WARNING: There’s a Catch in Norway’s Ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention

NEW RULES: When Norway ratify Hague '96 -Convention July 1, will CPS will be required to investigate whether children can be placed with relatives abroad.  - There will be a possibility that the family abroad assume care, says Minister of Children and Equality Minister Solveig Horne.  Photo: Øistein Norum Monsen / Dagbladet

Dagbladet reported the ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention to deal with disputed child welfare cases.

Many on social media lauded the move as a  positive development, but Delight in Truth had reservations about the intentions of this action. Dagbladet actually writes that the move was done “to calm tempers.” In other words, politicians do what they do best. Talk.

I am not sure if this ratification will help disputed cases that are currently in the system. The article states that involuntary foster placements (“care orders”) are excluded from the convention. Therefore, cases like the Bodnariu, Nan, and Michalakova would not fall under the protection of the Convention because the children were removed on Barnevernet order or court order and involuntarily placed in foster care.

This is the interpretation given by Dagbladet. If indeed this is the case, Norway is stalling. Norway is not interested in real reform to deal with disputed international CPS cases.

Norway does not have a systematic plan to resolve international involuntary foster care cases, and seems to be unwilling to form one. Their default is to let the cases drag on and on for years.

I have spoken to social workers in the US, and while our system can be vicious in many respects, the explicit goal in the US foster system is always reunification with the family as soon as conditions permit. Not so in Norway. Once the family has been targeted, reunification seems to be Barnevernet’s last resort.

Here’s an interesting statement made by Minister Horne: “The child’s attachment to the state should be given particular emphasis…” talking about the decision to move the child abroad with family. Just ponder that for a minute… “Attachment to the state” over family. It will be interesting to see what Delight in Truth visitors think about this.

Norway should have resolved the Bodnariu case months ago.  The continued confiscation of these children continues to aim the international spotlight on Norway. Everyday more and more people find out about it.

It is hard to believe that Norway continues to let this drag on. To their shame.

52 comments on “WARNING: There’s a Catch in Norway’s Ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention

    Very perceptive of you, Delight. But I see even worse than feet-dragging: Norway will use the Hague convention to gain an even stronger grip on children who have ever set foot in Norway:

    I disagree about one thing: It is not the least hard to believe that Norway is letting the Bodnariu case and other cases drag on. This is what they are used to. Didn’t you know that “Norway is best, Norway is right, Norway can teach everybody else about human rights.”

    The reason for the dragging in the Bodnariu case is that it is so well publicised that giving in there would mean thousands of other families demanding corresponding treatment in their cases. The thousands of people financed in this crazy industry would be out of work. All of official Norway, all who have been promoting this way of bringing up children and protecting children and talkin “very seriously and scientific-sounding” about it, would lose face and not know what to do, if such a revolution broke loose. Would they go down with a bang or with a whimper?

    • Repitition of emergency case handling:
      An emergency case follows this order:
      To start an emergency case the leader of the municipal CPS and the legal advisor must have given the green light – a concern has to be made and handed over to the leader of the County Board within 48 hours which give a temporary approval.

      The municipal then have maximum 6 weeks to hand over a case for the County Board. The County Board then can use the time needed to schedule the case.

      The parents with their lawyer can appeal the emergency concern.

      After the County Board has received the appeal the Board has one week to consider if the terms for the emergency use are present. Theprivate part – the parents and their lawyer and the CPS meet the leader of the County Board.

      If the Board find the terms to be present the private part can appeal. The appeal is to be treated in Tingretten and may go further to Lagmannsretten who themselves consider if the case shall be carried out by this Court.

      At the same time – parallel – a case is prepared for an ordinary treatment in the County Board.

      When the case has been treated in the Board and a verdict is given both the CPS and the private part can give their approval which then go to Tingretten and from there further in ordinary Court Sessions.

      The child involved stay with the CPS till the case is closed.

  2. The plan B.

    Every family should have a plan B if …

    not because of this movement that stear up a lot of unnecessary fear in people who are proned (?) for it … but because …we do not know what will happen the next hour.

    Norway has now ratified the Haag Convention of 1996 and from the 1th of July it will be possible for children involved in a CPS case in Norway to be placed with relatives abroad.

    But there are some if’s in this plan B:
    * the child must have some knowledge and attachment to the parent(s) homeland
    * this plan B is only possible in cases done handled as a voluntary help measure – not in cases where the parents has lost their daily care in the County Board or the Court. This means that it is the parents that take the initiative – they have to consider a removal to relatives abroad better for the child than to live in a foster home found by the CPS in Norway.
    * this “if” is very important: Before the CPS raise a case for the County Board the CPS shall examine if the child has a possible attachment to relatives abroad
    * if one parent live abroad the CPS shall try to find this person and inform about the child’s situation
    * the CPS shall consider if the child may get necessary help abroad as an alternative to the CPS taking the care
    * the child must have an attachment to the homeland involved
    * the child must have an attachment to the relatives involved
    * the child’s own wish is important – Norway or …
    * the child’s future possibilities for contact with siblings
    * the child’s knowledge to the language and culture in the homeland


    • “* this plan B is only possible in cases done handled as a voluntary help measure – not in cases where the parents has lost their daily care in the County Board or the Court.”

      Looks like Knut and Delight in Truth agree on how the ratification is being interpreted in Norway.

  3. Exactly, it is completely unthinkable that they are dragging their feet. And then they want to claim they are victims or be in a state of ‘self-pity’? It is time for Norway to take responsibility for their own shame by being accountable. Even Knut said that the Bodnariu family should have been re-united by now. This clearly shows how detached this nation is and while it’s not idea, every day they let it drag on, is another day more people learn about this true crime.

  4. I agree on Marianne Skanland explanation for why BV is dragging the Bodnariu case. They do it in most cases..dragging..But, it has also happened that they return children, after some months, because their grounds were week. Drop the case, method. Happens occasionally, and could possibly have happened in the Bodnariu case, if it was not for the facts that Marianne states above.

    So..we are all in this together in a way..Sorry that Norway has such a rotten Child Protective service. All we can do now, is to help the best way we can, to Free All the children who are ” inprisoned ” by it.

    On the Haag Convention 1996 : ( I must admit that I have not had time yet, to read the convention in detail. I have focused on the Parts of the convention which was relevant for “my” case) About the LAW : In Norway there is a law in the “Grunnloven” §97 (?) stating that; when the state makes a new law for the country, that law will only be in effect on cases that has appeared, from the time the law was put in effect, and forward in the future. A law can not have effect on cases, that happened, timely, before the law became active.

    Ok. that is the main rule of the law in Norway. I will tell you about a rare case. I am no expert in law. I have no education in law, but I read..and make up my conclusion of how they function, or don´t function. Being involved in a barnevern case, that went all the way to High Court in Iceland, has put me in a situation, where I had to involve myself a little in all this “mickmack” of the world of the Law of the land and seas, created by living human beings on this planet. The Hague Convention, is designed to fit legal battles. Claims of ownership, in the material world. Reading the text in English, makes this clear…even more clear it becomes when google translate, transformed the Icelandic text in the Verdict..when the verdict talks about the child..it is translated in english to the Car..? we live in a material world, and “law” don´t really include human matters in the sense that it includes completely, the spirit and emotional level. No one, can, in this world, in this universe Claim the ownership of someones spirit. That is a level, the law of the land and seas, created by men, can not reach.

    Back to the Hague Convention:
    note: In this case §97 in Grunnloven, was tried agains Barnevernloven og Hague Convensjon

    I don´t have the language capacity to translate this text, maybe someone has ?

    Extract from Tingrettsavgjørelse i KONG- tingrett datert 25.4.2016

    “Det verserer, parallelt med nærværende sak, sak om barnebortføring ved at kommunen via Justis – og Beredskapsdepartementet pr 13. oktober 2015 har igangsatt slik sak med hjemmel i Haag- konvensjonen om barnebortføring. Det er opplyst at stedlig tingrettt på Island har avsagt kjennelse der kravet om at barnet skal utleveres til Norge ikke er blitt tatt til følge. Saken er etter det opplyste påanket til Høyere rettsinstans på Island.”

    « Saksøkte Kongsberg Kommune har i det vesentlige anført at det følger av nytt annet ledd i barnevernloven §4 -13 at iverksettelsesfristen er et år dersom barneverntjenesten har « igangsatt en barnebortføringssak». Kommunen hadde ignagsatt slik sak da lovstedt trådde i kraft 1. januar 2016. Dette innebærer at fylkesnemdens vedtak fattet 2. juli 2015 gjelder for et år fra vedtakstidspunktet, uavhengig av hvorvidt fylkesnemdens leder har forlenget iverksettelsen i medhold av første ledd annet punktum.»

    « Problemstillingen i saken er imidlertid hvorvidt bestemmelsen om fristforlengelse i barneloven §4-13 nytt annet ledd, som trådte i kraft 1. januar 2016, medfører at det
    administrative vedtak likevel fremdeles er virksomt. Problemstillingen reiser spørsmål vedrørende hvorvidt barneloven§ 4-13 annet ledd har tilbakevirkende kraft, og – i
    tilfelle bekreftende svar – hvordan dette forholder seg i relasjon til forbudet mot tilbakevrikende lovgivning jfr Grunnloven §97. Problemstillingen reiser videre spørsmål i relasjon til forståelsen av bestemmelsen om fristforlengelse i barnevernloven §4-13 annet ledd sett i lys av uttalelser i lovstedets forarbeider.»

    «Spørsmålet om lovstedets virkeområde i tid er – så vidt retten har bragt på det rene – ikke viet oppmerksomhet i lovstedets forarbeider ( Prop.143 L (2014-2015) og inst. 87 L (2015-2016)

    Retten legger avgjørende vekt på ordlydens generelle utforming og at det ikke er rettskilder som trekker i retning av at lovstedets virkeområde i tid er begrenset, og finner at lovstedet kommer til anvendelse også i saker der det underliggende administrative vedtaket er fattet forut for 1. januar 2016.»

    « Formålet med fristbestemmelsen i annet ledd er å gi barneverntjenesten tid både mht. å få lokalisert barnet og å få fremmet og avgjort en sak om tilbakelevering jfr. Prop 143 L (2014-2014), pkt. 6.2.4. Dersom ivrksettelsensfristen før utlapet av de første seks ukene er forlenget i kraft av nemdsleders avgjørelse og/eller i kraft av begjæring om utsatt iverksettelse – og det administrative vedtaket derfor er virksomt også etter de første seks ukene – er det ingen grunn til at barneverntjenesten før utløpet av seksukersfristen skal måtte forsere en igangsettelse av en barnebortføringssak, med risiko for at slik sak igangsettes før det er ferdig utredet fra barneverntjenestens side hvor barnet er lokalisert og/ eller hvorvidt det er grunnlag for å igangsette en barneborføringssak.»

    s. 11 i dommen : « Hensynet til barnets beste, qua lovtolkningsfaktor, taler etter rettens oppfatning også imot en slik forståelse av uttalelsene i forarbeidene. Kommunen har vist til at så lenge det admonistrative vedtaket ennå ikke er pravd av retten, må det gjelde en presumpsjon for at det er til barnets beste at fylkesnemdens vedtak iverksettes. Retten er enig i dette og viser til at dette må gjelde enn mer i nærværende sak der privat part ikke er gitt medhold i anledning begjæring om utsatt iverksettelse. Retten viser i denne forbindelse også til at den antitetisk forståelse av uttalelsene i forarbeidene vil kunne åpne opp for at private parter i omgåelsesøyemed spekulerer i at seksukersfristen utløper.»

    «Retten er etter dette kommet til at den undrliggende administrative vedtaket er forlenget i kraft av barnevernloven §4-13 annet ledd første punktum og at det er virksomt i ett år fra vedtakstidspunktet 2. juli 2015.

    Slutning : Saken blir etter dette å fremme.

    My english is not good enough to properly translate this into english. Pls, help if anyone can. Theese extracts, is a taste only, of the resonnement in the Tingretts decision, right before High Court in Iceland REFUSED, to handle over the child to the Norwegian Barnevern.

    Tingretten concluded, that the case of child obduction, by Hague convention was still going on, and the case was not concluded in High Court, Iceland, and that it was in the Best Interest Of the Child, that the law was interpreted to give Fylkesnemden «vedtak» effect, still..even if it has expired on the date. It expired 25. february, and a leader of the fylkesnemd, had still not prolonged it to keep it active. In other worlds, there was no legal grounds anymore, but Tingretten found reasons that there were enough grounds to let the case go as planned…More reasons for this is in the full text from Tingretten.

    After High Court Iceland came out with their view on the case, and ReFused to hand over the child, for the 2. time, the 26. April 2016, to Norway. – Kongsberg Kommune themselves, asked Tingretten to refuse the case which should have been held 2-3 mai, in Kongsberg Tingrett, because now, Kongsberg Kommune agreed completely that they had no more legal rights to continue this case.

    « rettsmidlene er uttømt»

    The case was therefore on the 29. April 2016, also refused from Tingretten. On the grounds that there is no active «vedtak» anymore, when Kongsberg Kommune lost twice in Iceland. There is no case going on in tingretten today and tomorrow.

    Case Closed. Game Over

    Kongsberg Kommune Lost. The Child Won.


    Frode Lauareid, the «prosessfullmektige» for Kongsberg Kommune, wrote as a last reminder :

    Dersom barnet kommer tilbake til Kongsberg Kommune vil kommune vurdere å reise ny sak. /
    If the child returns to Kongsberg, the municipality / kommunen will consider to start a new case.

    Both the child and the father is at the moment «stuck» in Iceland. Parallell to this, Norwegian Police used inter pool to try to get the father, handed over to the Norwegian Authorities for child abduction. That is a separate case. Which is to my knowledge, at this time, not closed yet.

    In the judgement from 1.level court in Iceland, the google translation of the text from Icelandic says this :

    statements from the lawyer of the private part:

    «… som i dette tilfellet henviser til avnsitt 4. artikkel 12, mener tiltalte at : levering av jenta vil utgjøre et brudd hå hennes rettigheter i henhold til FN -konvensjonen, se Lov nr 19/2003, og mot artikkel 8 EMK. se Lov nr 62/1994. ”

    Barnevernet and their case psychologists doomed the girl to be damaged by having any contact with her parents. Half a year later, one should have thought that those speculations would have come true, if they were right, right ?

    On school, on Iceland, the girl is doing very well, even if she knew nothing of the Icelandic language when she arrived in august 2015. Her grades are good, and the teachers have no worry about her.

    Barnevernet Kongsberg, also contacted local barnevern in Iceland, when they filed the case on child abduction. The «barnevern» in Iceland closed the case, after investigating for 1 1/2 month, with no worry.

    Then came a psychologist from Iceland, appointed by the court. He also talked to the girl, and the school etc …and came to the conclution that the girl was old enough and mature enough to fully understand what what going on in her life.

    And the girl`s own words finally came through. She was not only listen to, as the law says in Norway. Barnevernet have to listen to the child`s opinion. But it does´t say in the law, that Barnevernet have to take the childs opinion into consideration at all, if they choose that there are reasons, that it don´t fit their interests.

      Very useful, Arianne. What you have translated is enough, I think. The main points are that they are not interested in what the girl’s views are and what is really good for her. Freedom is not in their vocabulary or their ideas of child psychology. But so far, Iceland has kept sensible, at least in this case. Good luck to daughter, father and yourself.
         The telephone conversation on the video is priceless, the way you say this professional leader of Kongsberg Barnevern’s activities “is like the cat walking around the porridge” and that she “talks like a parrot”. It is a vitamin injection for other Barnevern victims, I think!
         Please contact me if you can and will. You find me easily.

    • Arianne, maybe you have written it, but I did not notice, could you tell me, how this case started and how did the father and the girl managed to escape to Iceland? Thank you

    • “The Hague Convention, is designed to fit legal battles. Claims of ownership, in the material world. Reading the text in English, makes this clear…even more clear it becomes when google translate,”

      If this is correct, then children are material things to be used at the owner’s will. They can be made slaves or royalty. They can be sold or traded. I’m no expert in the law but the Word of God is easy to understand:

      The Judgment
      31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

      34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

      41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25

      The least of these would include children I think.

  5. I was also impressed about how you talked in this telephone conversation, Arianne! Well done! I wish you all the best!

  6. Barnevernet just realised that they f up in this case (and a few other) and they want to get out, but without admitting fault or doing anything significant to repair the damages they’ve done. I would’ve expected, after they destroyed a family, those responsible for the decision making in this case to loose their jobs, and be prosecuted but I have huge doubts anything like this is going to happen. Nevertheless this is what it should be demanded from Barnevernet from anybody who goes out in the street for this case, and by any foreign authority investigating this case. Just returning the children to their family without changing anything in the organisation shouldn’t be acceptable.

    • Legal decisions come from office work, F.i. – the Naustdal case has the leader, the legal advisor/lawyer, the CPS with the name of four Bodnariu children on her client list – maybe a co-worker has them too – because this is considered necessary given the circumstances.

      If they end up in court with a lost case – the children are returned with or without a set of help measures. No one will loose their job or be held responible for their work done in accordance with the Child Welfare Act. They have done their work from considerations to the best for the child and that’s a very difficult legal matter for parents with lawyers to attack. Most lawyers advice parents with such thoughts to forget it as criminal and likewise asking for compensation. The parents have a larger risk to end up loosing the case and then to pay for the lawyers for both parts.

      • This is NOT a democratic land Mr Nygaard, you already recognized that! WOW! Every goverment employee, even cps employee, can take a wrong decision without any consequence! Like dictatorial countries… That’s what the world should know!

      • So, M. Nygard, you Bv state that you are right, whatever the harm done. Since you followed some point of some law, giving little attention that this is not a matter of bureacracy, but of humanity. Exactly as a surgeon cutting in the wrong place of a body, with all his skill, according to the best procedures science has taught him… But he cuts the wrong member, or pulls out the wrong tooth!
        It is not a matter of compensation, but of admission of guilt by the guilty. “Yes, in this or that case we were wrong, and we apologize.” No one in power does this, of course, and the Bvet appears to be a powerful, blind and deaf machine. Rutine and regulations, monitoring and spying… No tears seen, desperate cries heard, no childhood crippled to be considered. No fair play either to be expected from people who think they are always right and do the best, and are always supported by their bosses. No fair play to expect from some politicians either, when they choose a line and stick to it.
        You are “lucky” in your advanced, free, ever happy society to have been spared the evils and lessons of dictatorship… but are definitely more deaf and blind and cold blooded. Of course, not you, Knut, as a person I respect. But a collective “you” we perceive in the acts of the CPS in all countries where it functions in a cruel, absurd way. Because it is cruel and absurd to harm young human beings you pretend to protect and help…perhaps not always, but in too many cases.

  7. Barnevernet: Kidnapping eller beskyttelse?
    Public · Hosted by Jussgruppen Amnesty Student Bergen

    Tomorrow at 6 PM

    Olav Kyrresgate 49, 5015 Bergen, Hordaland

    Har du hørt ryktene om at Barnevernet «kidnapper» barn?

    Amnesty Student Bergen Jussgruppen har fått med seg de kritiske nyhetsoppslagene rundt Barnevernets arbeid, og arrangerer derfor en debatt hvor dette skal settes ordentlig søkelys på.

    Debatten skal belyse Barnevernets virksomhet og lovligheten rundt tiltakene de gjør. Vi ønsker å få et klart bilde av hvordan deres inngripende beslutninger blir foretatt.

    Debattens deltakere:
    – Jussprofessor Karl-Harald Søvig har særlig jobbet med bruk av tvang i velferdsretten, både overfor mennesker med rusmiddelavhengighet, psykiatriske pasienter og i barnevernet.
    – Professor Marit Skivenes har forsket på blant annet barnets beste, Barnevern og Barnevernssystemer.
    – Konst. etatsjef Elisabeth Abelvik representerer Barnevernet.
    – Menneskerettsjurist Marius Reikerås representerer familienes side.
    – Leder av Amnesty Student Bergen Pascual Strømsnæs vil lede debatten.

    Under debatten vil det bli åpnet for spørsmål fra publikum.

    Debatten blir holdt på norsk, men blir oversatt til engelsk.

    Vel møtt – vi gleder oss til å se deg der!

    Have you heard about Barnevernet “kidnapping” kids?

    Due to the recent media focus on Barnevernet, Amnesty Student Bergen law group has decided to put spotlight on this institution, its legal background and the way it works in general.

    We have invited:

    – Professor Karl-Harald Søvig (UiB, social law, administrative law..)
    – Professor Marit Skivenes ( UiB, Child’s Interests, Child Welfare Systems..)
    – Elisabeth Abelvik representing Barnevernet
    – Human Rights councel Marius Reikerås, representing the families
    – the leader of Amnesty Student Bergen Pascual Strømsnæs wil be the moderator.

    At the end of the debate there will be time for questions.

    The debate will be held in Norwegian, but it will be translated to English.

    We hope to see you all there!

    • This is NOT a democratic land! Mr Nygaard already recognized that! WOW! Every goverment employee, even cps employee, can take a wrong decision without any consequence! Like dictatorial countries (ex. North Korea).

    • When this has English subtitles, Pavla, please let us know where it can be found. I would really like to see this one.

      Thank you my friend!

    • This meeting is in Bergen and I think Åge Simonsen may be going to it. So maybe I’ll be getting a report.

      I have read an interview article from June 2015 where Søvig is sort of mildly critical, but like jurists generally, he assumes that everything he reads in a court judgment is the truth, this time in the Adele Johansen case. Even Strasbourg did not properly take in that there was NO reason to take Adele’s daughter at all; it was just lies that she was incapable of taking care of her newborn daughter etc etc. Case a) here:

        I’ve had Åge Simonsen on th phone. The meeting yesterday went very well, he says, because there were people in the audience who had practical experience and real insight into Barnevernet’s doings and they made their points.
           The panel of 4 was apparently supposed to be 3 – 1, with Reikerås the only Barnevern critic. He spoke very well, Åge said. And he was really the only one in the panel who spoke well. The two from the university spoke in such an “academic” fashion that the audience could hardly get the hang of what they meant (a lot of psycho-socio-babble, apparently) and the one from Fana Barnevern (Fana is a part of Bergen) hardly said a word and didn’t look any too pleased. When Åge in a comment had referred to reports for and by Barnevernet being so tendentious / slanted that anybody with academic training ought to spot it immediately, the professor who had done research on the use of force in Barnevernet said that perhaps the report writers had “felt” that such-and-such was the case. He did not seem to have anything against feeling taking the place of reasoned and documented facts, as long as the feelings were on the “professional” side.
            Several people from the audience had interesting things to say. There were people there who had taken part in the demo in Bergen on the 16th, and several Barnevern victims. So, for once Barnevernet’s people were not able to get away with their usual stuff.

  8. You have been right for some time now, Delight.

    This is a case of hardness of heart. Instead of softening, Norwegian leadership is stiffening. They think we will forget. How can we forget no matter how long this drags out? Maybe they think that if they drag it out the world will join them in their ways. The way things are going, I cannot rule this out.

    We have read the end of the book. We know that God is victorious in the end. We know that darkness will be exposed to the light someday. It is only a matter of time, in spite of how bad things things get.

    Thanks for the insight and God’s blessings my friend…

  9. Pingback: There’s a Catch in Norway’s Ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention | Pastor Ciprian Barsan

  10. I read somewhere about a couple who had their own child taken away by barnevernet. They took the course to become fosterparents and passed the test. Maybe Knut can explain how Barnevernet can allow parents to become fosterparents but the same parents are not allowed to be parents to their own children? ????

      Well, I can tell you about one answer they tend to give: “A person can be good for ONE child but not for another. It is so individual.”

      They use this argument also when they take away some siblings but not others from their family.
      In one case there are two children – they are now adults. The son is the younger. He has a good education and is doing well. He grew up with his mother. The daughter was taken away, and she wants no contact with her mother now, BECAUSE she believes that her mother did not care about her enough to keep her at home, while hers brother was allowed to stay. This is wholely untrue (the mother had no say against Barnevernets poaching), but the daughter will not even talk to her to let her tell the truth.

      It is standard procedure for Barnevernet and their foster “parents” to indoctrinate and pacify foster children, for example by telling them something like that: “Your parents have enough with their own problems, they cannot / will not give you the care you need.”

      It is very much like in the Bodnariu case: The parents are not allowed to show the children at visitations that they are unhappy that the children are not home with them. This is “explained” to the parents to be not in order to make the children unhappy at seeing their parents’ distress.
          One would think that a healthy people (the people of Norway) would immediately rise in disgust and fury as such sadism. But no.

      • I wonder when this barnevernet stops shocking me? It is even worse than I thought!!!! This is disgusting! Children are being shifted around like goods. It is really a business like one lady stated in a video you posted from the demonstration.
        It is also actually going against God the creator when they say that some children don`t “fit” together with their biological parents. It`s like telling God that He made a mistake when He gave “these” parents “this” child or He gave “these” parents “too many” children.

        Like in the example you gave about the siblings where the girl was taken away and the boy stayed in his biological family, I can just imagine how terrible and confusing it must be for the girl!

        I wonder if the four Bodnariu children, who are still left in foster care, know that their youngest brother has been returned. I guess they try to hide it as long as they can. But I guess they will come with an explanation that the parents have enough with their little brother… How devastating it must be for a child to learn that one or more of their siblings can stay home with their mum and dad, whereas they are pushed out!

        Do you think people in Norway know about this awful practice barnevernet has of child selection? Maybe one should make the Norwegian population more aware of what is going on. If the general population don`t react, they must have truly been brainwashed!

          “Do you think people in Norway know about this awful practice barnevernet has of child selection? Maybe one should make the Norwegian population more aware of what is going on. If the general population don`t react, they must have truly been brainwashed!”

          And haven’t many many Barnevern victims and others tried to tell it publicly, for something like 30 years now (I have spoken with plenty of people who weres trying it before my time, which started over 20 years ago). The mainstream press/media will not have it. And the general population believe uncritically in the authorities and the mainstream media.

          After all, the upsurge of information and protest now is partly because there is an increasing number of children being taken, but only partly. The other part of the reason is the coming of the internet, the possibilities for ordinary people to write themselves, not to have to go to newspapers and beg them to investigate their case and write something about it, or to be as kind as to print an article they have written.

      • I need your help, Marianne. Do you have some examples of cases where parents have been allowed to take care of foster children but not their own? It was at Facebook I read about one case. But it didn’t include the source. The other case where siblings are divided and some are taken away whereas others are left in the family we have lots of evidence about. There have been some reactions and they don’t believe me. I don’t have time to reply now since im soon going to my singing lessons. But in the late afternoon I have time to reply. I would be happy if you could give me some links. Thank you in advance, Marianne!

        • Not just examples, but links to where Mrs. M is taking her information from. Every one in two shoes can tell a story and give it further without knowing if there was some kind of truth in it. There is a lot of airy propaganda on the internet.

          Reading Our manual for violence just now- def. i Norwegian: “Vold er enhver handling rettet mot en annen person som ved at denne handlingen skader, smerter. skremmer eller krenker, får den personen til å gjøre noe mot sin vilje eller å slutte å gjøre som den vil” – Per Isdal.

        • Now that you are here, Knut, you can tell me if it is really true that biological parents who lose their own children can pass the PRIDE test which qualifies them to become a foster parent?

        • “Vold er enhver handling rettet mot en annen person som ved at denne handlingen skader, smerter. skremmer eller krenker, får den personen til å gjøre noe mot sin vilje eller å slutte å gjøre som den vil” – Per Isdal.”

          Will you translate this for me please, Knut?

        • Not right off-hand, I don’t – I do know some, where this element is more or less clear, but it would have to be published or publishable cases capable of certain documentation and I don’t have that “at my fingertips”. I’ll keep it in mind.

        • Sorry, the above comment was to Hildi’s request for handfast examples of parents being good for one child bad for another, including bad for one’s own child good as a fosterer.

        • Hey, Chris – as you has found out – my english is not much to boast about – you have given Mrs. M the best credit possible for her English – if you need a proper translation I’m sure she will give her activist friend the best possible service.

        • Marianne,I think I just found what I was looking for;


          It talks about a mother who had one of her children taken away from her by Barnevernet and placed in foster care. The reason was the child`s deviant behaviour.
          As an experiment to see whether she would have been accepted as a foster parent, she took the Pride- course together with her boyfriend without letting the course leaders know that she had one of her own children in foster care. She and her boyfriend passed the test.

          Even though they didn`t actually become fosterparents, the experiment showed that they were good enough as foster parents.

          My own conclusion, from reading the story, is that foster parents don`t necessaraly mean that they are “better” parents than the biological parents. Moreover, they could even turn out to be “worse” parents!

          I will answer in Verdidebatten with what I have learned here. And of course I will also include the link. So let`s see how they react.

        • The phrase Chris wanted translated:

          Violence is any action directed to another person which, in that this action damages, gives pain, frightenes or insults, gets the other person to do something against his/her will or refrain from doing what he/she wants.

        • Yes, I actually know the man who took the Pride course together with the mother of a daughter in BV very well, and I just rang him to ask if he minded his name being given. He does not. He is Joar Tranøy, actually the only psychologist in Norway who is completely well-informed about both the realities of Barnevernet and in my opinion the only one completely to be trusted in what he does. He is also fully qualified in many other subjects: he is a criminologist, historian, sociologist, has Christianity studies as one of his university subjects, and is the author of many books. And he is something very rare: honest and courageous, even when it costs him something. And it has cost him plenty in Norway. He had worked against the abuses in mental hospitals and psychiatry generally for many years before he also got engaged in Barnevern abuses. In both fields the politically correct and powerful have done the dirty on him as well as they have been able to.
             Joar and his girl-friend took the Pride course as an experiment, to be able to show that it was a fake. And it was, of course. When they at last revealed that she had a daughter taken into care, the Barnevern people got very upset and angry and said that they had decived them by not telling the truth. Which shows what we of course know: that Barnevernet pretends far more insight into people’s personalities and minds than they have, and that they indeed have no method of exposing deceit. Nor do the rest of us, but Barnevernet pretends to have extraordinary competence in judging people.
              So first of all, Barnevernet cannot particularly judge parents, secondly, they cannot particularly judge foster parents. Which means that they are not especially competent to guard against e.g. pedophiles or sadists getting taken on as fosterers. They are actually particularly BAD at guarding against it, because they overrate their own competence in judging people.

             To the other question you asked, Hildi, about some children being taken and not all, or some children being given back and being left in (relative) peace but not others, it is not at all unusual, and I know some cases personally. Of course Vibeke Vedvik’s case is such a one, and the Bodnariu case another. I’ll see if something has been published from some of the others I am thinking of or whether I can publish something about them.
             I do not intend, however, to please Mr Nygaard’s bullying: that I should provide him with proof because “nobody” can trust what I say. The boot is fairly solidly on the other foot: Mr Nygaard has so far not delivered all that much proof or probability of truth in what he writes of his and his office’s excellent cooperation with parents, nor of his/their judgment of families being right or his work with children being successful.

        • Thanks for the suggestion, Knut.

          Thank you for the translation, Marianne.

          “Violence is any action directed to another person which, in that this action damages, gives pain, frightens or insults, gets the other person to do something against his/her will or refrain from doing what he/she wants.”

          This is the definition of violence I found:

          “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”

          This is a different definition than the one in your laws, Knut. A parent who is spanking a child in the correct manner has no intention of hurting, damaging, or killing . Does the parent want to get the child to refrain from doing what they want? Of course, they do. This is because the parent sees that what the child is doing is going to harm them much more than a swat on the bottom. This is love. This is wisdom. A good spanking is not insulting. It is just. Have the people who made this law never been disciplined by God? If not (or if so) and they don’t change their ways, they will be punished and they’ll wish they had a good spanking instead.

          Most people that I know who have been spanked, including myself, have been grateful later that their care givers loved them enough to correct them with a good spanking.

    • “I read somewhere about a couple who had their own child taken away by barnevernet. They took the course to become fosterparents and passed the test.”

      Thank you for sharing, Hildi.

      This is insanity.

  11. Hildi you have made a correct observation. If foster parents are proven not to be better then the natural parents and Barnevernet will move the children yet again from the foster to other foster parents it is easy for the foster parents for they are not loosing anything. It is like , No problem take your object back.
    We can see all this for God has gave us grace not to loose our sanity.
    In the case of Barnevernet workers this sanity is questionable.
    Minister Horne said: What happens inside a family in no longer a private matter.
    Barnevernet has taken our children and the whole world say: What happens inside Norway is no longer a private matter.

    • Daniel: “Minister Horne said: What happens inside a family in no longer a private matter.
      Barnevernet has taken our children and the whole world say: What happens inside Norway is no longer a private matter.”


  12. Marianne wrote;
    “Yes, I actually know the man who took the Pride course together with the mother of a daughter in BV very well, and I just rang him to ask if he minded his name being given.”

    Wow! That was so interesting to read! In fact it was at facebook I read about the story this morning. There his name was included. Unfortunately, I forgot where I had read about it and lost it. But, after some searching this evening, I did not only find the comment about it but luckily also the link to the article which was just what I needed. So I shared the link and my opinions about it. The article keeps the names anonym. It seems to be from a trustworthy site. So I don^t think I need to mention names.

    What a brave and clever man! People like this is much needed these days!And what you do is also invaluable, Marianne! Here we have the facts! and facts is what we need!

  13. So, it is admitted by Norway that “Violence is any action directed to another person which, in that this action damages, gives pain, frightens or insults, gets the other person to do something against his/her will or refrain from doing what he/she wants.”
    Problem: this definition partially applies exactly to some actions taken by Bvet! Because, it is certain, what a child feels when kidnapped, even legally, is pain, fright, in short, major damage, huge traumatism. Ask any adult who knew this in childhood. Or, if he/she forgot, his/her psychiatrist…

  14. A writer on our Forum RVB, the one who is himself a father who managed to get the family out of the country in time, though late, wrote this evening:

    “Jeg aksepterer ikke tanken om at foreldre må krenkes og familier i tusentalls må tvangsavvikles for å hjelpe barn.
        Barnevernet trenger å bygge sin virksomhet på verdier som er nøyaktig motsatt av de verdiene som i dag styrer virksomheten.
        Høyst seriøse fagfolk mener at barnevernet har blitt totalitært. Totalitære ideologier blir ikke demokratiske om man justerer dem litt. Man kunne ikke “justere litt” på kommunismen. Den måtte bort.”

    It means:
    – I don’t accept the idea that parents must be violated and families in their thousands must be forcibly dismantled, in order to help children.
       Barnevernet needs to build its activities on values which are the precise opposite of the values steering the activity today.
        Very serious professional people hold Barnevernet to have become totalitarian. Totalitarian ideologies do not become democratic by a little adjustment. Communism could not be “adjusted a bit”. It had to be ousted.

        Actually, revolution is something I am AFRAID of in this matter. One sees the fury, lawlessness, agression which crops up ever so often in foster children, cf this thread about criminal actions etc done by youngsters who live at Barnevern institutions, or actions by the police against them, – the thread runs into 15 pages now, as you see:
        Precisely the danger of people “breaking loose” is a reason why it is important to try and stop Barnevernet.

  15. “Vold er enhver handling rettet mot en annen person som ved at denne handlingen skader, smerter. skremmer eller krenker, får den personen til å gjøre noe mot sin vilje eller å slutte å gjøre som den vil” – Per Isdal.

    “Violence is any action directed to another person which, in that this action damages, gives pain, frightenes or insults, gets the other person to do something against his/her will or refrain from doing what he/she wants.”

    This is what Knut wrote was Barnevernets definition of violence.

    I see a few problems with this definition. It can lead to different interpretations and may thereby have serious consequences in its application.

    “Damage” is clear. It is a broad term which covers the other terms. You can damage someone either physically or psychologically. It is what you have in the end after having done something harmful, and it is never good.

    “Give pain”; however,can be understood in many different ways and is misleading. “Pain” doesn`t necessarily need to be something bad which harms the one to whom it is applied. It can, in fact be something good which in end effect will profit the child. When a child has misbehaved it often needs to experience some negative consequences in order to learn from it. As an example; when my children were little, two of them forgot or didn`t care to take on their bicycle lights when they were riding them in the evening when it was dark. They were caught by the police who gave them orders to come to the police station to learn some traffic rules one whole afternoon. They were not so pleased about it. It was embarrassing and it hurt them to see their friends playing that afternoon… But they wouldn`t have taken it seriously if it wasn`t for that painful experience. And if they had just continued cycling without light, it could have ended far more painful….

    “Frighten” is also a tricky term. In general, it is not good to frighten somebody. But if you warn a child about the negative consequences if he or she doesn`t obey, it can feel a little bit frightening. Let`s take the example with the bicycle light again. My son is on his way to football training in the evening when it is dark. He sees his friends cycling without light. So he doesn`t want to put on his light either. But as a mother, who loves her child, I tell him that he might have an accident if he cycles without light. He doesn`t believe me. Then I tell him that the police might see him and that he might have to go to the police station. That frightens him. So he puts on his light.

    “Insulting” is never good! Name-calling and calling people stupid,ugly, too fat etc. is very harmful, and especially to a child. Here, we as adults have to be an example. We cannot expect children to learn not to be insulting towards each other if we are doing it towards each other. As soon as the kind of pain and frightening as explained above is applied in an insulting way, it becomes harmful and not in the best interest for the child.

    “Get the person to do something against his/her will or refrain from doing what he/she wants” is again a tricky term. What a child wants to do or not wants to do isn`t always what is best for the child. A child is still in a learning process and doesn`t understand the consequences of everything he or she does. If a mother, for instance, tells her daughter to do her homework before she goes out to play, the daughter will probably not be so fond of it. In that case, a mother has to stand firm and be wise not to let her daughter just go her own way.

    On the other hand, there are sadly also parents who don`t have the best for their children in mind. Children should learn that sexual abuse, violent and insulting behaviour, serious threatening to harm the child etc. is wrong and should be reported.

    These were just some thoughts which came into mind now. Please correct me if I`m wrong or have missed out any points. I am just afraid that such a definition about violence can lead to different interpretations which can have disastrous consequences.

    Hildi’s question above, about families from which Barnevernet takes some children and not all:

    Here is a writer on Forum Redd Våre Barn (RVB, Rescue Our Children) who wrote in 2012, and who has now posted for us a description of the way Barnevernet has taken some, then other children, let some come back, take others. I spoke with Anita a few years ago and others in our group of CPS critics have had a lot of communication with her all along. She lives up north, in Rana municipality.

    Ole Magnus min lille gutt (Ole Magnus, my little boy)

    Hildi, it is not possible for me to translate at the moment. Perhaps you can read through it (there are other postings too by Anita in the top section on RVB) and see if it is possible for you to make any kind of short summary?

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 )

Connecting to %s