses and die in a young age. They also are convicted of crimes more often than their peers who have not been in care.

      Despite these statistics, it is widely assumed that foster care has a very positive impact on children and young people at the time of placement and while they are staying in the foster home. Some of the problems they face in independent life may be more rooted in their problematic family histories before they came into care, while some problems too may be related to insufficient support and other forms of follow-up assistance after they have left care.
      http://www.childresearch.net/papers/rights/2011_01.html

      • “The biological bonds between children and parents are seen as the most important issue, and placements in foster care therefore are seen as options that should not be used before they are absolutely necessary.”

        I agree and ask why your employer has violated this statement so cruelly?

      •   
        Kinship care

        Mr Nygaard claims that kinship care is a new form of foster care in Norway. Yes and no.

        No, it is ages old – this is the way people have always tried to care for their relatives, if the immediate family was unable to do so or had died.

        Yes, it is new in the time of hyperactive CPS. I am not a bit surprised that it’s new to Mr Nygaard. But it ought not to be new to any of them. It is doubtful whether this new suggestion from Solveig Horne of doing it will lead anywhere; the CPS are all too used to circumvent anything not in their favour. It has been stated again and again from political circles that the CPS are to try kinship placement (wishy-washy politicians, who never see to it that it is really done, but instead easily accept the CPS’s explanations of why it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done “in this particular case” or that “there is new research in psychology which shows that a clean break is better). In “modern times” it was recommended e.g. in the official report of the Befring committee in year 2000; its title is Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2000:12: “Barnevernet i Norge”. It was practically the only thing in that report which was not just a repeat of things as they are, and the leader of the committee, Mr Befring, owed it to a lawyer from the west coast, Mr Kvilhaug, that he was even able to get that into the report, against what all the rest of the committee (staunch supporters of Barnevernet as it was and is) wanted.

        It has also been promised by the CPS again and again that they always try to look for “suitable” relatives, but “unfortunately, it has been impossible ….”

        The CPS never want to leave children with relatives, because it would deprive them of the power of keeping the children isolated, and in most cases it would then be obvious to everyone that there was no real reason why the children were taken away from their parents in the first place.

        The CPS avoid placing a child with its relatives unless they can make the relatives turn against the parents as enemies and keep the parents away from the child.

      •   
        I see that Mr Knut Nygaard’s posting of an article by Jan Storø has not been commented on, so perhaps I ought to do so. More could be said, but this comment is already longer than appropriate in a debate column:

        It is interesting to see what passes for research to underpin CPS action. The writer of this article, Jan Storø, and some people he refers to, are central figures in the way the system has been developed to what it is today, and are very vocal supporters of the way it operates. These people take it for granted that every removal of a child from its parents by the CPS is right, and that life in foster homes is what should be supported and furthered.

        *

        Vigdis Bunkholdt is a psychologist who says:
        “— Jeg mener man må tillegge hvordan ungene har det, større vekt enn hvem de bor sammen med, sier Vigdis.” (I think one has to place greater importance on what conditions the children live under than on whom they live with, says Vigdis.)

        In the same article it is stated that she is a self-declared lesbian, and while I do not at all think that need be a block to understanding and certainly not to research and knowledge, it may perhaps prejudice her somewhat regarding the feelings of biological parents and children?

        “Høgskolens lesbiske pionerer” (The lesbian pioneers of the college)
        http://khrono.no/samfunn/2015/06/lesbiske-pionerer

        Bunkholdt was a member of the Raundalen committee, which told the government they had concluded from research that biological parents were of no particular importance to children. (I may have mentioned that before on DiT somewhere.)
        http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=158&t=7819

        Previously, she has written of a longitudinal Swedish study by Bohman and Sigvardsson, examining a group of children with the same disadvantaged social starting point but who came to grow up differently: foster children, adopted children and children growing up with their own mothers respectively, that it showed that the foster children did steadily better, and best of the three – while the exact OPPOSITE was the fact: The “home” children also did slightly better than the adopteds in the end. Either Bunkholdt wrote a deliberate lie here, or she did not understand figures quite easy to apprehend.

        *

        Toril Havik is or has been a leading psychologist at Barnevernets utviklingssenter på Vestlandet (The CPS development centre in Western Norway). She is upset that children and youths in CPS care revolt and move home to their parents “in spite of this not being in their best interest”.
        http://www.barnasrett.no/samlemappe/flukt_flytter_hjem.htm

        *

        Jan Storø himself educates CPS workers at the College of Oslo and Akershus. He recently had an article in Aftenposten, where he blames our government for insufficiently defending the CPS against attacks from abroad: “Hvorfor er politikerne tause når barnevernet filleristes internasjonalt?” (Why are the politicians silent when Barnevernet is being shaken/torn to shreds abroad?)

        “Norsk barnevern er i ferd med å bli ‘verdensberømt’ ” (Norwegian CPS is becoming ‘world famous’)
        http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/Norsk-barnevern-er-i-ferd-med-a-bli-verdensberomt-8046130.html

        *

        Elisabeth Backe-Hansen is also a veteran active for the CPS. In one infamous case (CPS-related but different focus), the Bjugn case, she witnessed for the prosecution, which had saddled an innocent man with accusations of incredibly much sex abuse and physical abuse in the kindergarten where he worked. (He was found innocent by the jury.) Witness for the defence psychologist Astrid Holgerson from Stockholm said of Backe-Hansen’s evidence:
        “Domstolens psykologsakkunniga i Bjugn-målet, Elisabeth Backe-Hansen och Knut Rønbeck, har inte företagit en allsidig och förutsättningslös genomgång av relevant vetenskaplig litteratur rörande sexuella övergrepp mot barn (se separat lista över utelämnad betydelsefull litteratur på området). De sakkunniga har ej heller kritiskt granskat kvalitén på de referenser rörande övergrepp i daghem som de godtyckligt valt att åberopa som stöd för sina slutsatser.”
        (The court’s psychological experts in the Bjugn case, Elisabeth Backe-Hansen and Knut Rønbeck, have not made a comprehensive and unbiased survey of relevant scientific literature concerning sexual abuse of children (cf the separate list of important literature about this topic left out). Neither have the appointed experts examined critically the quality of the references concerning abuse in kindergartens which they have arbitrarily chosen to refer to as support for their conclusions.)

        *

        Interestingly, Lars B. Kristofersen, to whom Storø also refers, is the same scholar who found that the suicide rate among Barnevern children was about 8 times as high as for other children. (p 12-13 here:
        http://www.hioa.no/extension/hioa/design/hioa/images/nibr/files/2005-12.pdf)

  7. Thank heavens there’s one discerning judge left over there.

    I am aware of cases in America where psychologists used leading questions towards the same result. It’s not as prevalent here, but the problem is getting worse.

    These psychologists should be taken out and……..severely questioned themselves for hours at a time without sleep.

  8. I think that both continuity and stability is important for a child. But one has to take into consideration that there is absolutely no family that is perfect. There are storms within a family as there is in life in general.What one has to look for is how severe these storms are and to what degree they affect the child.

    There are also different kinds of storms. Some storms are even good. For instance if a child begs for sweets the whole time the parents don`t serve the child`s best by continuously giving in to his/her wishes just to keep the peace for a moment. The child may create severe “storms”, throwing really bad temper tantrums. Some children are really strong willed and need to be confronted in a stricter manner than others who are maybe more fearful and need a much milder approach.

    The storms that are not good and don`t serve the child is where they are mocked and belittled, or where the parents behave in a very unpredictable manner where the children feel unsafe. I guess this is mostly the case if the parents are alcoholics or have extreme emotional swings. The unstability can be harmful to the child in such cases. It is important to look at different ways to find the best possible individual solution.

    Continuity, on the other hand, is also very important. I don`t think there is any child who goes through a situation, in which it is suddenly teared away from both parents and environment, without leaving negative traces behind! Each child will of course experience it differently. But I believe that it is quite traumatic for most children.

    If I had to choose between stability and continuity, I think I would have chosen continuity. There are always other loving people, living in the same environment as the child, that could give a child the emotional stability it might be lacking at home.Maybe the child, for instance, could have contact with another family where it can go from time to time to visit. Only when nothing else works and when it is absolutely necessary should a child be taken into foster care.

  9. What you now write about barnevernet, Knut, all sounds good. But the big question is if barnevernet really always stick to their rules. I doubt it….

    • It looks like thing happen without both mine or your argumentation/activism. NRK Dagrevyen had yesterday a reportage that says that the government impose the CPS to cheque out if a child could be given care either within family members or relatives before sending an order for a foster home. It’s us in the municipal CPS that us given this task. We lack fosterhomes both for the CPS conlusions given for the taking care for and for the large number of foreigners who says their are under the age of 18. No child will enter a home to a family member, relatives or friends of the family before they have completed a basic course and have delivered a police statement that must be in order to be given the green light. Hmmm….no more money to the municipalities despite given this new task. This will be hard for the municipalities to handle – especially the small ones. The last part of the clip is about the new fosterhome report to be processed in the Storting before they take summer vacation. The lady talking is the Norwegian “barneombud” – the national “guard” for children.

      • So, inadvertently Knut Nygaard reveals that they do not try – on the contrary, they avoid the family even though they have such a need for foster homes. They have a need, the children have no such need.

        Nor do children have a need of their grandparents being taken through obligatory coursing – to learn the opposite of what is natural.

        One former foster mother contacted me because she had written something about the case of her foster daughter and the foster daughter’s mother, who had been driven tragically to suicide (the CPS being at least partly responsible). In the course of our conversation I said, “But how COULD you to such and such?” She replied, “One becomes so brain-washed by Barnevernet that it takes a long time before one sees reality. Only now, when the CPS are attacking my foster daughter, do I realise fully. It is the same thing over again.”

  10. Applause, 2016 and Norway realizes that children should be rather placed in the extended family, instead of complete strangers, hours away from their hometown and isolated from their biological family and from each other..I dont care who have caused this change, even if it was the aliens. 🙂 But I am happy for it.

  11. I’m afraid there is no change yet. Only declarations from the Minister saying Barnevernet should consider whether any relatives are suitable, before they go for fostering with strangers. As Mr Nygaard expressed it, they want more money in order to “consider”.

    • Hopefully it will slowly change, it can not get much worse than now. I have heard that only 25 % of the foster children are placed at their relatives? That is a very low number, so obviously BV thinks that the majority of whole families are pathological and/or there is nobody who can care for the children..

      • They do not really “think” or “believe” anything. They run a business, a billions-of-crowns industry. They do not want to lose their positions and their power. So they express whatever is expedient.

      • I can assure you Barnevernet can get a lot worse than it is today. Almost every year new legislation is passed to infringe on the rights of the family. Barnevernet is inherently hostile to parents and children and from 1 April 2016 a new law imposing aid measures by BV is effectuated. This new law will give Barnevernet more power over helpless parents and children, I am very concerned about the effects this new law will have on the number of children taken into permanent custody. My guess is that the numbers will rise, not decrease, which is the intention. Here is a link:

        https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2015-08-07-81

        • I have heard about it briefly. Is it, that Barnevern would have to prove at county committee that the family got help measures first before they have removed the children? So the help measures will be obligatory? Sounds crazy again, the only good thing is though, that they can not remove the children at the first contact, so it will leave give a certain time to the families to escape. The ones that can do that though, for example having family abroad. But maybe you could tell us, what is the new law about?

        • The new law is an addition to existing law, which you can find in English, by the way, on this link:
          https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-child-welfare-act/id448398/

          It has not yet been translated into English as it will not be enacted until April 1 and it is not April’s Fool!

          Act concerning change to the Child Welfare Act (expanded right to impose assistance to families with children) (my translation) lowers the threshold for compulsory measures against the families. It gives Barnevernet the right to impose assistance without the consent of the parents. Earlier this has been known as “voluntary coercion”. Now this so-called voluntary coercion has been codified and made involuntary.

        • Oh yes, Pavla, they still can remove them as they like, claiming an “emergency”.

          Besides, this “help” they always talk about, is mostly of a very harassing and invasive nature. It breaks the family down whatever the situation was to start with. In other words: not much of it is help, but it gives the CPS extra access to observe and harass. Cf the most famour Scandinavian CPS of all in the European Court of Human Rights: Olsson I and II. A brief description is found here:
          “Norway and Sweden – where inhuman rights prevail”
          http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=7146
            

        • Marianne, so what will be actually different from 1st April? I believe very much, that those help measures are intruding privacy and can affect the whole family. Though I had a feeling, that they want to make it obligatory in order to decrease the removals? So for example insufficient care would not be reason anymore for removal? Or was that not officially reason for emergency until now?
          There was a case of an couple, where one parent is Norwegian and other parent is a foreigner, that has been recently at the court. The reason for removal was bad eye contact. and mother was a foster child herself and is deaf.. They have filmed the baby and the mother with sharp lights and the baby of course was looking everywhere else, than at his mother. Not even suspicion of any kind of abuse in this one..

  12. The case described in Delight in Truth’s article here comes from south-west of Oslo.

    Now here is another case, from today, from Vesterålen, which is far north in Norway, on the northern side of Lofoten, the “finger” pointing out towards the south west.

    “Spørsmålene til barna var ledende og pressende”
    (The questions for the children were leading and pressing)
    http://www.ht.no/2016/03/07/Spørsmålene-til-barna-var-ledende-og-pressende-12249994.ece

    Vesterålen district court has found the couple not guilty. The parents are from another country.

    ” – Avhøret preges i noen grad av at avhøret er forutinntatt og ønsket å få bekreftet mistanken om vold i familien.”
    (The questioning is to some extent characterised by being prejudiced and wishing to have the suspicion of violence in the family confirmed.)

    • I forgot to say that the case started with a teacher at school being asked by one of the children whether it was permitted to beat/hit/spank children in Norway.
      On this basis Barnevernet took the children and placed them in a tmeporary foster home for three months.

  13. and in the meanwhile, taken from..Norway, give us back the children you stole:
    Good news!
    Norway has finally ratified the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention
    Norway’s ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention will strengthen co-operation with other states in cross-border parental disputes and child welfare cases.
    This will make it easier for those of us who want Norway to hand over children who are under CPS care to other countries.
    The Convention will enter into force 1 July 2016.
    This is another proof that the international pressure on Norway has a big effect.

      • Ok, I thought because they should consider biological family first and also whether that child has strong relation to other country, it should be much easier. But obviously the battle is not won yet.

        • Absolutely right, Pavla, we have to deep our guard up and not be taken in by sweet talk. It SHOULD make things easier, and would do so in a humane society. But this is a war the CPS & co are making on the population.

          You should know about me that I am THE great pessimist. I tend to steel myself, not relax and comfort myself with hopes, because I have seen so many rounds of everything they SAY about change, coming to nothing. But occasionally I am wrong and things go better than I have prophesied!

        • Marianne, you have every right to be skeptical. You have experienced the system throughout the years. I wonder, in your opinion, what would make the real change..what would have to be done, so the whole system would be completely reformed from the scratch? Is it even possible?

        • Pavla:
          “I wonder, in your opinion, what would make the real change..what would have to be done, so the whole system would be completely reformed from the scratch? Is it even possible?”

          The most important question of all, Pavla. I don’t know. I am not at all sure whether anything except a total collapse of the present system could effect a real change. And I am afraid of revolutions, they tend to be bloody and to lead to unforeseen consequences.

        • Marianne, my country Czech Republic was lucky to have non violent Velvet revolution in 1989. Few years later Czechoslovakia was divided peacefully. There was no referendum and who knows how it would end up if there was one. We would probably still be one nation. But these were quite exceptions, it could have turned ugly.

          How about the political parties, I have read, that the green party asks for reforms in the child welfare. Any other are making statements?
          As elected representatives of the Green Party we ask that both the local and national level to initiate a process immediately to restructure the child welfare services in Norway.
          Here is the article
          http://www.aftenbladet.no/meninger/debatt/Skrekken-rundt-barnevernet-3870859.html

          English version
          https://www.facebook.com/notes/ionu%C5%A3-john-volo%C5%9Fen/norwegian-politicians-the-horror-around-child-protection/467017346832230

    • “The child welfare services will have new tools to handle child welfare cases when children have ties to other states.”

      Since it mentions cross border family disputes, do you know if “states” means other countries, Pavla?

        • Interestingly, my state (Arkansas) is restructuring its DHS. I think they are trying to save money in a system that is already pretty broken.

      • Yeah – “new tools” – they have never needed any tools. The state has invented for themselves some laws and rules about how they should take possession of other countries’ citizens, and then they say they cannot set them aside or that they obviously do not apply? It’s like parliament passing a law deciding that everyone is to be held under water for 10 minutes and the same parliament saying that “that being the law, we can’t do anything about it”.

        In actual fact, our law has never prevented Norway from sending children abroad. There was, for instance, a case in which the mother was a drug user, the child was with the father and his new wife, who came from West Africa. The father died, his wife was then going back to Africa. The CPS desperately tried to prevent the child from being taken care of by its mother’s completely sober and well-functioning family. Instead, the CPS wanted to send the child with its step-mother to West-Africa. That plan was finally stopped by a lot of publicity of the court case brewing. Only at the last minute did the politicians and administrators of the municipality bother about the publicity of what they were doing, so that they stopped the CPS having their way. Not before they had tried to force the mother’s family to shut up about everything, of course, in the name of the “sensitivity” of the child.

        So anyway, Norway can of course, not least in the name of “the child’s best interest”, send a child in the grip of the CPS anywhere. Usually they proudly think that the obviously best place for anyone is Norway! Like the case of the Polish girl:
        http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page229/page229.html
        But they are even more fanatically against parents, so then West Africa with a step-mother is fine with them!

      • I am not sure about that one, I have heard that Sweden has lots of problems too. UK, although not a bordering country has a lot of forced adoption. But obviously, according to our MEP, there is at least some kind of communication with UK, with Norway there is no communication at all. I dont know about Denmark and Finland though.

        • Chris, this is a bit off topic, but if you are interested..this is the story of Ivana Boorova a Slovak mother, who lost her children to English Social Services. She was able to get her children back after 2 years at the Supreme court. These children were ready to be adopted in the UK. She got help of John Hemming (former member of British parliment, who is helping families who had their children removed and speaks against forced adoption) and the Slovak goverment.

        • I watched it and was surprised at the lack of wisdom and callousness of the system described in the video.

          This is what happens when a society turns its back on God. When the Bible becomes irrelevant, wisdom, kindness, and common sense disappear.

          Unfortunately, Godlessness is a worldwide problem that can only be solved through the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

          Things aren’t this bad in America…yet.

          Thank you for sharing, Pavla.

        • So the British politician was successful. The situation hadn’t been resolved at the end of the documentary. So joyful to hear it. What a clever mother and her point system.

        • Chris, truth, she is a very brave mother. There were a lot of paradoxes in her story. She had a certificate, she was able to have her own child care at home, she has worked as a nurse, but she was not allowed to raise her own children. Just like Eva Michalakova case in Norway. She is working as teacher assistant, she is able to raise her step daughter in Norway , but she is not even allowed to see her own children. Her children have only Czech citizenship. It is crazy.

        • Is the mindset behind the CPS about the same in all those countries? Do they have about the same philosophy? Is Sweden worse than Norway?

          I think it is a big problen if those involved in CPS earn a lot of money on each case. The combination of money, power and no accountability often leads to explotation.It shouldn’t be possible to earn big money on cases. Regular salaries should be sufficient in my opinion.

        • Thank you for the links Marianne. UK seems to be indeed one of the worst. Although I have a feeling, that the media like BBC for example are willing to share the stories and that it is less of a taboo than it was in Norway until recently? I could be of course wrong. Also Sweden, I wonder, why we dont hear more about the cases from Sweden from Czech or Slovak families. The population is almost double that the one of Norway?

        •   
          Hildi’s posting:

          Yes, the way they think is very much the same; details may vary and they may argue between themselves about what to do, but on the whole it’s pretty uniform. The reason is probably that they learn from each other: When a country wants to build up or expand a social service, they tend to look across the border or to other “advanced” countries: What are they doing there? A lot of the literature is translated or more or less duplicated, they go to international seminars, and so on.

          I certainly agree that money is a central motor. But not only big money; what about people in small country districts without much industry or other ways of making en income: they see the advertisements for foster parents and use that to supplement their modest income from a small farm or something. Lots of people take jobs, part time or full time, being “tilsynsfører” = someone who monitors visitations between children and their parents. Lots of jobs with intermediate incomes for giving people, be they foster parents, real parents, various kinds of advice. An enormous psycho-babble sector giving “therapy” to foster children. The individual incomes need not be huge, it is still useful.

          By the way, the public sector (state and municipalities) is huge in Norway; that has several unfortunate consequences.

          Pavla’s posting:

          In the UK there was, about 15 years ago, great discontent with all the foster placements which were obviously doing no good (many of the children should not have been taken from their parents in the first place, so how could a good outcome have been expected). The politicians seemed to concentrate on the way unsatisfactory fostering situations dragged on for years (for which the state/municipalities had to pay), so (of course) they thought that the way out of this – incidentally cutting out all the court cases and other bother with parents wanting their children back – would be to go for early adoption. A gvt minister called Boateng was the driving force. The social workers were then able not only to facilitate adoptions of long-time foster children, but to take lots of new children, e.g. newborns. Which they wanted, based on their ideas of children, like plants, putting their roots down with equal success regardless of with whom.

          Yes, British media seem to have become a bit better now, but it has long been the other way: imprisonment for e.g. parents in the UK who even spoke about their own case.

          Christopher Booker:
          “The facts about child snatching can be reported in Norway – but not here”
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9046864/The-facts-about-child-snatching-can-be-reported-in-Norway-but-not-here.html

          MHS:
          “Important court verdict in England at last SUPPORTS freedom of info in CPS cases”
          http://www.mhskanland.net/page45/page169/page169.html

          About Sweden:
          Generally the repression of protesters against the state always seems to have been much heavier there than in Norway. It has been even more difficult there to get the media and the public to pay any attention to CPS abuses, although they have been plentiful for decades. I have seen many Swedish CPS cases close to and some Danish ones.

          There has been some truth in the stereotype picture of Swedish society as hierarchical and authority-obedient, while the Norwegians are perceived as the free-spoken upstarts (we broke away from the union with Sweden, in which Sweden was very much the senior partner, and established ourselves as an independent nation in 1905). That Norway has become more “correct” and self-satisfied is certain; I think Sweden remains much the same. But they have this enormous immigration wave now to cope with in Sweden, and they are not “coping”. Maybe that takes the attention even further away from CPS questions – people tend to think that “all this about children is so much kindergarten & nursery nonsense”. Besides Swedish economy, which was an impressive motor, ceased to be so some time back, while Norway has become apparently the largest investor in the world, investing our oil revenues from the North Sea in industry everywhere.

        • Thank you Marianne for your complex answer. It does not look bright in other countries either. Czech Republic is criticized for having too many small children in institution instead of at foster parents. Rumors are that the Czech child welfare services are going to cooperate with Budfir and together adapt some of the current proceedings for child removal. There are projects that are financed by Norwegian funds. One of them is for protection of vulnerable children. Our minister of Labor and Social affairs denies that the same system will be adopted in CR, saying, that the Norwegian experts came to Czech Rep. for inspiration. They like esp. our homes for handicapped people…

        • I wish I could wake up and all of this was a bad dream. I am encouraged, however, by the people who have been willing to speak out against such rubbish. It is hard to be unable to do much about this situation. We can all pray though. There’s much power in that.

  14. What a hole of a place to live. I will make sure i never fly via norway and never buy any of their products. Sick nation.

  15. It is so crazy what you are telling us, Pavla, about these mothers who have had their children taken away from them being allowed to take care of others children but not their own… It seems like these CPS people are moving around children like furniture with their eyes blindfolded. As long as there is something to do, it does’nt seem to play so much of a role what is being done.

    • Yes Hildi, it does not make sense. Either someone is threat to the children, or someone is not. So if somnolent can raise a step daughter and work with children, then he or she must be able to raise her own kids. But obviously not in Norway..

      • Very weird… Maybe Knut can give us an answer to the logic behind it.

        Oh dear, what has become of Norway ever since I left my native country to get married and settle down in Switzerland 25 years ago?….:-(

        • Norway is just the same (almost) since you left. If you took a glimpse on the video from 1992 with among others Jan-Aaage Torp you get a view of where we where according to the spirit of time and where we are now. The only reason you think so is because you have joined this “sewing circle”. Some of them, but not many will continue for a while – most of them will understand that this is a waste of time – the CPS changes all the time, but not because of you or lunacy demos. These details in cases – or supposed cases – I can’t answer – I don’t no any details. In 1992 came the new child welfare act and believe me – that was a major step in the right direction. With the old edition – Barnevernsnemda – the parents have very litttle posssibility to get the case handled in their direction.

        • The Children Welfare Act of 1992 significantly broadened the number of families with children who came into contact with Barnevernet. Before 1992 Barnevernet mostly targeted drug addicted parents and cases concerning grosse abuse. So maybe it was harder for these parents to “escape” Barnevernet. But the situation today is that perfectly normal families are having their children removed. Barnevernet has become more and more extreme. It takes very little for a family to be in trouble. Anyone can have their children arbitrarily placed in foster home and denied contact. Even resourceful parents with university education and a high standard of living are targeted. These so-called gray-zone parents have the hardest time with Barnevernet. The parents are described as total failures when it comes to parenting even though they, back an objective standard, are quite adequate. And every year the situation for families is getting worse. New legislation is passed to make it increasingly difficult to win against the system.

        • CPS changes all the time? The question is how it changes. Did you watch the video with Mr. Salvesen? He even said, that those who have signed the concerns about CPS, were accused of spreading myths. While instead of that, there should be a dialogue with these people in order to solve the situation. Seems someone is quite arrogant and over confident here. Sorry, but if you think that it is normal to take children from school, move them hours away to secret places, isolate them from everyone, separate siblings…supervise meetings with parents and other family members and analyze those encounters, monitor phone calls, ..then it is someone else who is lunatic here.

        • I am not talking about the Bodnariu case, but if experts, who have experience with the way CPS work share their concerns that something is not right from THEIR OWN experiences with the cases, there must be dialogue. That is how things work normally. Why is it so difficult to have dialogue about the way CPS works? I mean these people are involved.

  16. Pingback: Similar cazului Bodnariu: Judecător norvegian condamnă ”întrebările insinuante” - Bodnariu Family

  17. “If the Bodnariu children are not returned home and Barnevernet not reformed, April 16th, 2016 the international D-Day of world-wide protest will be just the beginning of tremendous exposure and shame for Norway.”

    We will help! 🙂

  18. Pingback: Similar to BODNARIU: Judge in Norway Rules Against “Leading Questions” | Delight in Truth | B.I.G'S BLOG

  19. Knut
    In one sentence you say that Norway is almost like it was when I left 25 years ago. In the next you say that the CPS changes all the time…..

    In one sentence you write as you though you know more than all the rest of us in this “sewing circle”, as you call it. Then, in the next sentence you state that you anyway actually don`t know so much and can neither answer nor give us any details…..

    So what shall I believe?

    • Yes, Knut’s comments are always the same. We can’t attack the government because he knows they are good and fair and the details we know can’t be trusted, but he can’t actually defend them because of course he doesn’t know any of the details.

      As far as whether we will quit because we are ‘wasting our time’, I have to think it is much more satisfying to defend and support the families that the CPS has destroyed, than to defend a corrupt government agency even if they are paying your salary.

  20. To Pavlas “Why is it so difficult to have a dialogue about how the CPS works”. Let me give it some thougths according to the discussion finding place.1) To have a dialogue, people must show up. Here only one person represents the defence of the CPS. Others, what do they do, reading and taking notes? 2) A dialogue presupposes following some rules of communication, not using control techniques like calling the whole forum a “sewing circle” or ridicule the other side as at “lunacy demos”, which is also not a very polite and likable statement from the professional children care taker. When it comes to the system level, there are of course hundreds of reasons for communication failure. The CPS does not listen, admit mistakes, take responability, is trustworthy, even say the truth. We are as far away from a dialogue that possible. These are reasons for me not to believe in any reforms of the system. I doubt if it is even use for a CPS. Maybe just some few people, I will come back to that at the end of this comment. As said somewhere else in this blog, people like my self can do the family therapy. Personally suitable persons can work as children- and youth-support. They dont need to be social workers. Better if they are formally competent on what they are doing, like mountain climbing, swimming and dancing. Parents can have some practical help in the house, cooking, cleaning, babysitting. Finally the state could offer some real child benefit, For all kinds of neglect and use of (mild) physical force; guidance, and of course the threat of further inventions. For serious abuse; police and court system. Remove the grown up when possible, not the child for God’s sake. When need of someone else to take care, talk to the child about it, listen to its needs an opinions. Were does it want to live?. Let it be temporary as it is supposed to. Help the family, dont break it. To do the practical work around the serious problems we might need some kind of CPS, I guess. As helpers, not jugdes. With quality assured and right to appeal. Good persons that would never look down upon people in trouble, knowing everyone does as best as he/she can (If not they would do something different).

  21. The psychologists and other experts have a strong proffit incentive to make as many children as possible taken by the CPS system. Thereafter they and their partners can make a lot of money out of each child, by selling custody and exxtensive treatment services. There is an immense money circulating in the CPS system and their network of collaborators. And much of the money originate from Norwegian tax payers and the proffit Norway has from the oil fields. Some of it also originate from research institutions and medical companies in Norway and abroad that use the taken children as research objects.

Share your thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s