37 comments on “April 16th, 2016 Will Truly Be a D-Day!”

1. Thank you for listing even the smaller venues, Delight. I should be receiving my permit from the National Park today. May God bless you and your family for all you have done in this effort. As you know, this situation has connected Christians from all over the world who would never have known one another until heaven. This blog has been responsible for much of that. I think I know someone who already has a permit and is demonstrating who isn’t on this list. I will contact her today and email you if it is so.

   Reply

   • I see that you have the event organized by Paula Salisbury’s in New Zealand on the list. An up to date list, indeed.

     Reply

2. Reblogged this on Wings of the Wind and commented:
   Delight in Truth has posted a complete list of demonstrations being held across the world. Please pray for him and his family as he must be very busy at this time. Ask God to give him strength.

   Reply

3. Armonia USA magazine is based in Hickory, North Carolina and will participate at the protest in Charlotte. The most recent article published caught my attention. The title is “Spiritual poverty of Scandinavia”:

   SĂRĂCIA SPIRITUALĂ A SCANDINAVIEI (Norvegia, Suedia, Islanda)

   Reply

4. Just one word to say: F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C!!! 😍💗

   Reply

5. Pingback: April 16th, 2016 Will Truly Be a D-Day! — Delight in Truth – BLOGUL UNEI BUNICI

6. I posted 15 videos related to Barnevernet, at the following link:

   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB-gxMi9SU5H4msozKhyRWQ

   Reply

   • Thank you, Octavian. I will use this.

     Reply

7. Pingback: Norway’s Evil Barnevernet | ZEITGEIST

8. Regarding the protest in Milan, has the necessary permission been obtained from the Police? Per quanto riguarda la manifestazione in Milano, è stato concesso il permesso necessario da parte delle autorità di polizia? În ceea ce privește demonstrația din Milano, are permisiunea necesară a fost acordată de autoritățile de poliție?

   Reply

9. Norway:parents against the State, programmes on this matter so dear to our hearts, made by the BBC.
   BBC Radio 4 – available on the BBC website – Thursday 14th April at 11am GMT , or BBC World News channel Saturday 16th at 04.30, 21.30 and Sunday 17th at 03.30.

   Reply

   • Is this based on footage obtained during the recent BBC visit to Norway?

     Reply

     • I have no idea. I’m just so pleased that this issue has been taken up by the national UK media.

       Reply

10. Praise God, we have each other.

    Reply

11. Thanks to everyone who cares what happends in norway, and in the name of the Lord, and thru God’s all mighty powers will crush evil. I am iternally gratful for all the help and the prayers.

    Reply

12.   
    An interview in Norwegian, fully texted in English, about much of the background for the demonstrations:
    “Jan-Aage Torp interviews Jan Simonsen about Barnevern”
    

    The texting on the video runs too fast for comfort (but it cannot be fixed for technical reasons), so I have included the text in writing below the video link also:
    http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page329/page329.html

    Jan Simonsen has some good points, such as:
    “Altogether, then, this has made a lot of stir and unrest around the world, and it is high time that Norwegian politicians take it in and understand that this criticism has a reason, and that they must do something about it.”

    And I think especially his last remark is one of the best characterisations of the disastrous situation we are in with Barnevernet: There is nothing wrong with what they SAY they do, but:
    “Now, then, the Minister must take an active part, must say clearly to Barnevernet that their practice must be that which they claim it to be. “

    Reply

    • Min mening – greit å støtte konkrete barn – familier – saklig kritikk av barnevernet – verre er det at noen kroniske norske barnevernhatere bruker denne saken i Naustdal og andre som ammunisjon i sin “Something Else” bevegelse – de ønsker barneverne fjernet, men aner ikke hva de skal ha i steden – “Else” er for øvrig greit – alle kan sette inn sin “else”. Disse forleder alle til å tro at de barn som legges ut på nettet er hele bildet av historien og det som ledet om til et vedtak de og deres advokater og vitner ikke greide å forhindre er den generaliserte utgaven. Etter en titt i kommentarfeltet så tror folk i Romania på denne generaliserte værste versjonen – barnevernet i Norge er monsterversjonen på barnevern i verden, mens sannheten er at de har så godt som det samme barnevern i sitt eget land – vi er beskrevet som fascister, nazister, kommunister – og disse stakkars folkene tror på det de finner på denne versjonen av arab spring – at barnevernet og Norge er det samme som Nord-Korea. Da blir det ganske så meningsløst og dumt det hele. VG kalte dette galskap da 100 stykker møtte opp en februardag. Ja, det er sprøyt og galskap og det forunderlige er at kronikerene i Norge ikke hjelper disse forledede til en mer sann versjon slik at de får sove godt om natt og ikke bli sengevætere alle mann fordi de kan ha en slektning i Norge. D-dagen var den avgjørende invasjonen mot en fiende. Barnevernet i Norge har ingen fiende. Dette er ikke noen krig, men en galskapens bevegelse uten mål og mening. Skal en endre eller snu noe så må en vise seg som en part som har et budskap og som kan snakke på den arena som en ønsker å påvirke. Det gjør ikke denne bevegelsen. Den snakker kun til sitt eget speilbilde – og det kan kanskje gi mening for kronikerene – oi – idag var vi 79 og så møtes de gjenlevende igjen i 2026 – idag var vi 116 – det går fremover. Nå ser jeg at det er meldt regnvær – det er trolig det samme, men det sier noe om klimaet i bevegelsen.

      This chronic CPS hater group in Norway has been there for decades. You see some of them around the table – the average age is – OLD – a break from the institution for old people. There have been protests like the ones now for decades. The muslims had their own demonstrations some years ago, but have no faded out of the arena.

      It’s you Romenians and the link to Christianity that have made this a movement on the internet an some demonstraters – around 100 in Oslo in February and around 20000 in other parts of the world. Without you Mrs. Mengele and the others would have had no ammunition and to pump up any demonstration themselves with. These people are nobodies in Norway, but you are useful tools for the demonstration for The Movement for Something Else. The knowledge given you from their archieves has made you a part of their way to view the CPS in Norway.

      I think it’s guite ok to support families like the Bodnaru’s – to demonstrate and come with factual criticism, Then it’s possible to see and hear you both for the media and the common people of Norway. The CPS will not listen to any invading force – or people who fantasy about being just that. Those people are outside the commincation circle – it’s not use either to listen to them or take them serious in any way. They are for the most part misguided and misinformed people led into fantasies about Norway, Norwegians and our functionate CPS. They have no message worth listening to. They have become haters like the chornics. Haters can only speak with themselves in the mirror – and that may function well enough for the chronics. This year maybe 79 will gather and so they – if they live – will meet again in 2026 and be 81 – a uge progress a.s.o. Mrs. Mengelse has said herself that she don’t believe in her agenda – ti’s useless – yes, it’s useless – you must have some With a trustworthy commincative skill to bring you inside the circle where it’s possible give influence.

      Reply

13. Great interview, it sounds all so logical.
    For me, I find that CPS in Norway does not want to explain things. They obviously do not like to answer questions either. When Eva and her lawyer have asked last year , what she has to do to get her children back, they did not want to answer anything. Sorry, but case workers must know the case through and through and they have to be able to answer such a fundamental question.

    Czech government was asking, why are the children still in the foster care, why were the siblings separated. They wanted an explanation, but that they never got it.

    Budfir and the Czech Institute for International Legal Protection of Children had a meeting last year, where Budfir has promised that the children would not be adopted, because the family does not want that. Few months later one of the children is sent to adoption by county committee.
    They do as they like.

    Reply

    • If you are not a legal part you shouldn´t have any information about family. The Czech government has some information about the case and some members of the government – i.e,.Minister of social affaires or the Head of the office for theinternational protection of children even gave their opinion about their case. In their opinion the children may have been removed from the family to foster families even in Czehia due to situation in this family. It´s true that these members of Government and this officiers have become enemies for Czech CPS- haters. The head of the so called UMPOD (the office responsible for Czech children living abroad) gave an interwiew to magazine Reflex in which he emhasized that the verdicts of the Courts in this case (removal children, decisions from the years 2012-2013) had been justified and that the Court done a good work. He was critical of the ongoing adoption process, but it was not up to Budfir to decide about that and Budfir didn´t promise anything. Budfir just informed the Czech part about Norwegian system, but Norwegian governmental bodies can´t (and it´s logic) influence the decision of the Courts. It´s the same situation as in Czechia where our government or officies can´t intefere into work of CPS (OSPOD) or the Cours. The Courts do as they like, it´s the same principle of the state based on rule of law and division of powers.

      Reply

      • Actually Zdenek Kapitan said that the adoption should not happen, because the family is interested. This is taken from an interview with him. He was surprised himself. Yes, he is not really on the mothers side. There are other politicians from different political parties that are supporting the mother (Petr Mach, Tomas Zdechovsky and Jitka Chalankova). It is a claim against the claim. The fact is, the mother has a police report and medical findings that support her. The police officer who has investigated the case was going to witness for her in the court.

        Anyway, NOBODY is denying that CPS does not do any good work. Of course, they are child protection after all. The problem is how unwilling they are to admit mistakes, when they are wrong. Their goal should be to reunite the family as soon as possible. Only in cases of real neglect or abuse it should not happen. Why do they look so little into the extended family? Why do so many children and up at strange foster parents, hours away from their hometown, siblings split into different families with limited contact to their relatives? Nobody wants to return all of the removed children, but parents must have a fair chance and even if something has happened in the family, the punishment must fit the “crime”. How about when they take children based on neglect or care failure in the future? That is completely insane.
        Anyway, I have good hopes, that things are going to change now. Why do you think all these parents are now starting to talk, they are even willing to present their files to the media. They are desperate, because they are not heard, because they thought they will get a fair chance to regain their children.

        Reply

        • http://www.kdejemojedite.cz/?p=932
          Use Google translator if you don´t speak Czech (I hope it will work). Zdenek Kapitan (from UMPOD- “Czech Office for the international protection of children”) is explaining that the Court verdict about removal of two Michalak´s boys was justified and even the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg accepted it. Kapitan disagrees with the idea of an adoption of one of the boys on the other side. The article is quite balanced.

        •   
          There may be a misunderstanding here about the ECtHR “accepting” the removal of Eva Michaláková’s children. The Court does not take up cases on emergency except if it is a matter of life or death (execution etc) or in the neighbourhood of it. The Court will otherwise always refuse to CONSIDER the case if all possible legal remedies in the country complained of are not exhausted. Since Michaláková can go to Norwegian appeal courts once more, her remedies within Norway are not exhausted.
             That is not the same as the Court having approved the removal of the children and the refusal to hand them back.
             The long process that has to be gone through before one can have the ECtHR consider a case, is very negative for many types of cases, not only for child protection cases, but certainly it harms such cases.
             The best thing to try then, is to find a way of shortening the time the legal procedure through all the court instances takes “inland”.

        • Something more about the Strasbourg process:
             – Siv Westerberg is a Swedish lawyer who has succeeded in having 9 cases “admissible” and processed at the ECtHR, winning 7 of them.
             You will have to google-translate this from Swedish, mind!
             LVU refers to the child protection law in Sweden, so “LVU-mål” means “child protection cases”.

          “Är det meningsfullt att föra LVU-mål til Europadomstolen?” (Is it meaningful to take CPS cases to the European Court (of Human Rights) )
          http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=4068

        • Veronika, Zdenek Kapitan also said…After reading the file and court decision I can not say that removal of the children was not justified..He thinks there were reasons for that.
          He forgot to mention, that the court decision was also based on psychological evaluations that were made after the children were removed. He forgot to say that police investigation was in favor of the parents (yes the mother has admitted spanking and explained when she has done that, but even that was not in the police report named as abuse) there were no charges against the parents.
          There were more accusations against the mother coming after the children were removed, but not even the court has accepted those and no investigation was done against the mother.

          Zdenek Kapitan also said in that interview, that he is not sure, that everything was done to help the family.
          He is also saying that he thought the Norwegian authorities will intensify the contact so the eventual return of the children will be easier. He was quite surprised by the decision of county committee last year.

          He is also saying, that in his experience, children who are adopted in new family, feel comfortable in their new family after few months, esp. in such a age as the boys of Eva M. I hope he is wrong here though.

          I have to say Zdenek Kapitan is not a big supporter of the mother. He can say that there were reasons to take the children out of the family, other politicians who have read the file can say otherwise. Yes , they were accusations, but you should be interested whether any of the accusations were proven. Proven means by investigation and medical examination. Anything else is just speculation..

          As far as I know, the European court has not accepted, that the removal of the children was justified, but did not find a reason to reopen the case. Two different things in my opinion.

        • Marianne, I see you have written already about the European Court decision. Yes, I agree. This can easily be presented as the European Court has accepted that the removal was justified..while in reality they have just refused to investigate the case.

14. I don’t know where this term “CPS-Haters” originated and I can only speak for myself. However, it seems like most of those commenting here are only defending their views against so many CPS lies. Also, they are trying to expose a corrupt system to the world. I have never seen the words “I hate CPS workers” in any context here.

    I don’t hate anyone working for the CPS.

    I am appalled at the atrocious behavior of the CPS system.

    Jesus said to love our enemies. This is impossible without the help of the Holy Spirit. When we “speak” the truth, there is almost always a certain love attached to it. We attempt to correct and reprove, not hate.

    I am appalled at the atrocious behavior of CPS workers.

    Reply

    • Marianne, Mrs Michalakova put her case to the EHCR after she had lost all Courts hearing in Norway (including Supreme Court). It happened in 2014 and the Court did investigate the case and the judges did not find any violation of the principles wrtiten in the European declaration of humans rights.

      You can read more about it here, I let it translate (google translato, but it may be understable). Pavel Hasenkopf is a kind of spokeperson for Eva Michalakova in Czechia:

      “Who wrote the lawsuit to Strasbourg?
      Dora Bokova.
      There are some opinions that it was poorly written, even that there was not even mentioned violation of the right to family life, but it was only a breach of the right to a fair trial?
      Not true, the content of the complaint I have no objections. Who says there is not mentioned violation of the right to family life, either have never read the complaint and try to act smart or intentionally spreading misinformation. Anyway, I do not think we text complaints have ever been published.
      Why not undergone know specifically?
      We do not know. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights only writes: “In the light of all the material in the ITS possesion and in so far as the matters complained of are within The ITS competence, the Court found That That They did not Disclose any appearance of a violation of the Rights and Freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols of the ITS. ”
      Source: http://jordankajiraskova.blog.idnes.cz/blog.aspx?c=447823

      So the EHCR had no problems with the Norwegian courts reasoning in this case.

      Reply

      •    
        I have not read Mrs Michaláková’s complaint. There is no smartness aspect regarding my motives, however, how could there be? I know a fair number of Strasbourg cases both from documents and from more direct information from complainants and their lawyers as well, and some text-books regarding such cases and the Court generally.
           If Eva Michaláková’s case has been thrown out, it is certainly a serious set-back for her, of course. It sounds as though the case has been rejected by Strasbourg in the first round. (It could not likely have gone much further, because of the time element, I think.)
           She is then in the same position as several tens of thousands of others unfortunates. Probably those who, like Veronika Valachova, want to think the best of the court system here (and in Strasbourg), believe this is a strong proof against Michaláková.
           Nevertheless, I think otherwise. It is a depressing loss, but no proof. Only very few cases succeed in being accepted in Strasbourg, although many more deserve to be so. Especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the entry of the Eastern European countries into the Council of Europe, we heard that the number of cases waiting for even a summary consideration at the Court grew to some 100,000, about 25,000 of them against Russia.

        Reply

      • The Swedish lawyer Siv Westerberg has presented many cases for the European Court of Human Rights, she achieved “admissible” status in seven cases and won five. She reports that the Echr does not really look into the material conditions of the cases, but generally only allows formalities to be litigated before the court. The court’s responses are generally based on an acceptance at face value of the expert opinions that the national courts have accepted.

        Another point to take note of, is that according to Siv Westerberg, all her cases took 5-6 years. I cannot believe that the ECHR has made any inquiry into the substance of Ms Michaláková’s case in the short time this case has existed.

        I have myself sent two cases to the court, (not CPS related) and in one of the cases I had an answer saying that the court was completely convinced that no violation of the human rights had occurred. I was never notified of any answer that the Norwegian authorities may have given, and I find the court’s statement completely absurd. I take such declarations to mean that they chose to spend their limited capacity with other cases.

        As to the possibility that there may be other reasons behind the removal of the children from Ms Michaláková, this is the constant problem with most such cases, that the general public cannot really know in the individual case. However, my personal experience with powerfull administrative bodies is such that I have to consider the substance of Ms Michaláková’s complaints as fully possible.

        Add to this the reports from seasoned experts in the CPS field, such as psychologist Sverre Asmervik, who wrote publicly about a case he knew in depth, where the expert opinion had glaring flaws: the conclusions were in wild contradiction with the stated observations; and the quality assurance board which exists to “vet” such opinions missed those flaws completely. His primary concern was that this case was closer to the rule than to the exception. There is today a public “declaration of worry” about the quality of the CPS’s judgement. This declaration has been signed by 170 professionals in relevant fields.

        I cannot say if Ms Michaláková’s case is an example, but my own experience tells me it is impossible that there would not be a mass production of injustices in such powerfull structures as the CPS, where the public oversight is hampered by the need of secrecy, and the official oversight system is designed in a way that is unlikely to catch but a small fraction of the most egregious mistakes.

        Reply

        •   
          Enrique: ” I take such declarations to mean that they chose to spend their limited capacity with other cases.”
             I think this is it. I know there has been some talk, at least, of getting the whole process in Strasbourg speeded up, somehow, but that can hardly mean anything else than rejecting many more cases.

            Siv Westerberg has actually had 9 cases admissible and won 7, but otherwise you are quite right. She should definitely be considered the foremost Nordic human rights lawyer in family cases.

          Enrique: “… the quality assurance board which exists to “vet” such opinions missed those flaws completely.”
             I believe you refer to the forensic commission that vets psychological assessments. It was appointed to be a parallel to the medico-legal commission. But it certainly does not function like that. First of all, somatic medicine builds on the science of biology and can check realistically. Psychology, at least the clinical kind, has no comparable scientific basis which psychological reports etc can be held up against. Secondly, the psychologists producing CPS reports tend to have no methodical understanding or standards either. It is not required of them, they are believed to have “special insight”.
             There has been written far too little about that commission and its failings. Good thing that you brought it up.

    • We do not know which kind of proofs were decisive in this case and what was the reason that 3 Norwegian courts or judical bodies (County board, District Court, Court of the Appeal, The Supreme Court-which rejected the complain of Mrs. Michalakova as whole) decided against Mrs. Michalakova. It was her attorney´s job to raise objections if necessary. We heard a version of Mrs. Michalakova supporters, but nothing more. There are another stories- one is biased as well (the story of her ex-husband who has been fighting against her) and the other is the story from the Courts (what is really written in all documents we haven´t any access to).

      Police investigation is not so important in civil cases ( including children custody)- not even in our country, Czech republic. There are another set of rules concernig the civil processes than in criminal cases (different ways how to evaluate the facts and witnesses.).

      I do know one case from my region- Southern Moravia (from a small town,, I am not going to write names because it´s private matter) when a father of three was denied access to his children (twin boys and a girl) because the civil Court concluded that he had raped his daughter. Neverthless, this man hasn´t been accused of any crime, Czech police suspended the case due to lack of the evidence which would be satisfactory for criminal process (he is innocent in the logic of criminal law).. In civil process the evidence was sufficient and father has had no visitation rights to his children until now (he coudln´t contact them in any way)…His parents (grandparents of children) could make a call occassionaly, but it has changed. The conversation with grandparents was too stressfull for children, especially for girl who had collpased. So the grandparents could not visit, call or make any contacts with grandchildren anymore (it´s the decision of the Court) and it doesn´t matter that they weren´t accused of any crime.Civil and criminal process are different when it comes to procedures, rules and evaluation of the evidence.
      It´s the same in Norway- civil and criminal hearings are independent on each other. You can lose a custody of your children, the civil court may conclude that you did harm your child seriously wihthout having any criminal record. The reason is (among others) the wish to protect children even if the evidence is not so strong (and a parent or parents can not be arrested for example).

      It is difficult, isn´t it? And for me it is the reason why I repeat again and again: Let the Courts work, we do not know what is in a child best.

      Reply

      • Yes, you are probably right, that civil law is different from criminal law. Though I dont find it very fair, but anyway..
        We can let the court works, but do we know they are objective, do we know they decide on objective information? If the psychological evaluations are negative and they were made after the children were removed, they can be biased.
        The question is, whether these courts recheck these evaluations..according to Einar Salvesen they take them as they are. Another point is why should a claim of a kindergarten teacher have a more value, than a claim of family friend or a neighbour? Who knows whether she did not react like that because of a conflict between her and the mother?
        The boys wanted to meet the grandfather and they were able to meet him in the beginning.
        I do have a problem with a statement that children can be returned if:
        – situation in the family has significantly changed
        – parents are able to provide a good care
        – children have established a strong relationship to the foster parents and their return would be harmful.

        I disagree with point 3, this can be easily achieved with any child after a year or two..

        Reply

        • ah sorry..

          children can not be returned in case that they have developed a strong relationship to the foster parents and their return would cause them a harm..logically
          But by restricting contact with the biological family and keeping children isolated for some time this is not fair. I also do not understand how foster parents in Norway can also influence the decision at court..

        •   
          Pavla: “Another point is why should a claim of a kindergarten teacher have a more value, than a claim of family friend or a neighbour? Who knows whether she did not react like that because of a conflict between her and the mother?”
             They probably would be uninterested in a conflict. They would count a kindergarten teacher as a “child expert”. Everybody in child professions have an education in which the approved teachings of child protection are included, so they are counted as “professionals”. They also have the idea that such professionals are objective.

15. This is the article with Zdenek Kapitan, the person Veronika mentioned in her last post. He went to Norway last year to discuss the case. I have split in claims (as stated in the article) and facts, what has really happened.

    Claim: Adoption of the sons of Eve Michalákova in Norway will not be considered at the moment. It emerged from the meeting the head of the Office for International Legal Protection of Children Zdenek captain with the Norwegian authorities.

    “Norwegian side declared that in similar cases adoption is not an option, and that if there is an ongoing contact with her mother, who undoubtedly takes place, even with those problems, which are known, this way of foster care is considered inappropriate,” said Zdenek Captain .

    Fact: Few months later is one of the sons sent to adoption, to another mother looses parental rights. Decision from county committer last year September/October.

    Claim: After talks in Norway Zdenek Kapitan has also said that Eva Michaláková can see the children twice a year for up to two hours, not 15 minutes.

    “The contact is currently governed by a final decision. The Norwegian side stressed that the Czech media, although information appeared that the contact is twice a quarter hours per year, which is not true. The judicial setting is two hours twice a year, “said the head of the Czech office.

    Fact: To limit the meetings from twice a year two hours each to twice a year 15 minutes was not a claim of Czech media or the mother. It was taken from a meeting of Eva Michalakova and Barnevernet last year in January. It was a requirement of Barnevernet claiming that that is the wish of the older son.
    Fact: Not even twice a year 15 minutes was made possible for the mother. She has not seen her oldest son for more than 2 years, nobody from the family has seen him for more than 2 years, even though the court has allowed 2 meetings per year.

    Claim: Both sides according to him, also mutually assured that more frequent meetings with children can help in their possible return to the family

    Fact: I leave that one op to you. Obviously there are no meetings with the oldest son and they were limited meetings (twice a year) with the youngest son. Grandparents have asked for a meeting with their grandchildren, which was not fulfilled either last year or this year.

    The original article:
    http://www.rozhlas.cz/zpravy/politika/_zprava/1462240

    Reply

16. …and I think there are even more places where protests will be held that are not listed here. Praying that this system comes down sooner! Barnevernet doesn’t need revision, it needs to be completely dissolved and those people who did wrong held accountable.

    Reply

    •   
      Just saying: “…and I think there are even more places where protests will be held that are not listed here. ”

      I was thrilled to see this morning that Nürnberg in Germany was joining with a protest. What a very appropriate place to demonstrate for human rights!
        

      Reply