Dramatic Escape From Barnevernet!

ESCAPED: The young couple have escaped with their twin daughters to Poland and is now internationally wanted by police.  Photo: Olav T. Griswold / TV2 & nbsp;

Two young parents took things and their destiny in their hands recently. They somehow escaped WITH THEIR CHILDREN from Norway’s Barnevernet to Poland. This is the absolutely fascinating and dramatic story of parents Erik and Natasha who 9 months ago had their twins confiscated by Barnevernet immediately after birth when the 21-year-old mother was wrongly accused of being developmentally delayed.

The parents went to the media when their children were confiscated, and under the pressure of publicity Barnevernet allowed the parents to be reunited with the children while living in a Barnevernet institution. This is a place where they were observed, followed, criticized etc. This is the kind of institution where Barnevernet slowly builds a case against parents. Every inadequacy, every mistake, every reaction is recorded and reported. The ultimate goal is to present all the evidence in some judicial forum and have the children removed permanently.

Well, all that is out the door now.

The parents somehow received a tip that the CPS was not going to give the children back on a permanent basis, and they took matters into their own hands. They seized an opportunity to take the children and ran away from the mother/baby center where they were living.  They somehow left Norway without tipping off border personnel and are now in Poland. Was it another Polish Rambo rescue? We do not know!

Sure enough, the Barnevernet decision handed down this week was unfavorable to the parents, but by then the entire family had fled. Good for them.

But as we already know, Barnevernet is very vindictive. They have charged the parents with criminal conduct and will pursue them via the European Interpol. The result of this pursuit will be interesting because the family is now located in an undisclosed small village in Poland. They will eventually be found and an extradition process started.

Delight in Truth predicts that Poland will probably not extradite the couple after the recent CPS drama that has swept European countries. There are other parents who have escaped from Barnevernet to Poland before and they have found refuge there to raise their children in peace.

This is a great story. It makes your want to cheer for the protagonist, people like the Bodnarius, Barbu, Michalakova, baby Aria family etc. And in the process, the Norwegian CPS looks bad. Very bad.

528 comments on “Dramatic Escape From Barnevernet!

  1. Zycze im wszystkiego najlepszego w Polsce.
    Mysle ,ze nie grozi im ekstradycja.Polska ma dosyc spraw z barnevernet.MSZ .- Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych mowi , ze pomimo wielu milionow Polakow za granica ma tylko jeden problem i jest to norweskie barnevernet.W Polsce pojawil sie jakis czas temu przedstawiciel Norwegii i chcial zajmowac sie adopcjami polskich dzieci do Norwegii . Bylam mocno przestraszona jak sie o tym dowiedzialam .Ten czlowiek nie otrzymal ANI JEDNEGO ZEZWOLENIA NA ADOPCJE DO NORWEGII.Polska takich zezwolen nie wydaje , bo wiedza co sie dzieje w Norwegii.
    Amelia ( Ulovlig norsk , Takk ) tez byla w Polsce wtedy gdy chcial ja wyrzucic Stoltenberg.Najpierw Rosja a pozniej Polska .Byla gosciem w willi Dedecius w Krakowie . To jest dom dla przesladowanych pisarzy.

  2. Norwegian tv2 had this at their first item on the tv news this evening. It was said that Barnevernet had issued an emergency decision to take the children, and this was confirmed by the County Committee last Wednesday. But the parents’ lawyer, Astrid Gjøystdal, said in an interview that the family had already left Norway when the emergency decision was issued, so she holds that the family was perfectly entitled to take the children and go abroad.
      

      • Yeah, here we have a lawyer that dare to use both the media and facebook – I do hope she has the parents accept to communicate so open – of cause both the police and the media are looking into her activity.

        There is one thing about running away abroad – if you have no knowledge about the country you arrive in and you can’t use the card – I don’t know how long they have money and what will be done to stop the transmission of welfare and other income, but my guess is that they don’t manage many weeks abroad and I don’t think the lawyer has any case – it’s just a delay anyhow.

        I do hope those inolved in this runaway have a relayable team of helpers around the family in Poland – the children must be the 1.th priority either they are in Norway or abroad and sure these parents need a lot of help.

        • I really think that you just dont want to admit the evil intentions barnevernet has. What kind of strategy are those special homes for mothers?

        • Knut
          W Posce nie stosujemy Janteloven czyli ,,nie mysll ,ze ktos ci pomoze ,,
          Nie martw sie o nich .Wiele osob rozumie sytuacje i im pomoze.
          Ci ludzie nie moga wrocic do Norwegii , bo GESTAPOVERNET im zabierze dzieci.Ty sie martw lepiej o siebie.Bo jak wakacje sie skoncza to zaczna sie znowu protesty , a kto wie co jeszcze.A grupa ludzi wscieklych na wasze postepowanie caly czas rosnie.

        • A stay at a Parent(s) and a Child(ren) Center has different histories with them, but they all have the intention to find out if it’s possible for the child to stay with the parent(s) or not – and what help measueres the muicipality shall provide. As I read this post there had been held an evaluation ( usually there are some during a stay) and the parents read this evaluation to be the conclusion – and then ran away with the help from ??

        • What rubbish Mr Nygaard serves here: “and the parents read this evaluation to be the conclusion – and then ran away”

          From the wonderful help of the family centre and Barnevernet? (Wir pflegen Sie.)

          The County Committee has confirmed an emergency decision by Barnevernet. They did so this Wednesday. It is really beyond belief that anybody can pretend that if they had stayed on at their place of incarceration, the decision would have been any different. Again – compare the Nadia-Caspian case.
            
            

        • The lawyer is real supportive – she advertise on her f.b. for money sent on an account made for this run away situation.

        • From the lawyers f.b.; før undersøkelse var ferdig og konklusjon forelå glapp det ut av bv på et møte at de før saken skulle opp siste gang hadde tenkt å fjerne barna og flytte til beredskapshjemmet 17 juni. dette kom frem på et møte der jeg var, og det er tatt lydbånd. bvtj påstår fylkesnemnda hadde bestemt det og det er bare løyn.dette var ikke avtale og ikke hjemlet il vedtak eller lov, -bvtj ville bare posisjonere seg for evt ankesak osv. de forfalsket også et dokument som er signert av alle parter vedr oppholdet frem til slutten av juli. de endret dato med kulepenn etterpå.. dette er en meget stygg historie og et overgrep mot foreldre og barn.barna skule fjernes fra foreldrene de har blitt gjenforenet med, – og oppleve nok et relasjonsbrudd utført av bvtj. det ville vært meget meget skadelig for dem. foreldrene var i en helt klar nødsituasjon og hadde ikke andre valg. institusjonen har dessuten stjålet dokumenter og notater fra leiligheten til foreldrene.dette blir anmeldt. og saken ankes selvsagt.

        • § 4-31.Forbud mot å ta med barnet ut av Norge
          Det er ulovlig å ta med seg barnet ut av Norge uten samtykke fra barnevernstjenesten når vedtak etter §§ 4-6 annet ledd, 4-9 første ledd, 4-25 annet ledd annet punktum og 4-29 fjerde ledd er iverksatt. Det er videre ulovlig å ta med seg barnet ut av Norge uten samtykke fra barnevernstjenesten når vedtak etter §§ 4-8, 4-12, 4-24 og 4-29 første og annet ledd er truffet eller når begjæring om slike tiltak er sendt fylkesnemnda. You can see if they are under some of those

        • You are back, Knut. I asked you to leave in a nice way and you have paid no attention to me.

          Do you pay no attention to me because I live across an ocean and not in your backyard?

          Do you pay no attention to me because I have asked you about the Mothers’ Homes many times and you have never given me any full answers?

          You have finally given a statement of sorts even if it wasn’t meant for me:

          “A stay at a Parent(s) and a Child(ren) Center has different histories with them, but they all have the intention to find out if it’s possible for the child to stay with the parent(s) or not – and what help measueres the muicipality shall provide. As I read this post there had been held an evaluation ( usually there are some during a stay) and the parents read this evaluation to be the conclusion – and then ran away with the help from ??”

          They ran away from the “help” from your employer, Knut. People don’t usually run away from good help.

          Delight has summed up what a true stay in a “Parent and Child Center” is really like. I know what happens in those places as I’ve been given primary source information in more than one case.

          You are correct, Knut, when you write: “they all have the intention to find out if it’s possible for the child to stay with the parent(s) or not”

          They have the “intention to find out” alright. They use a magnifying glass to find that the mother is not capable of raising a child and they ignore all of the positive signs of love and care that the mother provides.

          This is not help.

          This is observation with a purpose.

          I think most of those who are reading these words know what that purpose is in many cases.

          Finally, why would anyone “listen” to you at this point, Knut? The evidence is overwhelming and it is growing every day.

          Let’s make a deal. You send Delight a copy of one of the training manuals used to train employees for the Parent and Child Center so that we can all see the curriculum used there. If it is a healthy document, I’m guessing that your critics will be quieted some.

          If you have nothing to hide, here is a good opportunity for you to show us how well your employer’s Parent and Child Centers operate.

        • It is better for the children to run abroad than stay in Norway where they are sold to an institution, fosterparents or one of the many norwegian pedophile rings. That hurts the child less than being mistreat or abused.

        • No, you get it all wrong – it’s opposite – the CPS is a service there to give the child involved freedom and safety from abuse and neglect of needed care.

        • Then why Knut so many barn that where taken for not the right reasons by the BV are being abused and mistreated?

        • Is it because some BV employees think that to have sex with a child of 2 years doesn’t harm the child because it can’t remember that afterwards?

        •   
          Mr Nygaard to Ton: “No, you get it all wrong – it’s opposite – the CPS is a service there to give the child involved freedom and safety from abuse and neglect of needed care.”

          That theory of Mr Nygaard’s – of of Barnevernet – is just SO different from the truth! That is åart of the problem.

        • You’re right, Knut. Soon, the lawyer doesn’t have a case. Cause it will be dismissed. 🙂

          I can mention two facts:

          1. The County Board has no legal right to make any verdict on children that don’t stay in Norway. The case will be dismissed by the district court very soon.

          2. The police doesn’t have any case either. It will be dismissed very soon. Because the parents haven’t done anything wrong.

          Actually, barnevernet have tried the usual procedure, to falsely report “child kidnapping” to the police, and the police lawyer have wrongfully admitted to start a kidnapping case on the report. Why do I say this? Because I know they have not broken any law. They had the custody at the time they moved to Poland and they were not in any forced arraignment by barnevernet or the county board. It was a voluntary stay at the mothers home.

          But, if they return to Norway, barnevernet can again do an emergency decision and it starts all over again.

          For those who like to read paragraphs; Here are the current portion of §216 that the police now use against the twin family who escaped to Poland:

          “Whoever seriously or repeatedly (1910) evades a minor (1911), or keep this withheld (1912) from someone who by law, contract or court decision to have the minor lives permanently, (1913) or who unlawfully evade the minors from someone who has the care by the child welfare Act (1914) is punishable by fine or imprisonment up to 2 years. (1915) The same penalty whoever takes a minor out of the country or withholds a minor abroad and by the illegal (1916) evades the minor from someone who by law, contract or court decision has parental responsibility.”

          Then to the applicable section:

          “The same applies where there are decisions concerning care, move prohibitions or institutional placement for Child Welfare Act §§ 4-8, 4-12, 4-24 or 4-29 subsections or where a request for such action is sent County Board for Welfare Act § 7- 11, or where in an emergency is initiated interim decision by the child welfare Act §§ 4-6, second paragraph, 4-9, first paragraph, 4-25 second sentence or 4-29, fourth paragraph.”

          These paragraphs referred to are all forced decision. None of these were adopted by the CPS at the time the family moved to Poland. Therefore, they have not done anything illegal. It is the fault of the police to argue otherwise.

          But CPS often police in this way to get your child back to Norway so that they can acutely place them. The police will then subsequently dismiss the criminal case, but the kids then already in Norway and taken by CPS.

          One can then say that police is acting without authority to help child protection by actually kidnap children back to Norway without legal authorization.

        • Knut, you wrote:

          “§ 4-31.Forbud mot å ta med barnet ut av Norge
          Det er ulovlig å ta med seg barnet ut av Norge uten samtykke fra barnevernstjenesten når vedtak etter §§ 4-6 annet ledd, 4-9 første ledd, 4-25 annet ledd annet punktum og 4-29 fjerde ledd er iverksatt. Det er videre ulovlig å ta med seg barnet ut av Norge uten samtykke fra barnevernstjenesten når vedtak etter §§ 4-8, 4-12, 4-24 og 4-29 første og annet ledd er truffet eller når begjæring om slike tiltak er sendt fylkesnemnda.”

          Translated:

          § 4-31.Illegal to taking the child out of Norway
          It is illegal to bring the child out of Norway without the consent of the child welfare service when decisions under §§ 4-6, second paragraph, 4-9, first paragraph, 4-25 second sentence and 4-29 fourth paragraph is implemented. It is also illegal to take their child out of Norway without the consent of the child welfare service when decisions under §§ 4-8, 4-12, 4-24 and 4-29 subsections is hit or when a request for such action is sent county Board.

          None of these paragraphs was used when the County Board dismissed the §4-6 (acute placement) and reunited the children with their parents in the mother home.

          The decision to be in the mothers home was a voluntary act and no forced placement was done.

          So §4-31 is not applicable in this case

        • That’s the way to comment, Skorstad – me – as a person is of no interest – and mean me – not the CPS me – that is attackable, but there is a limit – me as a person and I think you – as a coming possible spokesman of this activist group that might bring in some content to the agenda – should take a good look at yourself and realize that we are all humans.

      • In the tv interview she said it differently, she said that it was obvious that the parents had no other possibility, so leaving the country was “Nødrett” (mecessity/emergency, ius necessitatis).

        • Do Chrisa

          Zapytaj Knuta o pytania z formularzy przedszkolnych .Zakladanie mlodym teczek to przygotowywanie dokumentacji do przyszlych przejec przez BV.
          Dlaczego pracownicy przedszkoli pytaja o stan zdrowia sasaiadow dziecka ?

        • Chris

          Ja Knutowi zadalam na forum pytanie po norwesku i mnie tez do dziesiejszego dnia nie odpowiedzial.

          To jest normalna norweska reakcja.Ci ludzie sa takimi arogantami ze uwazaja ze nie musza odpowiadac na zarzuty.Sa ponad.

          Chris – nie jestes Norwegiem ,a dla Norwega liczy sie tylko Norweg..On najczesciej odpowiada na teksty Marianny.

          O innych ludziach , obcokrajowcach Norwegowie mowia na przyklad BARE POLAKK to znaczy TYLKO polak.
          Cos w rodzaju podgatunku przeznaczonego do mycia ich kibli.

          Norwegowie generalnie uwazaja ,ze tylko oni sa genialni ,zdolni i madrzy .Ktos kto sie urodzil 1 milimetr poza granicami ich panstwa to dla nich podgatunek.Nie musza z tym kims rozmawiac , albo odpowiadac na pytania.
          Nie oczekuj kultury, bo jej tu W Norwegii nie znajdziesz.Wiecej kulturalnych zachowan doswiadczylam w czasie 4 dniowej wycieczki do Berlina , niz w czasie kilkunastu lat spedzonych w Norwegii.

        • Uwaga do czytajacych

          Moje wpisy mozna czytac TYKO po polsku .To nie jest tlumaczenia-BARE to no norwesku tylko. a nie goly.Goly to naken.( uten klaer).

        • Gabriela,

          It appeared that you addressed me several times above and I did the same as I have done when you commented on my blog. I used google translate with the same result.

          Either you are not writing very well or google translate doesn’t do an understandable job when making Polish into English. This was the only sentence that was clear:

          “Norwegians generally believe that only they are brilliant, talented and wise.”

          Please have someone help you with translation into English as I have asked you more than once before. Maybe Polish people understand your meaning but it is impossible for English readers to figure out your intention.

      • It will be interesting to find out if this lawyer at some points has gone over the edge for legal conduct. The lawyer usually take part in the meetings and evaluations done during a stay at a Parent and Child Center.

        If these parents are in the group that end up in the CC with a conclusion of longtime placement according to both the child welfare act § 12 a and d:
        Section 4-12 Care orders

        A care order may be issued
        (a) if there are serious deficiencies in the daily care received by the child, or serious deficiencies in terms of the personal contact and security needed by a child of his or her age and development,
        (b) if the parents fail to ensure that a child who is ill, disabled or in special need of assistance receives the treatment and training required,
        (c) if the child is mistreated or subjected to other serious abuses at home, or
        (d) if it is highly probable that the child’s health or development may be seriously harmed because the parents are unable to take adequate responsibility for the child.

        they are not capable of understanding the situation they are in and the possible consequences alone – they need an oversight given them on their level of understanding and that’s a lawyer’s part to do. She writes on f.b.:
        “De var på institusjonen fordi barna var syv mnd og fra det tidspunkt starter psykologisk tilknytning, den utvikler seg frem mot halvannen års,alder og også senere. De måtte være med på det.alternativt kunne de risikere,- ved anker til tingrett mm, at bvtj satt med barna og tilknytning ville bli stadig forsterket til fosterhjemmet. Det kunne vi ikke ta sjansen på, da ville de aldri få barna igjen. . Men utover det mener jeg man aldri skal flytte inn i løvens hule.”

        The question someone may ask – has the lawyer been to active and what is her part in the run away. If these parents are § 12 d parents they are not capable of running away to Poland on their own – they need help and support all the way. No the parents are wanted and Interpol is on their neck – if the lawyer has gone over the role from legal adviser to active participating in the runaway risk for the children involved her legal certificate may be taken away.

        • Mr Nygaard is mightily pleased and maliciously so at the possibility that the parents do not understand, are not capable of saving themselves and their children without help, and at any possible activity by their lawyer Mrs Gjøystdal which it might be possible for the Norwegian state to brand illegal.
             Of course Mr Nygaard’s attitudes are very off-putting, and it would be more pleasant for us if he would leave off, as Chris encourages politely. But the whole business of Barnevernet is such a tragedy for the many ravaged families that most people still do not believe it. It therefore has a function that at least people in other lands can see these eternal demonstrations of sadism. Barnevernet’s people just never learn, never stop to listen for an internal voice of conscience, never go outside what they have been taught as “an ideal” which they try and force people into. Mr Nygaard exposes all this, again and again; it is there for everyone to see. Peppering us with laws and regulations and propaganda and with what seems like pleasure at the plight, the set-backs, the tragedies of children and parents who love each other.

        • Yes it’s so in most countries that laws and regulations – and public services are used in accordance with their intentions.

        • everybody goes over the legal conduct except barnevernet,they do need a huge mirror to look what is wrong with their institution. I am really glad that these parents got the chance to run away.

  3. It was on the 9 o’clock news again, the same interviews. The policeman who is interviewed says it is a very serious crime to take children away from care the way these parents have done. He has the gall to say, as if is assuring the parents of good will, that ‘Wherever you are, make contact with the police, and we will help you home.”

    Help ! ! ?  Sounds like the concentration camp guards during the war, when sick people arrived at the camp, saying “We will take care of you” (Wir pflegen Sie.)

    • It’s the situation for the safety for the children that has the 1.th priority – my guess is that “Nødrett” has no here – it’s the safety for the children and the risks the parents have established that is the main issue here.

      • Being under the Barnevernet is a far greater risk! I am sure the Polish will take care that they have all they get all life’s basic needs in addition to what Barnevernet seems incapable of giving families; love and acceptance.

      • The likes of you nazi syle government troll need to be done with. Your ancient sick puddle of country is a nasty joke in 2016. Pick up some real education feom Australians who would NEVER take away the kids from parents except when their safety genuinelly is in danger because the parent tried to kill the kids. Rhe kids are ALWATS given to the immediate family forst and if none exists then to foster parents. Your retarded country is an embarrassment to the 21st century.

        • Knut that is interesting reading. Perhaps I can explain some of the differences that I see. Note however that the link that you provided is only for the Western Australian department and I have not looked at the other Australian states for comparison.

          The Australian site gives the definitions of child abuse and neglect, providing examples and signs for each category. They make their expectations about child development and signs of trauma clear – https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/ChildProtection/ChildAbuseAndNeglect/Documents/ChildDevelopmentAndTraumaGuide.pdf – they have a clear, published framework for working with cases – https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Resources/Documents/Policies%20and%20Frameworks/SignsOfSafetyFramework2011.pdf – and they have a clear, published policy statement on the use of that framework – https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Organisation/Documents/PolicyonSignsofSafety20June2008.pdf

          Of interest in the latter of those documents includes the policy that the investigation is evidence based, and that the CPS worker is expected to proved clear concerns as well as what is working well. They are expected to have “A clear and rigourous understanding of the distinction between, past harm, future danger and complicating factors…in straight-forward rather than professionalised language that can be readily understood by service recipients. As much as possible all statements focus on specific, observable behaviours and avoid meaning laden, judgment-loaded terms.”

          Now compare that with how Barnevernet presents itself – https://www.bufdir.no/Barnevern/ – I actually can’t find any case-handling process although the relevant rights and laws are mentioned and described in legal-speak. From what I understand of the Norwegian situation is that each office has their own way of doing things, and that there is no universal definition of care, neglect, abuse etc but is up to the individual worker or team. Is this correct?

          One final observation regarding the two websites is that the Australian site appears to provide information about services, support and processes, whereas the Barnevern site seems to concentrate on institutions, statistics and care orders. I think that publishing the number of children taken by the Norwegian state down there on the bottom left of the page is a good example of the difference in culture between the two organisations.

      • i think the isssue here is not the safety of the children ,they are safe with their parents, they were risking the children safety by staying there.Good for them !

      • Also poland has a child protection service and they can take over the control over the safety of the children. No need of Norway’s bv to be concerned over the safety of the children. It is only the thought that norway thinks they are the best in world that makes them to to try to hold control also they don’t like to loose

        • And what are the risks the parents have established? I am referring to your comment above.

    • Hei Marianne,

      I have just spent the weekend reading all about barnevernet–I am not sure how my interest was piqued (I believe it was a news article online)–but what I am sure of is that everything that I have read absolutely has my hair standing on end! Barnevernet = Barbarism!

      This subject is an interest for me due to the fact that I am an American married to a Norwegian man (married 16 years) and we have a soon-to-be 13 year old son. We have an extraordinary life here in the States but at some point in the near future we have talked about moving to Norway so that our son can learn more of his Norwegian heritage outside of the once or every other year holiday visit to Norway to spend time with my husband’s family.

      I find Norway gorgeous and the culture fantastic, but this BV debacle absolutely terrifies me as an American–a Jewish American at that–and I am having second thoughts of going to San Francisco (scheduled for the 2nd week of September) to finalize our son’s Norwegian passport (he was going to hold both an American passport and a Norwegian passport).

      My husband is due home this afternoon from his sailing trip and I plan to discuss my concerns with him and ask him to tell me all that he knows of BV.

      NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT: I hope very soon you realize that you are on the wrong side of history in allowing CPS to act with impunity and continue with this abuse of power. As the old saying goes: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. My heart breaks for all the nonsensical reasons (I’m talking about the too thin or too thick slices of bread; the smacks on the bottoms; the omlettes cooked incorrectly) that have ripped children away from their parents… God help me but it something straight out of the holocaust!

      Marianne: Thank you for your insight on this subject, I will definitely share all that I learn to everyone that I know and the larger community.

      • Hey Elisheva, you have been mislead by this movement of fear and it’s inspirator Marianne. First of all – the CPS has no interest in tourists. All the children and parents I have met have an address and they are listed in a national register. The only visitors the CPS has been involved with is the Romans.

        The CPS need a concern to get the knowledge of the existence of f.i. your 13 year old boy – if you lived in Norway and had an address. For that age the entering information either come school, the parents or the child or the police. If you think none of this will happen at all – both as visitor or citizen – then there is nothing to worry about. The movement of fear give a wrong impact of Norway, Norwegians and the CPS as a whole – the movement don’t have any alternative plan to their wrongtelling eihter. For Marianne this has become her life – telling wrongs about Norway, Norwegians and the CPS, Actually I think she don’t like Norway at all and wonder why she stays,

        • Hello Knut,

          “[…] for Marianne this has become her life – telling wrongs about Norway, Norwegians and the CPS, Actually I think she don’t like Norway at all and wonder why she stays […]”

          I have two comments here:

          1. Check your glasses. I have never seen Marianne telling wrong about Norway or Norwegians in general. She criticizes a practice that seems to be wide-spread in Norwegian child welfare system.
          See for example a post by Aage Simonsen on Marianne’s webpage that clarifies the topic: http://mhskanland.net/page47/page356/page356.html
          As far as I see, you have misinterpreted her in the quote above.

          2. Could it be easier to make criticizers to flee abroad than facing criticism? So far I interpret your comment that you do not welcome an open and honest dialogue on the practices of Barnevernet, do you?

      • Dear Elisheva,
        The tragedies created by Barnevernet continuously will not go away soon. Appealing to the authorities in terms of common sense and humanity has no effect. Barnevernet has always been negative, right back to 1896 when it first appeared (under another name).
           It is certainly not true that they cannot find occasion to confiscate the children of tourists, let alone people who settle here for some period. Me Nygaard works for Barnevernet and I leave it to you to read his various postings here and elsewhere. Your husband reading Norwegian, you will also find him all over the place, on umpty web-pages, contradicting all critical information about Barnevernet, no doubt expecting to be believed because he works for them.
            There are, however, plenty of published accounts which can be checked, many published by people under their own name and willing to publish proof. That is why out authorities are trying wildly to take away any freedom of speech of victims and critics; they do not want the horrors publicised.
            Please read on, Elisheva! And spread it around, the way you say. That is exactly what the victims need!

        • The problem is that with the internet you – as a victim – or for that case – a storyteller – can produce whatever truth and whatever case situation you want. Most of these internet cases start when the CPS has done what they are supposed to do – what – is the same as been done by this kind of service all over the Western world. They seldom tell you what led up to the involvement and what part the parent involved in one of the 5 to 8 supporter groups has done to get the attention of those who informed the CPS – then Marianne and other activists can make you and others the impression that it was something with the bread or the way the parent looked or didn’t look to the child – something that could have been a sentence in some document or observation done, but that are not why the County Committe or the Court ended up as they did in their conclusions/verdict.

          Norway is a country with low population – a CPS in every munucipal in our country and that might give some problem in municipalities with low population as in Naustdal. What is the real truth in this Stange case we don’t know.

  4. I would say it is a serious crime to take away children from innocent parents… I am sure the Polish people will take much better care of the family than Barnevernet!

    • If the parents were concluded not to be in a situation to give their children a safe future and to have the skill needed it’s a legal matter that will help the children to a conclusion where to – and how to – obtain such a future.

        • As always, Mr Nygaard’s comments are a welcome illustration of how Barnevernet’s people think. In this case, he thinks “it’s not that difficult” to assess whether somebody will be a good parent. Nevertheless, Barnevernet demands that parents stay for months at these useless places where they are harassed. So Barnevernet’s agents at the family concentration camps apparently find it difficult to come up with sufficient indication to EITHER let parents and children go and be free, with good grace from Barnevernet, OR to give sufficient proof that they will never be any good, so the forced stay may be terminated without any more agony. Of course the child will be taken, but it will be taken anyway, after long months of sadistic treatment of the parents.
            

        • You say that it is not so difficult, Knut. What about those parents who managed to escape from the CPS and are doing just fine and caring well for their children in another country? Doesn’t that prove that the CPS were wrong about these families ‘ future prospects?

        • A parent’s low IQ or learning disability cannot constitute grounds for removing the children, not in a civilised country. Whether Barnevernet concluded that the mother is developmentally delayed or not should be irrelevant. Removing children from parents with developmental delays amounts to saying that these people are not allowed to have children. Ultimately, there is no difference between this practice and Hitler’s forced sterilizations. It is a nazi practice and should be illegal all over the world as one of the worst possible type of abuse, right next to slavery and genocide. No state has the right to categorize its citizens into human and less then human, and this is what CPS is doing, as an instrument of the state.

        • that is what is wrong with this institution they have the arrogance to decide who is a good parent and who is not ,and to decide for children and parents , who gave them right ? nobody

        • Cristina Niculescu, well said. A parental disability (in this case such disability does not exist) is not a grounds for removal of a child. Especially if the other parent is not disabled.

        • The truth. Mr. Prunean – is that you don’t know anything about how they manage or not the daily care for the twins – that was – in this case – why they were at Parents and Child Center – to find out if they could cope. And some do – others don’t – the focus is on the care for the children involved and the consequences following.

        • If somebody doesn`t seem to cope with the daily care of their children you offer them some extra help in the form of a household help or a caring person who could babysit sometimes. If that doesn`t work, you look for other solutions in cooperation with the parents. It is totally ridiculous and evil to forcibly take away children from their parents on such grounds.

        • And also, of course it is a lot of work for anyone to have twins.The mother of these twins deserves a big applause for carrying out the pregnancy and to give birth to two little girls at the same time. The parents also prove that they are clever enough and fully capable of the responsibility of parenthood by finding their way abroad without being detected.

        • I also wonder if it is actually legal to forcibly remove a child from its parents if one of them is believed to have a disability? That it so unbelievable evil!Real nazi-style!

          In this case, it is even worse. The mother had received a wrong label and her babies were taken away from her straight after birth even before she could prove what kind of mother she was.This is a big shame for Norway! Let the world hear about it and they will be shocked!

          What Barnevernet owes this mother is a big apology and compensation for falsely labelling her and for stealing her babies!

        • Knut, it is never difficult to do a show trial.
          And it is almost always difficult to do real justice. Have you seen the movie 12 Angry Men?

        • Hildi, you are spot on, and right; barnevernet owes Natasha (and tens of thousands of other parents) BIG & heartily apologies!

      • Again, Barnevernet= God the Almighty, the Only One in possession of truth. I was once a young mother without parenting skills, at the beginning… like any young parent. However, no one ever thought that my kids were in danger being kept by me and my husband, unexperienced and immature as we were… I trully do not understand this idea strangers could evaluate young parent’s ability to raise children, simply by putting the family in a cage and observing it malevolently. I repeat, Knut: who do you think you are?

        • I was once a mother like that too, Agnes. My husband and I were both in the beginning of our twenties when we started getting our children. We look back now and think how much different we could have done. But our children have grown up to become wonderful teenagers and young adults despite our imperfections.

          I guess many of the BV workers are inexperienced and have never had children themselves. I wonder if they would be “perfect” parents with the correct eye- contact and everything they demand of every parent in Norway….

      • You are not so motivating Knut. To hold a view that somebody has not got the skill,and will be incapable of good parenting in the future,is the same as if you say that a 1st grader who has some difficulties with reading, writing will never be capable of getting a job in the future.

        • Yeah, as a teacher you will soon find out a lot of the future of the pupils you have in 1st. grade.

        • agnesD and Hildi:
          You are arguing with reason. But Barnevernet’s people are taught to believe that they, poor sods, can do what nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do: predict the future in incredible detail. This in spite of ALL reliable statistics (I mean that stemming from intelligent and independent studies, NOT that cooked up by Barnevernet and their own buddies – they get a heck of a lot of money to do self-confirmatory sort-of-studies and cheat regarding everything about them, like the recent one they keep advertising: that 8 out of 10 “users” of Barnevernet have been satisfied with Barnevernet’s help!).
             You should not overlook the real motor of it all: money, jobs, acceptance as politically correct, approving colleagues, an admiring, moralistic population. Most of all the money.
             That is why they “think” they are big prophets of everybody’s future, as if people were simple, mechanical dolls. These people, the CPS, their psychologists, are busy “practicing” childish determinism in their “handling” of others.

        • You will be surprized to find out what you would never dream of a 1st grader of what he or she is doing today. Life doesn’t always turn out the way you think it will, Knut. Somebody you never thought could become good parents might just as well become very good parents!

          What most of them to succeeded had in common,was that they had somebody who believed in them and who helped, motivated and encouraged them. Barnevernet just seems to give up on people.

        •   
          Hildi, about the ones who surprisingly succeed:
          “What most of them to succeeded had in common,was that they had somebody who believed in them and who helped, motivated and encouraged them. Barnevernet just seems to give up on people.”

          I think Barnevernet does much worse than give up. They do active harm. They keep children and young in effect prisoners, and under very unhealthy conditions. Whether it is in institutions or private foster homes does not matter much: Barnevernet instructs foster parents too. The results of this kind of upbringing and prediction is seen in the statistics: while children who grow up with their own parents, EVEN parents who are OBJECTIVELY quite deficient, do not deviate much from the average for the population, CPS children are strongly over-represented in almost every kind of negatively defined group. Up to 75% of people who have been “treated” by these experts in the CPS and child psychiatry units are found later in prison, among early disabled, or dead.
             Most of us do not only need someone to encourage and help. We need our own loved ones, and we need the freedom to keep together with them.

      • Knut, are children also safe with foster parents? If Norwegian foster parents love these confiscated children, why aren’t they willing to raise them for free? (As their biological parents would do).

  5. Police and BV try give a people scare , this is typical bluff. Don t wory !Never don t give up !! Fight for your s right !!!!

  6. LMAO…. 80% of Norwegian will not hesitate to go against their perception because they are afraid of social stigma. Norway CPS is losing in one case after the other. Every day more and more people abroad se that Norway is actually turning into a fascistic state while our politicians are quiet. So many people are now running away from Norway to protect their family that we start to look like North Korea with narcissistic leaders desperately trying to make it looks like everything is in order.

    • Why run abroad if the CPS is losing in a lot of cases. I also notice that the CPS loose in cases. This show that the legal system works and that the CC has an independant authority.

    • Thank you for your comment, Rune.

      I have come to understand that mentioning Christianity is not necessarily popular in Norway in spite of the fact that 75% of the people belong to the state supported “Church.”

      I would like to challenge the Norwegian people, in spite of the social stigma given those who trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord.

      First, read some of your own history, Norway. Read about men like Hans Nielsen Hauge who endured years of imprisonment and arrest because he put God first. He is a true Norwegian hero.

      http://www.missionstclare.com/english/people/mar28.html

      Read about the great fisherman, Peter, who was asked a question three times: “Do you love me?” Peter was grieved when his master asked him the third time. He probably couldn’t help but think of the social pressure that led him to deny his Savior three times. It’s in the 21st chapter of John.

      If there is any true Christianity left in you, or even if there is not, surely the Golden Rule must still be important there.

      Do you treat others as you would like to be treated? I’ve found that no human or society is perfect in this area, Norway. However, when children are being taken from their biological parents for a trivial or no good reason, please do not look the other way!

      I challenge you, Norway. I challenge you to act like many of your ancestors who went against the status quo to make a difference.

      The world is watching your leaders. The world is watching your media. The world is watching your people.

      Will you stop ignoring the injustices happening all around you?

      The focus of the world is on you and will continue to be to some degree into the future.

      Please do the right thing. Give every child and parent the right to have the God-given relationship that they were meant to have. If a parent TRULY abuses a child, there should be an opportunity at reunification depending upon the circumstances. There should be consequences in any case of abuse. Anyone with common sense can see that in Norway’s CPS, a tiny fault can lead to consequences that are cruel, unjust and, at times, evil.

      No one here, I think, is saying that there should be no accountability.

      What I am saying is that Norway needs to be held accountable for its crimes against humanity.

      There are a few voices of clarity coming from your country. The demonstrations are growing. More need to join the chorus. Please let the children who want to go home to their parents have that opportunity.

      • Trzeba przylaczyc sie do choru , a wiec zapraszam wszystkich stojacych po wlasciwej stronie – spiewamy razem

        You tube Ederlezi chant tsigane pour la fete de la st.Georges glotte trottes

    • Rune Fardal od lat przeciwstawia sie systemowi , tak samo jak Marianna.Dziekujemy Wam za wasza odwage.

      Szkoda tylko ,ze ludzi odwaznych jest w Norwegii bardzo malo.

      Wiele przypadkow porwan dzieci obcokrajowcow i skandale dyplomatyczne jakie porwania wywolaly – swiadzczy ,ze Norwegom zupelnie nie zalezy na dobrej opinii miedzynarodowej.

      Jest cos wazniejszego co utrzymuje system BV przy zyciu .Pytanie co ?

      Indolencja rzadzacych , ktorzy nie potrafia zrobic porzadku z kryminalistami z bv ?
      Czy tez o przetrwaniu BV decyduje ,to ,ze wygodnie jest miec system opresyjny , ktory temperuje ludzi. Taki system terroru , ktorego ludzie sie boja .Badz grzeczny , bo jak nie to zabierzemy ci dziecko.

      Dzis to wszystko sie sypie , system terroru obrocil sie przeciwko rzadzacym ktorzy go utrzymywali przy zyciu .Ci ludzie stali sie zupelnie niewiarygodni.Polityk zapewnia jak teraz bedzie pieknie – a za chwiele 5 policjantow zabiera matce dziecko.Inny mowi o zrobieniu porzadku – odpowiedz to kolejne matki z dziecmi czekajace na azyl w innych panstwach.
      Nikt juz nie sluch tej mowy – trawy.Wszyscy zwiewaja – i dobrze robia.

      Uwaga do ostatniego uciekajacego -pamietaj o zgaszeniu swiatla

  7. I. Dreijer: “What kind of strategy are those special homes for mothers?”

    Officially, they are supposed to offer both teaching and diagnosis to help parents. In actual practice the whole development of Natasha and Erik’s case shows a lot: first Barnevernet taking the twin daughters at birth, then finally “giving in” letting the parents have them back, but only if they will live under surveillance at a “family centre”, then deciding to take the children again, then the parents escaping with the children – it is almost a carbon copy of Nadia and Caspian’s case:
    https://delightintruth.com/2016/06/13/let-the-whole-world-hear-the-kidnapping-of-an-infant-in-norway/

    Such family / mothers’ centres have the obvious function of furnishing Barnevernet with serious-sounding arguments of how insufficient the parents are, so that Barnevernet gets hold of the child with the blessings of the County Committee and the courts.

    I really wish we had a translation of Aage Simonsen’s writings about mothers’ homes. Chris R let me write a terribly long comment on Wings, in which I translated some paragraphs about mothers’ homes:
    https://chrisreimersblog.com/2016/06/27/baby-caspian-kidnapped-in-norwayupdate-5/#comment-51846
    Aage has also written an article entitled “Barnevernets asyl” (Barnevernet’s refuge)
    http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3789
    – I’ll see if I can muster the energy to translate that by and by. (I wish – again – that I had some multi-lingual “secretaries” at my beck and call.)

  8. I have seen documentaries of families escaping the CPS in England too. They escape to Irland where they can live normal lives and where their children are developing fine together with their biological parents.

        • I don’t understand you. I guess even just the online news article should be enough in this case for a grounded suspicion and from that point police/prosecutors should take their duties.

        •   
          Jasper: “I don’t understand you. ..”

          But you reason as if our justice system is working the way it should. I think I have told you many times that it doesn’t in CPS cases and CPS-related cases! – There are all sorts of laws protecting public employees who have been granted the right to do their own “evaluation” of parents and children. The public prosecutor would have to assess them to have been gravely deficient in the execution of their duties in order even to contemplate whether to charge them with anything. They are all just carrying out the policy which our political parties in our parliament have passed into laws, and which our bureaucracies, and the large majority of naïve, ignorant Norwegians think must be excellent because it is the state that says so.
            

        • The court has stated in the verdict what they have done and that is matching actual facts from penal code.. What they did is already res judicata!
          And yes, false witnessing is gravely deficient of whatever.

  9. The Human Rights Declaration art 13 2 Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to this country.

      • Mr Nygaard, you mentioned above the lawyer for the couple is collecting money for them. Kindly provide the link I would like to donate. I checked the lawyer’s facebook page, I did not see any mention of a fundraiser.

        • Not the lawyer herself – someone has take some effort to establish an account where money can be placed to give the family money.

        • Which is in general completely lawful.

          For this to be unlawful, the family had to be aware of the care decision situation before leaving Norway and this person had to be aware of that.

          So far I have doubts that the family has recieved any official communication before leaving the country.
          The criminal offense you are talking about can be committed only intentionally. The person committing it must be aware of an order or a request for an order. Not about a tip or a rumor or a hint but the order or request itself.

        • Diana, well observed, der fikk du en smekk på fingrene Nygaard! I also would like to donate, to such lovely family as Natasha and Erik’s.
          I will never forget the image of this young couple after barnevernet did their evil work in their lifes, the grief and horror in their eyes and faces. What a shame for Norway all these cases!
          They look so happy at pictures now, I’m over the moon to see the relief in their faces, the smiles and joy in all 4 of them eyes. What a transformation. I pray for them and other similar families, you too Knut, or who do you pray for, intercession?

      • …ikke en eneste barn / familie som er fratatt omsorgen med tveng var med prosjektet.
        To znaczy ,ze kiedy BVzadawala pytania POMINIETO rodziny ktorym dzieci zabrano przymusowo ( med tvang).A wiec nie 8 z 10 jest zadowolonych .Adwokaci twierdza,ze nie ma osob zadowolonych z ingerencji BV.
        Co to znaczy odebrac dzieci , bo ktos ma niskie IQ.Przeciez to stwierdzaja pracownicy BV po testach gdzie oni sami ukladaja pytania .Jak czlowiek nie wie kto jest prezydentem Australii – bo takie bylo pytanie -to mu zabiora mlode.
        A co z testami na inteligencje dla pracownikow BV , dlaczego im nikt testow nie przeprowadza ? Przeciec wyraznie widac ,ze oni nie sa w stanie podejmowac madrych decyzji.

        To jest piosenka dla Ciebie KNUT I dla wszystkich pracownikow BV.Tej pani , ktora spiewa tez sie WYDAWALO ze jest utalentowana i ze umie spiewac.

        You tube Foster Jenkins massacres Mozart

        • You – as most people identify yourself with the parent(s) involved – some of you think in a context: they are just like me and my own situation years ago, but they are not. In the CPS archieves you will never find a story attached to one family or one child in that family that are equal – they all differ and have their own life inside to tell.

          Our public service in the CPS is to focus first and foremost on the child and it’s situation – first and foremost in the family with it’s parents, but that does not work out all the time – and then some others most be found. At my office we so far this year have placed children in their own familiy more than the other districts in Bergen – the second largest city in Norway.

        • Our public service in the CPS is to focus first and foremost on the child and it’s situation – first and foremost in the family with it’s parents, but that does not work out all the time – and then some others most be found.

          Knut, in case Marianne was well-informed about the case, CPS was focusing on some others at first. Otherwise they could not have kept prospective foster mother around.

        •   
          Jasper: “Knut, in case Marianne was well-informed about the case, CPS was focusing on some others at first. Otherwise they could not have kept prospective foster mother around.”

          Barnevernet all the time recruits and keeps a stall of foster parents, would-be foster parents, and interim foster parents who receive children who are taken on emergency and keep them on temporary basis. If Barnevernet wins through and can keep the child, it is normally sent on to a supposedly more permanent foster home later.
             Especially these interim foster parents are paid to be available when Barnevernet takes children on emergency without warning. In some cases the interim fosterers take over on a more or less permanent basis one or some of the children placed there on a temporary basis, in other words they pass from being interim fosterers to being regular fosterers.
             In practice foster placements are often far from as permanent as the ideology says. Regular fosterers, too, can cancel the contract with Barnevernet on short notice, and then the child has to be moved.
             It also happens that children taken go directly to ordinary fosterers, who want to keep them long-term.

        • You forget – or pretend to forget – that placement in foster home reguires a legal decision. Yes, the CPS needs foster homes and they need to be thourougly examined and ready for match when a case ends with a legal decision for placement.

        • Mr Nygaard says the foster homes are thoroughly examined and then “matched” – I suppose he means particularly suitable for that particular child.

          Facts disprove those contentions. But the fiction of them is of course kept up. But yes, fosterers are thoroughly instructed, by Barnevernet’s own people, to behave to real parents the way Barnevernet behaves to real parents, and to report to Barnevernet anything which can be of further use against the parents – true or not. Once in a while you strike a decent fosterer who understands that child and parents are being badly treated, and who makes friends with the parents and tries to make up for Barnevernet’s separation. Then Barnevernet moves the child away, to someone more to their own liking.

        • The major topic is forgotten here. Prospective foster mother was around without foster care decision. That should have not happened — unless Barnevernet even does not care about the appereance on not being biased.

  10. I am in shock to see that the ghost of Knut Nygaard is still around, but then again they say that nightmares are hard to kill…

    So howcome YOU give out wrongfull information once again, are you so system loyal that you have lost all common sense and humanity?

    One day some of you in the system will pray for it, but not recieve it… And this is not a threat of course, but i as you speak with some kind of experience… So do choose wisely Knut, be a human or not… This is a decision i KNOW, must be taken before choices are made…

    And the rest of you i bid a goodnight…

  11. Awesome Awesome Awesome!!!! 🙂 Every family with children should leave and stop living in a place where you are just baby donors – without even knowing it or signing up for that! Get out of Norway.

  12. Pingback: Dramatic Escape From Barnevernet! | Pastor Ciprian Barsan

  13. Podaje przepis na ciasto a la Horne

    Casto biszkoptowe -tortowe cena 23 korony
    Pianka do golenia -mozna uzyc rozne rodzaje -ceny 35 – 50 koron

    Na pochodzie ( takie sa norweskie rady )
    – mamy usmiech zadowolenia na twarzy
    – machamy choragiewka , z respektem

    Zycze przyjemnej konsumpcji.

    • Knut, this link does not get close to answering my request.

      I don’t think this information helps anyone else but I may be mistaken. It certainly doesn’t help me. I see an organization hiding in plain sight. The organization has a strange philosophy, one that is unnatural and cruel ( I will include the term ungodly for those who believe like I do).

      I have asked you to send a copy of training materials, used to train the workers in these places, to Delight or to me for that matter. This is your response: A link to the Parent Centers or Mothers’ Homes as many call them.

      I did translate the entire link and I didn’t find anything surprising except that a few things were stated that match eyewitness accounts from mothers who have been at places like Sudmannske’s Parent and Child Center in Bergen.

      There were a few things in the link that stood out to me:

      “Children need a safe and caring base
      For pregnant women and families with children of preschool age”

      I agree with this and wonder why these center do not provide a safe and caring place according to eyewitnesses. We have a center like this where I live and it sounds familiar in certain ways.

      “It is voluntary to stay with us: A stay with us is voluntary. You must want to be here (give consent).”

      If it is all voluntary, why was a police report written for Caspian’s mother, Nadia, after she left the Vilde Center? Why was Nadia not allowed to leave the voluntary place and be left alone for the rest of her life as long as her child was in good hands?

      It was that police report that the “judge” used to take a young child from his loving mother who is certain that she was in a much better place than the Vilde center that she left. No other evidence was considered, including the opinions of professionals including a doctor and the eyewitness account of a woman who knew a great deal about child rearing.

      Anyone who has ever started just about any type of organization usually has a mission statement. It is usually at the top as it is the most important statement that an organization makes. Usually, it the main statement and everything builds upon it.

      I find it strange that the mission statement for these centers is found on the 7th of 8 drop-downs on the link that you have given me, Knut.

      In any case, here is the mission statement of these centers:

      “Our mission: The Centre is a child care where our task is to study and evaluate the care the child receives. We are with you on daily routines as grooming, meals and circadian rhythms. We look at how you meet the child and unable to safeguard the child’s emotional needs. Parents we encounter want the best for their child. In those cases you are struggling so much in life that you are unable to attend child care, it is our task to take this up with you and the child welfare services.”

      This statement comes in the context of a place that looks OK and has various amenities. What is this statement “saying?”

      It agrees with certain eyewitness accounts that I have heard, even primary sources. The mission is not to enhance, encourage, and provide child care procedures for the intent of cementing the bond between parent and child.

      The mission is to “study and evaluate the care the child receives.” Thus, the priority is evaluation, not “help” as it is stated so often in so many sources. Notice the subtleties here: “Parents we encounter want the best for their child.” No one would disagree with this. Parents who ask for help are doing so because they care for their child. Instead, once a parent gets to a one of these “Centers” they get evaluation.

      The mission statement is completed with this:

      “In those cases you are struggling so much in life that you are unable to attend child care, it is our task to take this up with you and the child welfare services.”

      The reason these mothers voluntarily go to such a center is so that they won’t have to be separated from their child. They are looking for assistance and not the intrusion that occurs in so many cases that have been noted. “It is our task.” Thus, the Barnevernet sees that it has a task if a mother is “unable to attend child care.” As has been pointed out by so many who know all of the facts better than I, parents are judged for the most trivial of things and judged harshly. Many times they are judged by taking away their child for little reason.

      You have not answered my question, Knut. You have only shown me a fair propaganda effort to hide something in plain sight. I still don’t have a copy of a training manual used for training workers at these centers and neither does Delight as far as I know. Please send one to me instead of him as I don’t want him to have to do the translation. I can do it. You can leave a link here or on my blog.

  14. There are many reasons why a stay at a mothers’ home can not be considered unquestioningly as help. For many mothers, the stay at an institution where they are monitored, their right to self-determination taken away, where they are controlled and checked on around the clock, and their thoughts, feelings, what they do and don’t are reported and passed on to Barnevernet, which can later use this against them, be a heavy psychological burden.

    • in some cases just after birth,very sad indeed but i believe that this is not going to continue for long and that justice is on the waay

    • You are right, mr. Simonsen 🙂
      The issue is realy boiling down to this: how do barnevernet realy treat mothers/ parents in Norway? And how come this sick totalitarian socialist system, which ideology got in such a high position in our former christian country. This county, in which family were the cornerstone and the most important thing, besides to love your neighbour as yourself, turn the other cheek (that means to give people another chance to change for the better) and such warmhearted values.
      Can it be a spiritual war, I mean; family are created of God – and barnefjernet is of the evil??

  15.   
    The story that Natasha and Erik are targeted by Interpol and that the police in Asker say the case is getting worse with every day they are away, is now in several newspapers. The police are of course pretending, like Barnevernet, that the twins are in danger when they are with the parents.

    Stange, which the couple comes from, is close to Hamar, so Hamar Arbeierblad is local:
    http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/stange-par-etterlyst-for-bortforing-av-egne-barn
    The four comments under the article so far are all in the family’s favour.

    Østlendingen is in Elverum, right east of Hamar:
    http://www.ostlendingen.no/kriminalitet-og-rettsvesen/stange/nyheter/bortforingssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-interpol/s/5-69-271352

    This is an article from the national telegram bureau, here picked up by Altaposten, which is way up north in Finnmark. Framtid i Nord is up north also:
    http://www.altaposten.no/lokalt/NTB/NTB_innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984798.ece
    http://www.framtidinord.no/ntb/innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984799.ece

    Adresseavisen is in Trondheim:
    http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984797.ece
    Sunnmørsposten is south-west of Trondheim, north of Bergen (not far from where Nadia’s son was taken:)
    http://www.smp.no/ntb/innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984803.ece

    Hegnar Online is Oslo-based:
    http://www.hegnar.no/Nyheter/Naeringsliv/2016/07/Bortfoeringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol

  16. Pingback: Rozhlédnutí 2016/07/03 – Duše a hvězdy

  17.  
    I tried to post this yesterday but it did not seem to get through. Let’s see if it succeeds now:

    The story that Natasha and Erik are targeted by Interpol and that the police in Asker say the case is getting worse with every day they are away, is now in several newspapers. The police are of course pretending, like Barnevernet, that the twins are in danger when they are with the parents.

    Stange, which the couple comes from, is close to Hamar, so Hamar Arbeierblad is local:
    http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/stange-par-etterlyst-for-bortforing-av-egne-barn
    The four comments under the article so far are all in the family’s favour.

    Østlendingen is in Elverum, right east of Hamar:
    http://www.ostlendingen.no/kriminalitet-og-rettsvesen/stange/nyheter/bortforingssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-interpol/s/5-69-271352

    This is an article from the national telegram bureau, here picked up by Altaposten, which is way up north in Finnmark. Framtid i Nord is up north also:
    http://www.altaposten.no/lokalt/NTB/NTB_innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984798.ece
    http://www.framtidinord.no/ntb/innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984799.ece

    Adresseavisen is in Trondheim:
    http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984797.ece
    Sunnmørsposten is south-west of Trondheim, north of Bergen (not far from where Nadia’s son was taken:)
    http://www.smp.no/ntb/innenriks/2016/07/02/Bortføringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol-12984803.ece

    Hegnar Online is Oslo-based:
    http://www.hegnar.no/Nyheter/Naeringsliv/2016/07/Bortfoeringssiktet-foreldrepar-etterlyst-via-Interpol
      

  18. Chris

    Macie moja zgode na tlumaczenie moich tekstow na dowolne jezyki swiata ( jakies 6000 jezykow ).Teksty mozna ( po umiarkowanych korektach ) drukowac bezplatnie w Armonia Magazine ( cale lub w czesci ) jesli uwazacie , ze jest taka potrzeba .

    Mysle , ze sobie poradzicie ze znalezieniem jakiegos 2 – jezycznego emeryta , ktoremu sie nudzi.( w kraju gdzie mieszka 318,9 ludzi – dane z 2014 ) . Twoich watpliwosci ,czy te teksty sa dobre , pozwolisz , ze nie bede komentowala.

    Ja rowniez mysle o problemie tlumaczenia-bedzie rozwiazany ale dopiero od sierpnia.

    Pozdrawiam ( pracuje nad odpowiedzia na twoje pytanie ) .Dzis do Was wysle

      • The babies were at first taken because Barnevernet claimed that Natasha was mentally handicapped. That was on account of a doctor’s statement when some kind of help was sought for her when she was 13. That diagnosis has later been shown to be spurious. Barnevernet would nevertheless not back down.
           Then the hullabaloo over the case became so loud that Barnevernet sort of gave in (but didn’t give up): They said the couple could have the babies back on trial. The trial consisted of their going to stay at such a “family centre”, where it would be assessed whether they were capable of giving the girls care. In theory, help and instruction is also given at such centres, in reality they are surveillance institutions, and what is written down about them is an endless stream of accusations against the people forced to reside there, accusations of things they do “wrong”. In this manner Barnevernet collects, through the personnel at the family centre, ammunition to take to the County Committee and the courts, to “prove” that the family are incapable of proper care.
           So Natasha and Erik were forced to go to this centre if they were to have any chance at all of having their daughters back.
           At the same time, Barnevernet has kept the foster mother with whom the girls had been placed, involved while the girls and the parents were at the centre, no doubt to claim even more strongly that SHE was the one the twins were “attached” to.
           Make no mistake about it: “attachment theory” is a loose speculation, long since shown to be unscientific. Barnevernet and their psychologists love this “theory”, because it leaves them free to assert anything they like, at any time. And our crazy authorities, legal and political alike, have such respect for Barnevernet and their psycho-babble experts, they have declared them utterly competent in all child matters, and leave everything to their cocksure quackery.

        • “At the same time, Barnevernet has kept the foster mother with whom the girls had been placed, involved while the girls and the parents were at the centre, no doubt to claim even more strongly that SHE was the one the twins were “attached”.

          Barnevernet seems to defy the European Convention for Human Rights as routine work. This is evidence itself that the actual staff had bias in favour of foster care and the last thing they wanted was reunification. Considering judgements from European Court of Human Rights, and the text of European Convention for Human Rights, all this were unnecesary interventions into the right to family and this must have been on intent => sounds like a case of abuse of authority in itself.

        • And after that, due to BV’s interventions are unneccesary, they are to be considered forbidden by international law, so it should be not a criminal offence to fly away from them any more.

        • and actually, this episode from the story — BV keeping prospective foster mother around — should be enough to demonstrate violation of human rights of the family in Norway, for an asylum which should protect against actual criminal charge raised in Noway.

        • Mysle ze potrzebujemy jakies dziecko , ktore nazwie sprawe po imieniu:

          Krol jest nagi

          Kiedy kryminalisci z BV zostana ukarani , kiedy policjanci zaczna scigac kryminalistow z BV , kiedy politycy zrobia porzadek , ale nie na zarty tylko naprawde.Po prostu kiedy skonczy sie to pranie mozgow i ludzie zaczna wykonywac swoje obowiazki a nie udawac ,ze robia cos wlasciwie.Czy pani Horne ktora mowi ,,barnas beste,, ma nadzieje ,ze ktos jej wierzy ?Czy Ona ocenia tak zle nasza inteligencje , mysli , ze ten kit ,, barnas beste ,, nam wcisnie ?

    • They was helped to run away – if this is parents that function according to the d in the Child Welfare Act they 4-12 are not capable of a daily life in Poland without children for a period more than a usual holiday – when they were helped to understand – if this is parents that function according to the d int the Child Welfare Act § 4-12 they are not capeable of understanding legal Language and needs help so that they can understand according to their Level – after they got a chance to prove that they were capable of the management of the daily care for the twins With a stay at a Parent(s) and Child(ren) Center. In the beginning of June someone understood that they would not mange that period and that they most likely would loose in the coming County Committe proceedings.

      • Isn’t it wonderful, Knut, that the girls are putting on weight in Poland? They don’t seem to be starving.There must be some nice hospitable people there;-)

        • Here is whatI found on a tourist site about Polish manners;

          From the ancient custom of greeting visitors with bread and salt, Poland’s system of social graces has developed into one that is unmatched in the world, and will often put a smile on your face. You can expect to be spoilt – every Pole wants to be the host with the most, no money and effort spared.

          When in Poland, be prepared for your words to be sometimes misinterpreted, but do not worry about communication. You will find it very easy to engage in a friendly conversation, even regardless of the other speaker’s linguistic competence.

          You wil be overwhelmed by the exceptional hospitality offered by the Polish people and the good-hearted everyday social rituals you will experience.

          So no worries Knut. They have chosen the best place to stay. Thank you Poland!!!!!

        • Hildi bardzo cie lubie.Dzis do chleba i soli dokladamy jeszcze wiele innego jedzenia

      •   
        I,too, should dearly have liked to be helped a bit to run away in such a situation as Natasha and Erik have been in, not least if I had a couple of children under a year to bring along. Many Barnevern-refugees have obtained practical help from friends and family. It does not prove that one is exactly mentally deficient. – But of course, Mr Nygaard here shows us one of the ways in which Barnevernet comes up with a cocksure diagnosis – this time that Natasha and Erik are simpletons, apparently.
         

        • In Mr. Nygaard’s eyes they would be simpletons regardless of how they would have acted. I am sure he would have called them fools for not escaping if they had the chance. We know how he reacted to the Bodnariu’s for not going to the media themselves with their case. If it were the fact that they had done so, I am sure he would accuse them for it too. With Barnevernet one is simply never good enough.

      • What I read about the case suggests the main help the family got is a rumor. That would mean only unprofessional job done at Barnevernet. Otherwise completely legal for the rumor-sayer (freedom of expression) and for the family (freedom of movement).

  19. Their lawyer have said that barnevernet had revealed on a meeting that they wanted to do an acute placement and that the County Board ha decided it. She mean it’s a lie. And barnevernet had removed documents from their apartment. It will be filed charge against barnevernet for theft. The parents have seeked political asylum in Poland and accoring to the embassy, they will get it. This is a very bad case and I want to thank their lawyer for coming out with the truth, even though it’s regarded as non-professional by the political correct lawyer-standard in Norway to give such info to the public

    • “Their lawyer have said that barnevernet had revealed on a meeting…”
      I think it might be behind what criminal charges is Knut talking about.

      This is all blurry here. Revealing does not sound like a form of official communication by a public authority at all.
      In case of any official communications, there must be a document with the parent’s signature, either that they got a letter or the meeting protocol.

      Any criminal charges can stand only if
      1. such a document or any other proof exists for any official communication has reached the parents.
      2. still, the intervention has to match Article 8 of ECHR. It could lead to dismissal of charges against the parents if the intervention to the right to the family turned out not to be necessary in a democratic society.

    • The past tense about County Board is also making things blurry. The whole Norwegian media says County Board is court like… sounds like a big liar if past tense was correct for County Board decision here.

  20. I think legally is pretty clear.
    The Norwegian Child Welfare Act is in force only in Norway.
    As the child had been already abroad when the emergency care order has been issued, the emergency care order means practically nothing.

    There was no kidnapping, as the child moved with the family and they have just had the freedom to move.
    In case BV accuses anyone of kidnapping, they should get a charge of false accusations.

      • What criminal charges are they wanted for? I cannot understand, if the whole proceeding came after they have left the country. That is absurd.

  21. My own conclusion: this foster-care-business must pay very well that public authorities are dancing on the edge of criminal offenses in their interests.

    • There is no business involved. There is no link between us in the municipal CPS and the foster parents. This is just propaganda talk – be serious in Your comments, man.

  22. Aparthaid w Norwegii sie rozlatuje.

    Zastanawiam sie czyje zdjecia powinny wisiec w interpolu.

    -policjantow , ktorzy wiedzac ,ze w instytucjach barnevernet dokonywane
    sa gwalty -zabieraja dzieci z biologicznych rodzin , zeby je pozniej dostarczyc do miejsc gdzie gwalty sie odbywaja ,czyli instytucji barnevernet
    -sedziow , ktorzy popelniaja JUSTISMORD , czyli karza niewinnych rodzicow na strate dziecka (na podstawie dokumentow falszywych , z bledami i nie przejmuja sie tymi bledami w dokumentacji )
    -pracownikow barnevernet , ktorzy pozostawiaja dzieci w rekach pedofilow
    -politykow , ktorzy to toleruja

  23. In the meanwhile I have read some news on Eva Michalakova’s case. Reportedly the major reason for a judgement against her was freedom of expression and media attention.
    In case that was true, I guess Norway has weak position in front of European Court of Human Rights. It is not necessary in a democratic society to intervene into right to family just because someone used freedom of expression.

    •   
      But in the meantime many years go by, and the arguments of the Norwegian state in Strasbourg will be all sorts of OTHER things, among them plenty of untruths, notably that the boys had become “attached” to their fosterers so that it was too late to bring them back anyway.
      Cf the section “Publicising the facts …” here:
      http://www.mhskanland.net/page45/page289/page289.html

      Certainly the Strasbourg court is several times better than the Norwegian Supreme Court, but Strasbourg judges too are far too happy to trust that a state is telling the truth and that all their evidence is competent.
        

      • I am not afraid about the argument about boys being attached to the foster parents in Strasbourg. Precedent-law in Strasbourg is pretty clear about foster care is last resort only, the purpose is familiy reunification as quick as possible. Eva Michalakova’s lawyer has nothing else to do but to quote precedents then.

        •   
          Jasper, I think you have too great trust in the Strasbourg Court and the practical operation of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is all very well on paper. And we know how to apply to the Court and have a stream of complaints going that way the whole time. It is not that we are ignorant. It is not all that easy to get them through, and the judgments are often NOT in favour of CPS complainants, or it is all taken to be too late. Look at the cases Olsson 1 and 2 against Sweden. The Olssons won both times, Sweden paid the miserly pecuniary compensation and did NOT let the children come home. Something similar was the result of Adele Johansen’s win against Norway
          (cf http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page125/page125.html – I was one of her expert witnesses in later rounds in court in Norway and know the case very well).
             The Strasbourg Court is not a state, it does not have a police force or an army. Countries found guilty are supposed to put things right, but rarely do.

        • I know that ECHR takes long time.
          And also that it has limited enforcement possibilities.

          Enforcing an ECHR judgement usually makes it necessary to go for a domestic retrial. The ECHR judgement stating violation of human rights is on one hand a new fact making retrial possible, on the other hand is binding for the domestic courts (they have to accept the fact estabilished by the ECHR judgement and consider it — to correct original judgement by applying the new fact).
          This is a legal possibility in addition to the compensations due to ECHR verdict — and unfortunately very few know about it.

          Hence the domestic courts have to do the re-trial and respect the verdict of Strasbourg, and come to a new domestic verdict. In the Adele case it must have led to giving back parental rights…
          In case retrial fails, it could end up again in Strasbourg. I guess second round there would be way more compensation.

          There are some countries, who deny ECHR decisions were binding or even deny paying out some compensations — like Russia. Norway by joining that club would immeadiately harm its image of leading democracy and leading role with respect to rule of law.

        •   
          Jasper: “Enforcing an ECHR judgement usually makes it necessary to go for a domestic retrial.” etc:

          We know all about this too, it is what has been done in all the atrocious CPS cases in which Strasbourg has condemned the country. We are not newcomers to the Strasbourg court. What do you think happens in a domestic court after a win in Strasbourg? “In the best interest of the child” the public party claims that regardless of what happened earlier, the situation is now that …. etc.
             If what was needed was for Norwegians ill-treated by their state and their courts was information about the ECHR and how to go about it, the situation with Barnevernet would not be what it is. Kindly read about the Adele Johansen case (I linked to a summary) and about various Swedish cases, such as Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden and for example about KT v. Norway, which KT lost in Strasbourg. It should never have been lost.

        •   
          Jasper: “In the Adele case it must have led to giving back parental rights…
          In case retrial fails, it could end up again in Strasbourg. I guess second round there would be way more compensation.”

          It didn’t, in spite of the fact that Norway’s foremost legal expert on the relevant human rights and international rights witnessed and said clearly in court that her rights did not need to be reinstated, since the Strasbourg judgment meant that it was STILL HERS.

          Norway went ahead and adopted away her daughter after all. Trying to get the case to Strasbourg again did not succeed, the case was rejected.

        •   
          Jasper (about Adele Johansen’s case): “Was the case rejected by Strasbourg itself? Is there any resource on this readable?”

          You can search Hudoc, I suppose. But I can tell you that it was definitely rejected. I know the lawyer very well and followed the case all through.

  24. The parents on the run risk a sentence with a maximum of six years in prison if found guilty – says the media.

    § 261. Omsorgsunndragelse
    Den som alvorlig eller gjentatte ganger unndrar en mindreårig eller holder denne unndratt fra noen som i henhold til lov, avtale eller rettsavgjørelse skal ha den mindreårige boende fast hos seg, eller som urettmessig unndrar den mindreårige fra noen som har omsorgen etter barnevernloven, straffes med bot eller fengsel inntil 2 år. På samme måte straffes den som tar en mindreårig ut av landet eller holder tilbake en mindreårig i utlandet og ved det ulovlig unndrar den mindreårige fra noen som i henhold til lov, avtale eller rettsavgjørelse har foreldreansvar. Tilsvarende gjelder der det er fattet vedtak om omsorgsovertakelse, flytteforbud eller institusjonsplassering etter barnevernloven §§ 4-8, 4-12, 4-24 eller 4-29 første og annet ledd eller der begjæring om slike tiltak er sendt fylkesnemnda etter barnevernloven § 7-11, eller der det i en akuttsituasjon er iverksatt midlertidig vedtak etter barnevernloven §§ 4-6 annet ledd, 4-9 første ledd, 4-25 annet ledd annet punktum eller 4-29 fjerde ledd.
    Grov omsorgsunndragelse straffes med fengsel inntil 6 år. Ved avgjørelsen av om omsorgsunndragelsen er grov skal det særlig legges vekt på hvilken belastning den har påført barnet.

    • The parents on the run risk a sentence with a maximum of six years in prison if found guilty – says the media.

      Do you have the link to the media resource?

      • Ikke kontakt med paret
        Saken etterforskes nå av Asker og Bærum politidistrikt siden paret var tilknyttet en institusjon i Asker da de rømte med barna.
        Politiet har siktet foreldrene etter straffelovens paragraf 216, som omhandler forhold hvor mindreårige unndras omsorg på ulovlig vis. Familien er nå etterlyst internasjonalt.
        Etterforskningsleder Bjørn Egil Drangevåg sier paret forsvant 4. juni.
        – Vi jobber fortsatt med polske myndigheter for å snevre inn leteområdet og lokalisere paret. Vi er avhengige av hjelp fra polsk politi. Jeg er ganske sikker på at vi kommer til å finne dem, sier Drangevåg.
        Politioverbetjenten vil ikke spekulere i hvorvidt foreldreparet fra Stange har reist til Polen på permanent basis, eller om det er snakk om en «ferietur».
        – Vi har foreløpig ikke fått kontakt med paret, men jeg registrerer at TV 2 har pratet med dem i helga, sier han.
        Ifølge Drangevåg kan det være aktuelt å reise til Polen for å hente familien hjem, men det gjenstår både etterforskning og formaliteter før man eventuelt kan gå til et slikt grep.
        – Meget alvorlig
        Drangevåg beskriver saken som «meget alvorlig»:
        – Straffen for grov omsorgsunndragelse har en strafferamme på seks års fengsel, så dette er et meget alvorlig lovbrudd. Vi fortsetter etterforskningen i samarbeid med polske myndigheter, sier han.
        Drangevåg oppfordrer paret til å melde seg og samarbeide med politiet.
        Innlandet på sidelinjen
        Kommunikasjonsrådgiver Kari-Anne Dobloug i Innlandet politidistrikt bekrefter at Asker og Bærum tar seg av hele den pågående etterforskningen, selv om paret har bostedsadresse og er hjemmehørende i Stange.
        – Vi vil likevel bidra med nødvendige opplysninger dersom det blir aktuelt, sier Dobloug.

        • DO Knuta
          6 -lat wiezienia za wyjazd cala rodzina na wakacje latem do Polski ?
          Norwegia chce wspolpracowac z Polska , zeby ich zlapac ?
          Chcecie po nich przyjechac do Polski, zeby ta rodzine sciagnac do Norwegii , zeby odebrac im dzieci ?
          Ciekawe, Knut nie wiem co bierzesz ale bierz moze mniejsze dawki .Moze ci pomoze.Albo zmien lekarza.

        • Do knuta

          meget alvorlig ? ta para nie zrobila nic zlego .Wyjechali ze swoimi dziecmi do Polski.Mieli w tym momencie prawo do dzieci .Dlaczego podajesz nieprawdziwe informacje.Dlaczego wprowadzasz ludzi w blad.Ich adwokat mowi wyraznie, ze kiedy wyjechali z dziecmi – mieli do dzieci prawo ,nikt im tego prawa nie zabral.Po prostiu nie klam.

    • I would argue that due process was lost from the point of time when BV kept prospective foster mother around, and that hence the emergency care order contradicts international law and should be considered null and void and hence they were fleeing from an invalid order — only fleeing from a valid order is a criminal offense.

    • So, if I understand well, Norweigans can’t freely move anywhere they want ? They must ask for some permission ? Where ?
      I’m definitely shocked.

      • Sisa, the State of Norway consider children born here their property. And therefore; No, you can not move children out of Norway, unless you are rich, which most Norwegians are, by the way.
        The barnevern abuse is a matter of social control of the poor, sick, disabled, unemployed and so on.
        Et sorteringssamfunn, and human rights are not for those with “socio-economic low status” in this country!

        Social workers are paid to put such people down, by great help of the imformer-culture forced by the barnevern law to give barnevernet arguments to take their children in any possible way. The state are at war against such parents, I guess you can say, and not what you would normally think a social worker should be paid for by the state to give service to the needy in form of “help measures from the authorities” 😦

        Only the strongest and resourceful parents will be able to survive this percecution till their children is 18 years old and cps can not remove them from their parents by law any longer, in order to give them to childless rich parents who get millions in salary for this service, or social workers.

        This whole mess stinks. The question is who gave birth to this ugly and unfair system, and why. And why are the politicians and the royal family completely silent?

    • Når trådte denne loven i kraft, Knut? (When was this law made?) The last 23 years Barnevernet has become more and more Nazi like since the 1993 reform in barnevern law.
      Am I right, this is a new law after 93?

  25. It makes me mad that Barnevernet can do anything they want without consequences! They took the twins away from the mother, just like that, a few hours after they were born. What did the mother do wrong to have her babies stolen by BV? They gave her a label that was not true but a lie. They were going to take her children again because BV somehow had they idea that she and the father would possibly not be able to care for their children. It seems that they can steal and lie as much as they want and even put those they have stolen from and lied to in prison.

    • It should be very easy to track down where the twins are both by the Asker and Bærum police, the authorities in Poland and if necessary the Interpol – they need not go further than to facebook or to the lawyer.

      • This is not a winner loser game, Knut! I hate injustice so much! Just try to put yourself in the same shoes as this couple, Knut. Imagine if Barnevernet, out of the blue, had come and taken your baby away the same day your wife gave birth. The only reason would be yours or your wife’s history in the past. Would that be just?

      • Knut , przepraszam jak dlugo cie lecza ? Bo ciagle nie widac poprawy.Moze powinienes zmienic lekarza i leki

      • For Polish authorities it might be easy.
        The question is if it was easy to convince Polish authorities or not.
        Hopefully Polish authorities respect human rights better than their Norge counterparts.

        • 8 i 9 lipca jest szczyt NATO w Warszawie i beda tez demonstracje przeciwko norweskiemu BV .

      • “It should be very easy to track down where the twins are…”

        Putting it this way, Knut, makes it sound like an animal hunting its prey. I think many are starting to think that this is no different. Many animals have a territory or domain that they feel is theirs to control and if something enters their “space” they are free to do as they wish with it.

        Some people have left your employer’s domain, Knut, yet they continue to be stalked. Animals will do this sometimes if it is not too much trouble.

        It appears that your employer is will to go to a lot of trouble to get “something that belongs to it” back. My question is: “Why?”

        If Norway is a land where people have the freedoms of a democratic society, then those who have done no wrong should be allowed to come and go as they please. In this case, the prey felt it had no choice and I, for one, am happy that it escaped. Now, I only hope this family can stay free from the clutches of the wild animal bent on destruction.

        • Tez mi sie to zdanie nie podobalo ( ze bedzie latwo wysledzic w Polsce ta rodzine ).
          Jak norweska mafia bedzie polowac na dzieci turystow przebywajacych w Polsce to za chwile bedzie tam oddzial antyterrorystyczny.Turysci w Polsce musza byc bezpieczni i zadowoleni.

        •   
          Chris (to Mr Nygaard): “It appears that your employer is will to go to a lot of trouble to get “something that belongs to it” back. My question is: “Why?” ”

          The analogy to animal life is very good.

          It is a variant of what the Eastern, communist bloc did when people tried to escape from there, especially East Germany. They could not have kept a well-educated and capable work-force at all if they had allowed people to go. And they had some show cases of prosecuting unsuccessful refugees, make an example of them to scare others.

          The Norwegian Barnevern system could not operate if people could just take their children and leave the country. And if our authorities were to do nothing to get escapees back, that would encourage untold thousands in their wake.

          Some months ago, a Norwegian couple tried to escape with their children, but their car number had of course been registered at all border points (Norway probably does this with anybody who is in touch with Barnevernet), so it was found that they had gone out through the southmost crossing to Sweden (at Svinesund) and then later over the Öresund bridge to Denmark. Norway alerted the Danish police, who arrested them and put them in jail. In a day or two it was found that the parents had not broken any law (not at that time, it’s different now), so they were let loose again, but the children were carted back to Norway to Barnevernet.
          “The treatment by the Norwegian child protection services (CPS) and police of a German / Ukrainian family”
          http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=8063

          Then there are some Baltic and Polish and Turkish cases:
          http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=7771
          http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=7767
          http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page229/page229.html
          http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=628

          As you can see, in the Polish case I linked to Norwegian Barnevernet even went to Poland and fought a court case there to have the child back.

          Make no mistake: Sweden and Britain certainly do the same. In Denmark, about 15-20 years back you could actually demand your children back if you were moving abroad, and I know of one family who did that and moved to Austria. But it is probably no longer the case (I have not followed up on Danish legislation).
            

        • “The Norwegian Barnevern system could not operate if people could just take their children and leave the country. And if our authorities were to do nothing to get escapees back, that would encourage untold thousands in their wake.”

          Thank you for the links and for answering my question, Marianne.

          I don’t see any other reasonable answer to my question as the expense to pursue such cases can’t be cost effective, except it causes others to be afraid of running. It some cases it may be cost effective as the case is easily agreed with by a Swedish or Danish committee.

          This is exactly what happened in Ken Olsen’s life over 30 years ago. His mother left Norway and went to Denmark to escape what Ken calls, “a year of intimidation.”

          Only two weeks into the new beginning in Denmark, Ken was taken. This happened while Ken’s mother was working already and Ken was alone.

          This has been going on for some time and the accounts in your links are only a few of so many. I looked at all of the links you put up, Marianne. I haven’t read it all but the general topic is the same as this blog post. It is very sad.

        • In Norway hunting is a common hobby, but I’m one of those that don’t have a weapon in out house nor have any intention of tracking Down anybody. My comment was just an observation after looking into some f.b. comments and sure some supporters know more than enough to tell the authorities were the twins are. It’s the safety for the twins that is important. This is considered to be a serious crime and if the supporters knowing where they are – so is holding back information.

          Here is some News in polish where we see the couple in a more disquised Version – this is for you Gabriela
          http://scanpress.net/promowane/norwegowie-uciekli-przed-barnevern-do-polski

          As far as I know the criminal case in the B. case is not closed. The national News today have a story from the same area – Sogn and Fjordane – where a mother herself took contact With the local CPS because she finally understood she had a problem With violence done to her children at ages under 10. She had done this for a period of 4 years. The violence was described as not of the hardest kind – claps to the back of the childrens head and With Three occasions hitting one child in the back. The children is taken care for and placed in forster home. Although the violence was not of the worst kind, it’s was stated by the Court that it had done impact on the children. The mother was sentenced to 120 hours community punishment (?) – an alternative to prison – f.i. working somewhere suitable in the local community – and to pay each child kr. 50.000 – around 6000 dollar.

          http://www.bt.no/nyheter/innenriks/Kvinne-domt-for-vold-mot-egne-barn-3625199.html

          We in Norway have rules and regulations – they are to be followed – just as Yours in the Springs.

        • “This is considered to be a serious crime and if the supporters knowing where they are – so is holding back information.”

          Please explain to me what the serious crime is here, Knut.

        • “This sounds like Berlin Wall so far.”

          I agree with Marianne, Jasper. It is a “very apt image.

          Instead of using barbed wire and concrete, the Norwegian CPS is using collaborating nations with similar philosophies. They use the philosophies themselves to bolster legal arguments. It appears they will use anything, including fear to protect the system that they intend to propagate

          :The Norwegian Barnevern system could not operate if people could just take their children and leave the country. And if our authorities were to do nothing to get escapees back, that would encourage untold thousands in their wake.”

          Marianne’s nice summary here gives a good explanation for this “controlling” behavior. The bullies in East Germany’s past would recognize it, I think.

        • Knut,

          1. as we already discussed, the settlement helps Barnevernet that the case details do not get to the public, but it helps B. parents as well, as BV reached a settlement and let the children home, which tells a lot about of the severity of the corporal discipline.

          2. in the other case, is the foster care binding, or is it on its way through the courts? At the moment I do not see that foster care was really necessary in a democratic society…
          All I ask for is to follow not only Norwegian laws, but Norwegian laws and international laws on human rights at the same time. Otherwise Your country is more and more alike the Eastern bloc in the 1950ies and 1960ies…

        • F.i. one of the female supporters – spoken of – as a preparedness mother (?) – beredskapsmor – is one of Three females that are the organizers of the Financial support. I don’t know for sure, bur maybe one of these is a Public appointed gurdian for the mother that among others has the oversight of her economy.

        • Sorry Knut, but I dont understand what you wrote now at all.
          Check your English translation, please.

        • I’m in a hurry – as always – a Public guardian is a person appointed by the County Governour to help someone With f.i. the Money. If the welfare Money needs a helper to get the rent and other important matters taken care for first and then … I don’t know, but the supporters use the Word “beredskapsmor” on this female that I got the understanding has knows the mother for a long time.

        • Mr Nygaard writes about a “beredskapsmor”. That means a woman who keeps a temporary foster home. This one is evidently the one where the twins were placed after birth, the very one who has been kept coming to the family centre to “be with” the twins even after the parents were to “be given more time with them in order to be evaluated as carers”. A “beredskapsmor” is in no way a guardian of the parents or anything to do with giving them money. This sounds like a lot of side-tracking nonsense.

        • Can’t be. The facebook use the naming “beredskapsmor” for a female Natacha is attached to either as a Public guardian or elsewhere in her past as a trustworthy helper – this female is one of the organaizers of the Money transactions done under the run away to provide for the most needed situations.

        • Knut:

          “This is considered to be a serious crime and if the supporters knowing where they are – so is holding back information.”

          I made a statement I thought you would jump to answer, Knut:

          “Please explain to me what the serious crime is here.”

          Can you explain the serious crime to me, Knut?

          This is the second time I am asking.

        • I do not consider a Facebook page without naming the owner as a reliable source. Hence I do not think this thread is worth of any further investigation so far, whatever was the point.

        • I would like you to specifically answer this request which I am asking for a third time, Knut:

          “Please explain to me what the serious crime is here, Knut.”

          Are you connecting one of 4 people who participated in a meeting in Stange in April to the “serious crime?”

        • Knut,

          This is the female the supporter team describe as “beredskapsmor” for Natacha

          I still cannot see who have described. No source of information. Still unverified and completely unreliable information.

          However it is pretty interesting that you share a conclusion on a person without her consent. What about Data Protection regulations, Knut?

          As far as I remember, Norway has the same data protection principles as EU countries. Anything where the person can be identified and any conclusion on the person can be drawn is personal data, which can be handled either when law requires it or by the person’s consent. I cannot see either here, that would allow you to name her, and you have not pointed to any publicly available information that you were just quoting either.

      • Knut
        Polska policja to nie sa wasze psy goncze.Oni robia to co uwazaja za sluszne sami.A nie to co wy uwazacie za sluszne.Mam wrazenie ,ze wszyscy was maja dosyc , w Polsce tez.

  26. Spokojnie , ten system sie -rozsypuje , poniewaz osiagnal stopien schizofrenii niemozliwy do zaakceptowania przez normalnych ludzi.Trzeba jeszcze tylko poczekac na rezultat do konca wakacji.

  27. Knut wrote; It’s the safety for the twins that is important. This is considered to be a serious crime and if the supporters knowing where they are – so is holding back information.

    What was the “serious crime” that led to Barnevernet`s action of taking away the twin babies from her mother just hours after she gave birth to them? I guess you won`t answer my question, Knut, because you won`t have a suitable answer to it.

    In my opinion, it is discriminating to forcibly take away a child based on the parent`s past. It ought to be forbidden by law.

    If Barnevernet is worried about some children`s safety, there are other ways than taking them away from the parents. You always state that it is the last resort. But when you even take away children from parents who never have harmed their children in any way, then it is clearly not the last resort!

    • It is like taking flu seriously so prescribin chemotherapy.
      Who cares it was not the best interest of the patient? We take flu seriously and have a chance to generate income for big pharma…

      At the moment I see the story is similar about taking any risk of any violence so seriously that it was eligible for foster care independently of anything.

      • And if the case ends up in court, we are the doctors and we can still tell that it was the best interest of the patient…

    • Yeah – it’s the last resort. Now the parents had their chance to show their qualities and what help measures that were needed – but – they ran away – when someone helped them to understand their legal situation and when someone organizes a way out – I do hope they not end up in some polsih mafia – if read that these parents and the twins are on the run they can be considered valuable both as sheltered and as hostages.

      • Well, keeping prospective mother around was a foul in the game anyway. That was the first one, so free kick for the family now.
        Due process had been clearly undermined. The family was fleeing from a country violating their human rights already.

      • Knut;”I do hope they not end up in some polsih mafia – if read that these parents and the twins are on the run they can be considered valuable both as sheltered and as hostages.”

        No, they ran away from some Norwegian mafia.

        • You and have a general problem With seeing situations in the same context, but some in the supporter team are worried. If they really are alone With the twins – a situation more than I see that won’t function – they are considered to be a potensial candidate for the Polish mafia that have a lot of links in Norway.

        • “…they are considered to be a potensial candidate for the Polish mafia that have a lot of links in Norway.”

          I don’t know why you bring any mafia into the discussion, Knut.

          Following logically, however, the next question would be:

          “They are a potential candidate for the Polish mafia in what way?

          after you wrote this, Knut:

          “they are considered to be a potensial candidate for the Polish mafia that have a lot of links in Norway.”

      • Keeping prospective foster mother around tells it had been not a last resort at all. Barnevernet has been already preparing for foster care even when returning the children to the parents.

  28. Sorry Knut, I take violations to right to fair process at least as seriously as Norwegians take violence in the family seriously 🙂

  29. http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/barnebortforing-kan-straffes-med-inntil-seks-aars-fengsel

    If the lawyer is correct, there was no order or nothing like that — freedom of movement should apply.

    Hence I guess if the family is found the story will go for a Polish court, as there is a right to appeal against extradition. And there are doubts that the child was subject to the care order at all — already outside of Norwegian territory.
    So if the family has a good lawyer, it will be not only formalities to get the family back. Not at all. Real debate at Polish court with all the details reaching sunlight.

  30. Using Barnevernet’s and Knut’s logic all children of Barnevernet employees should be taken away from them. By working for state sanctioned organized crime group engaged in child trafficking they will not be able to instill proper moral values into their children.
    It’s also quite telling that Knut is afraid of a competition from Polish mafia.
    The fact that Barnevernet trains their foot soldiers in the mindless defence of their fascist organisation simply amplifies the judgement. As Benito Mussolini would say:
    “The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone”

    Saying this I don’t accept that logic and believe even monsters like Knut and his ilk have the RIGHT to their children and the children BELONG to their parents. The moment we forget about this simple truth we step on the slippery slope which leads to ideologues deciding on who is worthy of children and who is the Untermensch deserving to have their children taken away from.
    And just like kindnapping the Children of Zamojszczyzna by Nazi Germany (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=954_1439268138) their posthumous bastard organisations like Jugendamt or Barnevernet silently continue the fight for the Ubermensch.

  31. Thank you for explaining why this couple went to the family center. But still I cannot understand why they at first lost their babies, and later on had to proove they are capable of taking care of the twins! Do every mother recently given birth in Norway have to proove their maternal skills?

  32. Do Knuta

    Czy ,, wspolpraca z polska policja ,, oznacza , ze jak wy dzwonicie do Polski to oni was zabijaja smiechem?Z Polski nie wyjedzie – z norweska policja – zadne dziecko.
    A poza tym od kiedy to interpol bierze zlecenia od pedofili ?

  33. There is a quarrel going on in the supporterteam between those who really care for this couple and the twins and those who only see this as one of many cases and are full of agression against the authorities as a whole.

    • Why do you make things difficult, Knut.

      I have to guess at your meaning. If I’m wrong correct me. By “supporterteam,” you are speaking about those not connected to the B.V. You must be, as there seems to be no care for this couple in the BV.

      There is no quarrel that I can tell if this is the case. I would use the words “upset,” “angry,” and “sad” instead of “aggression.”

      These words combine with care for this couple in almost every case, I think.

      It is another rabbit trail you send us on. It is comments like these, that contain no answers to many questions that have been asked of you, that makes it evident that you are dodging and weaving. Please answer our questions, Knut, and stop playing games.

      • You don’t know nothing of what is going on just now in the suppoterteam – you are hardly awake over in the springs. The real supporters is from the local surrounding area and not the ones on this blog or any other blog going on for ages digging as much dirt as possible against the CPS.

        • You start with a double negative and then you don’t answer my question. It is a typical answer from you, Knut.

          I’m awake here but you have reminded me that a nap wouldn’t hurt. Maybe I’ll go and do that.

        • The question you are messing around about should be obvious – if the police consider this a serious criminal act then it should be easy to talk with the heads of the supporter team and get the necessary information needed to get the police and CPS in Poland to react and escort the run aways to the Norwegian border. I guess the police would have said something about the legal consequences if later showed that they were holding back information. The important thing now is to get the twins out of risk and into safety.

        • This is very odd, Knut.

          “The question you are messing around about should be obvious – if the police consider this a serious criminal act then it should be easy to talk with the heads of the supporter team and get the necessary information needed to get the police and CPS in Poland to react and escort the run aways to the Norwegian border. I guess the police would have said something about the legal consequences if later showed that they were holding back information. The important thing now is to get the twins out of risk and into safety.”

          I will break down this wild statement.

          You wrote:

          “The question you are messing around about should be obvious – if the police consider this a serious criminal act then it should be easy to talk with the heads of the supporter team and get the necessary information needed to get the police and CPS in Poland to react and escort the run aways to the Norwegian border.”

          It is not obvious, Knut. You can tell as Jasper has no idea what you mean by “the supporter team.” Marianne doesn’t know of such a team and I sure don’t. Is there a group that you are aware of which we don’t know?

          You expect someone supporting this family to give information to certain authorities in Poland who will direct the family back to the Norwegian border and into the hands of the Barnevernet? Are you serious, Knut?

          You wrote:

          “I guess the police would have said something about the legal consequences if later showed that they were holding back information. The important thing now is to get the twins out of risk and into safety.”

          I ask for a fifth time Knut,

          “Please explain to me what the serious crime is in this case.”

          Another related question is:

          “How are the twins now in any kind of risk? Are they more unsafe now than they were in Norway?

    • I am not sure what kind of support team do you mean.
      However at the moment we have very little facts.

      The most important facts missing are: the exact time the family left, and the exact time when they provenly got an official notice about emergency care order situation.

      • Do Jaspisa
        Knut pracownikow BV nazywa zespolem wsparcia .Wspieranie , pomoc to zabieranie ludziom dzieci.Chcemy pomoc -przetlumacz na- zabieramy dziecko.

        • I don’t understand if

          Supportteam was a team of officers working on the case in Norway,
          maybe a team of officers working on the case in Poland,
          or perhaps both teams together?

          Or did Knut mean supporteam the friends of the family supporting them — in this case this is an allegation as there is no evidence for such an organized supportteam existed at all.

        • Jasper: “Or did Knut mean supporteam the friends of the family supporting them — in this case this is an allegation as there is no evidence for such an organized supportteam existed at all.”

          NO, there is no evidence and I have never heard of any organised team. But our authorities and our press would like to think that there is a dangerous, underground organisation, firing up stupid people abroad and misleading Norwegians into not trusting Barnevernet. For one thing, they would want to prosecute such an organisation in the criminal court, for another it would “explain” why all the official “information” fails to get everybody to say “Oh yes, you are soooo right” to our Barnevern and government.
            

      • I don’t know the facts in this case, but if it’s a § 12 a and d case these twins are in real danger if the parents don’t have human support from people they trust and are ready to give them real help needed 24/7.

        • I guess these are about some cases which if are present could justify care order but as the storz started as an unexisting illness of the mother, it could easily be just speculations by Barnevernet staff.

          The Polish courts have won the possibility to deep-dive.

        •   
          Hildi: “the paragraph 12 a and d”:

          They are two possible reasons why children may be taken into care, Hildi. This gives an uptodate version:
          https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1992-07-17-100
          The relevant part:

          § 4-12.Vedtak om å overta omsorgen for et barn.
          Vedtak om å overta omsorgen for et barn kan treffes
          a) dersom det er alvorlige mangler ved den daglige omsorg som barnet får, eller alvorlige mangler i forhold til den personlige kontakt og trygghet som det trenger etter sin alder og utvikling,
          b) dersom foreldrene ikke sørger for at et sykt, funksjonshemmet eller spesielt hjelpetrengende barn får dekket sitt særlige behov for behandling og opplæring,
          c) dersom barnet blir mishandlet eller utsatt for andre alvorlige overgrep i hjemmet, eller
          d) dersom det er overveiende sannsynlig at barnets helse eller utvikling kan bli alvorlig skadd fordi foreldrene er ute av stand til å ta tilstrekkelig ansvar for barnet
          Et vedtak etter første ledd kan bare treffes når det er nødvendig ut fra den situasjon barnet befinner seg i. Et slikt vedtak kan derfor ikke treffes dersom det kan skapes tilfredsstillende forhold for barnet ved hjelpetiltak etter § 4-4 eller ved tiltak etter § 4-10 eller § 4-11.
          Et vedtak etter første ledd skal treffes av fylkesnemnda etter reglene i kapittel 7.

          (Sorry, I don’t see any version in English at Lovdata.)

          As we see, a) says it may be taken if there are serious deficiencies in the daily care which the child receives, or serious deficiencies in relation to the personal contact and security the child needs according to its age and development; d) says it may be taken if it is considerable likelihood that the child’s health or development can be seriously damaged because the parents are incapable of taking the necessary responsibility for the child.

          What you are witnessing in what Mr Nygaard writes, is all the time that the people of Barnevernet will never revise their own diagnosis, never admit that they have been wrong from the start or in any of their arguments. They stamped Natasha with the faulty diagnosis of being mentally retarded, and regardless of what evidence comes up to show that that was wrong, regardless of who shows that it is wrong (better experts than Barnevernet), they stick to it. So Mr Nygaard considers that Natasha and Erik are helpless morons, simpletons who need others to take care of them around the clock and around the week. Therefore, he believes, the twins are in acute danger if they are left to the care of these parents. Barnevernet has stated that “that is so”, and so every BV worker repeats it. (One might seriously question who is a helpless simpleton.)
            

        • Marianne: I am more afraid of business interests around which BV staff could serve (playing morons if necessary).

          In case the acute order is based on the already falsified illness of the mother, I would think about abuse of authority in this case as well.

        • You are bad reporter and have serious reading problems – this is what I said in the comment – not that you make out of it – “I don’t know the facts in this case, but if it’s a § 12 a and d case these twins are in real danger if the parents don’t have human support from people they trust and are ready to give them real help needed 24/7.” – you see the “IF” or had you forgot to take off your activist reading glasses where you see some context and change it suitable for your purposes.

        • Knut, you wrote “if” and I wrote “in case”.

          However a public debate shall look like this. Dealing with the case with the possible reasons around.

          12 d could be based on the falsified illness — that could be simply crazy.
          It could be based on some new evidence — in that case fair process can be easily questioned as the evidence could not be really verified or debated at all. Hard to think about any new evidence that is so hard and convincing that an acute order is to be placed first.

          I would exclude 12 d from now on unless some very serious new evidence is known by Barnevernet, children in real acute danger.

          Or the order could be based on something completely else. But what could be behind the order then?

        • Thank you Marianne for your information! When these paragraphs are compared to what Barnevernet actually does, it proves that they are violating their own rules and laws over and over again. According to Barnevernet`s actions, there should be some change of words in these paragraphs. Instead of “serious deficiences” it should stand ” trivial deficiences” and instead of “considerable likelihood” it should stand “slightest likelihood”.

        • Knut, it is not the twins but Barnevernet who are in real danger now! The twins are being very well looked after by their parents as far as I have heard. As time goes by, it will become more and more evident that Barnevernet was wrong in assuming that the parents were incapable of the parental role.It is already extremely embarrassing for Barnevernet having to admit that they were wrong about taking the twins away from the mother just hours after she had given birth.

          This is not the first case where Barnevernet has acted wrongly. The Norwegian CPS has by now managed to become infamous throughout the world. I am sure the Polish authorities will do all the can for the wellbeing and protection of the family.

  34. Since Jasper is looking for facts, I will ask for a fact for the fourth time, Knut.

    You wrote:

    “This is considered to be a serious crime and if the supporters knowing where they are – so is holding back information.”

    I have asked 3 times:

    “Please explain to me what the serious crime is here, Knut.”

    You have left so many questions by me and others unanswered in the past that I don’t have great expectations for an answer now.

  35. Do Marianny

    Czy to nie dziwne , ze w kraju gdzie zyje okolo 1 miliona obcokrajowcow ( moze 1,2 ) tekst o warunkach przejecia dziecka nie jest przetlumaczony na jezyk angielski.W Norwegii wiekszosc pism ( standartowych formularzy ) jest w jezyku norweskim i angielskim ( czasem nawet w kilku innych ).
    Biorac pod uwage jak wiele dzieci obcokrajowcow jest przejmowane przez BV( statystycznie 3,5 razy czesciej niz norweskich ) to jest dziwne ,ze BV nie zadbalo o tlumaczenia dla nich.

    Nataszy zabrano dzieci , bo w jakims formularzu sprzed wielu lat pojawila sie diagnoza o niesprawnosci psychicznej .Oczywiscie bzdura.Ale biorac pod uwage teczki zakladane przedszkolakom , wiele formularzy do wypelnienia ( czesto przez rodzicow obcokrajowcow , ktorzy albo wcale , albo slabo znaja norweski ) to wszedzie w tych papierach da sie znalezc jakies haki na nich pozwalajace im dziecko zabrac.Byl tez pomysl Pani Siv Jensen (partia postepu – FRP , koledzy Breivika) zeby zabierac dzieci wszystkim rodzicom , ktorzy dzieci nie ucza norweskiego.Zaznaczam ,ze czesc przebywajacych tu ludzi nie planuje tu zostac dlugo , chca po prostu popracowac jakis czas zeby zebrac wiecej pieniedzy na( na przyklad ) mieszkanie czy rozpoczecie dzialalnosci w kraju pochodzenia.Ale gdy nie ucza dziecka norweskiego to mozna by bylo im to dziecko zabrac.Czy to zabieranie dzieci to nie jest jakas obsesja.?
    Gazety jak zwykle klamia i pisza o porwaniu dzieci ( tzn rodzice porwali swoje dzieci ).Przestepcy , ktorzy osmielili sie wyjechac z Norwegii latem do innego kraju nie czekajac az BV zabierze im dzieci.
    Czekam na nastepne przypadki.Problemu z goscina w Polsce nie widze.Stoi tam duzo pustych mieszkan Polakow ktorzy przebywaja w Norwegii ( bo tam pracuja ) .Koszty utrzymania mniejsze , jedzenie tansze to i pieniedzy starczy na dluzej.Kraj ciekawy , mozna z dziecmi troche pozwiedzac . A potem mozna przyjechac do Norwegii juz jako polski obywatel i dostac prace w Norwegii.Ja widze same zalety takiego rozwiazania.Jedyny problem to taki ,ze czlowiek nie moze zaglosowac w wyborach na Pania Siv Jensen , bo jako obcy nie ma praw wyborczych .Wprowadzone zostanie wiec nowe pojecie -obcy czyli byly Norweg po przejsciach z BV a obecnie polski obywatel w Norwegii.

    Chce tez napisac o tym co pod pojecie integracji podstawiaja Norwegowie.Otoz integracja to jest ich zdaniem samowystarczalnosc ekonomiczna. Czyli jak czlowiek pracuje i zarabia pieniadze to jest zintegrowany.W moim pojeciu integracja jest wtedy kiedy zawierane sa przyjaznie miedzy ludzmi roznego pochodzenia , kiedy mam przyjaciol w danym kraju .Ale nie w Norwegii.Tutaj jak nie wisisz na socjalu i zyjesz z pieniedzy zarobionych samodzielnie -to jestes zintegrowanyy , nawet jak nie masz do kogo geby otworzyc zarowno w pracy , jak i poza praca.Samowystarczalnosc ekonomiczna obcokrajowca to w pojeciu Norwega – integracja.

  36. Barnevernet’s evil actions are facts that the dark history of Norway with children is still being written.

    http://www.mioritausa.news/social/dramatic-escape-barnevernet/

    The propagandist from Bergen never told us what consequences are stipulated in Norwegian laws in regard to CPS employees that remove children from families without good reasons. The social worker keeps telling us that “it never happens in Norway”. He also says that removing children from families is the last resort. Is it stipulated in a law? Which law says that children must be removed from biological parents only as the last resort? What elese does the law say? Are there any repercussions for CPS workers if they apply this measure as first resort? If the law says “last resort” it means that applying this measure as “first resort” contravins with the law and it should have repercussions, correct?

  37. Hmm… today there are some comments in the supporterteam – have they moved to Poland in a minute when there was a legal hole in the wall – or are they runaways as the police say they are?

    Here is a clip from polish tv most possibly made in the area Wroclaw – if this is real they have made a good choice – close to the borders of the Czech Rebublic and Germany – in reality they have to choose the eastern side of the CPS existing CPS wall.

    https://www.facebook.com/marius.reikeras?fref=ts

    And again – it shouldn’t be hard to find them.

    http://wroclaw.tvp.pl/26042420/norweska-rodzina-walczy-o-swoje-dzieci

      • Knut, I am sure you know that rumors cannot restrict freedom of movement.
        Official communication reaching the family could have that power.
        The hole in the wall seemed to be not quick enough official communication.

        Barnevernet seems to fight against human rights, this time against freedom of movement. Since Brexit we know that freedom of movement is a required condition to access EU markets, so I guess Barnevernet staff work hard to block Norway’s access into EU markets?

    • Which supportteam do you mean, Knut?

      And are you referring to an action plan by Norwegian intelligence to kidnap the family from Poland?

      • Actually, that sort of happened in “the Manavgat case”. Stavanger municipality coughed up a large sum to engage a private investigator (former policeman, Ola Thune), to help get the children out of Turkey against the express orders of a Turkish court, which was going about things in a very good way, demanding that all facts were revealed properly. So the children were smuggled out together with the foster parents. The foster father was later convicted of child pornography and abuse of some other foster children. He claimed that Norway had helped them every inch of the way to get out of Turkey with the children. Norway denied being involved.
        http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=628
        http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page225/page225.html

    • Thanks for sharing Marius Reikeraas`s facebook, Knut! Did you see the video from Polish TV about Natasha, Erik and their twins? Just look at how loving and caring they are towards their children! The twins look healthy and happy.The family seem to have found good friends in Poland. The Polish people are supporting them. What an embarrassment for Barnevernet!

  38. W norweskim prawie o bv nie ma ZADNYCH SANKCJI dla pracownikow bv za zle , niesprawiedliwe traktowanie biologicznych rodzicow.Prawo nie uwzglednilo sytuacji gdy pracownik bv jest nierzetelny ,nieprofesjonalny , zlosliwy ,jest rasista , sadysta , psychopata, ma za niskI wskaznik IQ , zeby wlasciwie ocenic sytuacje. Ci ludzie moga sie wiec zachowywac arogancko , bo wiedza ze nic im nie grozi.Pracownik BV moze skierowac kazde dowolne dziecko , dowolnych ludzi , do usuniecia z biologicznej rodziny. I nic mu nie grozi.Jezeli rodzina biologiczna odbija swoje dziecko z rak BV grozi im 3 lata wiezienia.

    Knut straszy polska policje sankcjami w przypadku kiedy odmowia wskazania miejsca pobytu tej rodziny .Rozumiem ,ze Knut zada tez ,zeby polska policja sama odwiozla dzieci tej pary do granicy lub zezwolila norweskiej policji na wywiezienie tych dzieci za granice.

    Potrzebny jest interpol , bo jakis norweski wariat Knut -pracownik BV straszy polska policje sankcjami za odmowe wspolpracy oraz norweska rodzine -przebywajaca w Polsce legalnie z dziecmi do ktorych maja pelne prawa.To sa grozby karalne.
    Moim zdaniem trzeba by sprawdzic poczytalnosc tego pana , czy on jest swiadomy tego co pisze .Czy to zwyczajny wariat czy grozny przestepca swiadomy tego co pisze.

    • Tej sprawy nie znalam , ale skojarzenie mam z inna.Na cmentarzu Moholt w Trondheim na nagrobku obcokrajowca jest napis : zaszczuty na smierc

      Sprawa dotyczyla na pewno ekstremalnego mobingu w pracy . , ale nie przypominam sobie zeby byla glosna w prasie.BARE…..to byl obcokrajowiec a wiec jego smierc dla Norwegow nie byla wazna.Slowo ,, bare ,, oznacza tylko…To byl BARE (tylko ) obcokrajowiec

  39. I just wonder – how many are reading this blog? 3 online now and most around 50 – around 100 daily?

    • Do Knuta

      Sa wakacje , ale po wakacjach to frekfencja moze cie zaskoczyc.
      Nie masz zdolnosci wlasciwej oceny sytuacji.

    • Sir, just for fun I have been watching the flag counter at the end of each article. It shows where the people reading the blog come from. If you would take a look , Mr Nygaard, you will see that Norway is in the third place by number of blog readers. That number grows steadily every day.

      •   
        Yes, Norway passed Britain back in February or March, I think. Cf
        https://delightintruth.com/2016/03/04/getting-our-message-inside-norway/

        There also used to be a little program which showed the 10 most recent onliners and the location of their computers. Some just said “Norway” or “United States”, but some were very specific.
           Unfortunately, so DiT told us, it stopped functioning because Word Press updated something or other, which made it unworkable. A pity. While it was working, however, I made a note just for interest, whenever I entered DiT, of where in Norway the current “10 most recent” were, and they were from absolutely everywhere in Norway. It showed the usefulness of the internet and social media, especially when the regular press lets us down with its deficient information. Actually, I remember that one of my first arguments here on DiT was something about I thought it possible to win against Barnevernet in the Bodnariu case by spreading information on the internet, especially since it is so obvious that official Norway is dying to shut us up. Something which had impressed myself was this article:
        “The hidden news from Cologne”
        http://www.mhskanland.net/page45/page306/page306.html
        And I could see similar possibilities for exposing Barnevernet. This caught the attention of DiT:
        https://delightintruth.com/2016/02/02/social-media-has-exposed-the-norwegian-cps/
        and the rocket was launched. I was told the number of readers on DiT was a great success too.
           So we all contribute.

    • As an American married to a Norwegian and living in the beautiful Pacific Northwest, I am reading this blog. And I have already shared what I have learned with many that I know, the larger community, my Facebook friends, and soon with my Twitter followers.

      Ain’t social media great? 🙂 American ingenuity at its finest…we are very proud of our inventions and of course: You’re welcome!

  40. Mr Nygaard thinks he is being misinterpreted by me or Jasper (July 6, 2016 @ 12:06 AM):

    “I don’t know the facts in this case, but if it’s a § 12 a and d case these twins are in real danger if the parents don’t have human support from people they trust and are ready to give them real help needed 24/7. – you see the “IF” or had you forgot to take off your activist reading glasses ..”

    I had said the following:
    “What you are witnessing in what Mr Nygaard writes, is all the time that the people of Barnevernet will never revise their own diagnosis, never admit that they have been wrong from the start or in any of their arguments. They stamped Natasha with the faulty diagnosis of being mentally retarded, and regardless of what evidence comes up to show that that was wrong, regardless of who shows that it is wrong (better experts than Barnevernet), they stick to it. So Mr Nygaard considers that Natasha and Erik are helpless morons, simpletons who need others to take care of them around the clock and around the week. Therefore, he believes, the twins are in acute danger if they are left to the care of these parents. Barnevernet has stated that “that is so”, and so every BV worker repeats it. (One might seriously question who is a helpless simpleton.)”

    Mr Nygaard claims that IF the decision to take the twins has been made on the basis of 4-12 a) or d), THEN the twins are in serious danger every minute.

    Now point d) relates basically to what MAY happen in the future, so the immediate danger seems somewhat “constructed”, but never mind: let us say that points a) and d) are both intended to be applied at a possible present danger in Natasha and Erik’s case.

    The reality is: IF the decision was made on those grounds, then BARNEVERNET CLAIMS that the twins are in great danger.

    There OUGHT not to be any discrepancy between the two, it OUGHT to be so that when Barnevernet brings a case for immediate take-over to the County Committee (CC) because of immediate danger, then there IS an immediate danger. That OUGHT to be so in every such case, but granting that mistakes may be made, we should have a Barnevern which, once the children were protected, followed up by energetically investigating whether the danger had been real and within a very few days notified the CC that they had been mistaken and that the children must be given back to the parents immediately. If the system was honest and humane, there would anyway be very few such cases of mistakes in something as serious as immediate danger.

    Back to reality: MANY, probably MOST, such cases are falsehoods, as in the present case. The parents are no danger to their children, but Barnevernet had branded them, and likewise branded the grandparents as “well-meaning but simple people”, thereby forestalling the possibility that the parents could receive any necessary help from their family, going for the conclusion that Barnevernet was “the only solution”.
    (Mind you, “simple” does not mean quite the same in America as in British English and as that “simple” which is intended here. The Norwegian expression used was “enkle mennesker”, meaning something like “plain folks”, “not particularly intellectual”. It was nevertheless intended to stigmatise the grandparents too, and their answer when they heard of it: “Well, we have brought up children successfully ourselves” was not taken account of by Barnevernet, although the municipal officer had to come up with a half-baked excuse, saying that such a term had no place in an official report.)

    So, we are back with Mr Nygaard confirming what I said rather than the opposite: He BELIEVES, unquestioningly, that IF the Barnevern unit has gone to the CC with a claim based on $-12 a) or d) in Natasha and Erik’s case, then it IS a fact, unquestionably, that the children are in great danger every minute with their parents. – And that is the way Norwegian Barnevern and Norwegian police are going to continue. They possess hand-sewn blinkers and are out to save the world; among other things they are busy teaching East European countries that THIS is child protection, and “here you have money to do like we do and establish lots of jobs for social workers and psychologists in your own countries to carry it out”.

    • In many cases Barnevernet seems to try emergency care orders on children who do not require it.
      Most likely prospective adoption parents do not pay so well for the kids who really required care — as they can be pretty problematic.
      And there are much more work with those kids at the office and at interim foster homes, too.

      I see some potential motive for the practice what Marianne has mentioned. In case that was the motive, Barnevernet could look for families where they have a chance to find a pretense to remove the child and keep up the pretense. If it was the case, even russian intelligence services could learn from Barnevernet about building up and keeping pretense…

      • Jasper:
        “Barnevernet could look for families where they have a chance to find a pretense to remove the child and keep up the pretense.”

        Exactly!

        “If it was the case, even russian intelligence services could learn from Barnevernet about building up and keeping pretense…”

        Hehe, yes. Only I am not sure such a large majority of Russians are quite that simplistically trustful of their authorities? This is a major weakness with us, you see – –

  41. The major issue — above individual cases — is the high number of forced care orders and emergency orders. Even members of Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe are alerted about those high numbers. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=22505&lang=en

    The individual cases provide illustrations for the high numbers and these together look very very awful.

    What seems to be common in the individual cases is lack of due process and a culture which completely lacks correcting errors on the authority side.

    • Pracownicy Bv zachowuja sie jak panowie zycia i smierci.Maja nieograniczona wladze i duzo pieniedzy do dyspozycji.Wiedza ,ze nawet jak porwa dziecko , ktoremu nic nie zagraza – to nikt im nic nie zrobi.Bo juz sama koncepcja ,ze biologiczni rodzice sa szkodliwi dla dziecka wystarczy ,zeby dziecko z rodziny usunac.I dlatego usuneli ostatnio 40 % niemowlakow z izb porodowych.Poniewaz jak twierdza rodzice w PRZYSZLOSCI moga stanowic dla nich zagrozenie.
      Przyjmujac taka koncepcje mozna wsadzic wszystkich panow do wiezienia za gwalt poniewaz maja sprzet do gwaltow.

      No i jeszcze ta arogancja .Myslenie , ze jest ok kiedy dokumentacja jest z bledami , lub po prostu falszywa.Wazne dane sie nie zgadzaja , ktos dolaczyl kawalek z innej sprawy .Nie szkodzi , liczy sie przejeta sztuka , bo to sa pieniadze.

      A ze juz WSZYSCY patrza na nich podejrzliwie – nic nie szkodzi .Bo kto by sie tam swiatem przejmowal.

      Zastanawiam sie nad politykami.Najwyrazniej im tez coraz gorsza opinia swiata nie przeszkadza, bo tak wazne jest BV.To moze byc taka forma zastraszania spoleczenstwa.Jakies dzieci sie poswieca , po to zeby miec spoleczenstwo w garsci .Bo wszyscy sie boja i siedza cicho.Nikt glosno nie skrytykuje , bo wie ze zaraz straci dziecko.

      W piatek sa w Polsce protesty przeciwko norweskiemu bv.Czekam na efekt.Co beda pisaly gazety.

  42.   
    More “dirty dancing”:
    “Tror de skal finne rømlinger i Polen” (Believe they will find run-aways in Poland)
    http://kommunal-rapport.no/2016/07/tror-de-skal-finne-romlinger-i-polen

    The article follows up what newspapers have also done: they call the parents “rømlinger” ≈ “fun-aways”. This is standard when people flee Barnevernet, and it is intentional, it gives the impressions that those who have fled, are irresponsible children and “of course” must be found and brought back.
       “Flyktninger” = “refugees” would have been a much more suitable word.

    The parents are again threatened with up to 6 years of prison. Likewise anybody who assists them:
       “Politiet har ikke fastslått om paret har hatt hjelp til å rømme, men eventuelle hjelpere kan komme inn under bestemmelsene om medvirkning i straffeloven, ifølge Drangevåg.”
    (The police have not confirmed whether the couple have received help to run away, but possible helpers can fall under the laws about (illegal) aid (to criminal actions), according to Dramgevåg (the police officer)).

    The police furthermore say, “– Ungene har nå vært borte fra de voksne som de kjenner som foreldre, i over én måned.” (The kids have now been away from the adults whom they know as parents, for more than a month.)
       This must refer to the foster parents / interim foster parents. So our excellent police join Barnevernet in holding it to be terrible for children to be taken away from fosterers, but not terrible to be taken away from their real parents (cf the Nadia-Caspian case).

    The Norwegian police and Barnevernet act as the big saviors: “– Vi vet at de er i Polen, formodentlig nær byen Wroclaw. Vi samarbeider med polsk politi, og har inntrykk av at de tar saken seriøst ..”
    (We know they are in Poland, probably near the city of Wroclaw. We cooperate with Polish police and have the impression that they take the case seriously ..)

    It seems to be just like a pursuit of people desperately trying to flee from dictatorships all over the world.

      • Oni w tym artykule mowia ze z dziecmi jest coraz gorzej , a to nie prawda.Robia z rodzicow idiotow nie mogacych opiekowac sie swoimi dziecmi.Klamstwo .No i jeszcze ta wspolpraca z polska policja .Wcale nie jestem pewna czy do jakiejkolwiek wspolpracy doszlo ,bo norweski bv ma tak zla opinie ,ze nie sadze zeby ktos w Polsce traktowal ich powaznie.
        No i mysle ,ze ci uciekinierzy maja dobre zaplecze pomagajacych im osob w Polsce.Bo to dla nas polakow sprawa strategiczna , no i mozna ukrecic arogantom z bv nosa.Z wiadomosci ,ze pomagajacym tez groza kary co najwyzej polacy sie glosno posmieja.

    • Any news source that is worth reading should tell what authorities say and tell in a similar extent what the attorney of the family said.

      In worst case they should mention they tried to contact the attorney but could not manage it and promise to tell about what the attorney tells if contacted…

      • Kommunal Rapport only repeats what lawyer Gjøystdal has said previously:
        “Parets advokat, Astrid Gjøystdal, sier til TV2 – som har fulgt saken – at hun er usikker på om de har gjort noe straffbart, og at dette uansett har fortont seg som en nødssituasjon for dem.”
        (The couple’s lawyer, Astrid Gjøystdal, says to TV2 – which has followed the case – that she is uncertain of whether they have done anything illegal, and that this has, regardless, been interpreted as a situation of emergency for them.)

        Kommunal Rapport also asks Barnevernet’s lawyer (not the same as the lawyer of the police), Gro Enochsen, but she says that she will not comment (specifically). “– Når foreldre velger å rømme fra norsk barnevern med barna, er det veldig bekymringsfullt, sier hun på generelt grunnlag.” ( – When parents choose to run away from Norwegian child protection with the children, it is very worrying, she says, on a general basis.)

        I don’t know if the sentence about “any news source worth reading” was directed at me as criticism, Jasper. I am not exactly in any position to make official Norway do any particular thing. The Norwegian press as a whole is extremely state-subservient, as you know. In this case, hardly any papers have bothered to mention the case, and TV2 has now shut up. It might be because they just shrug their shoulders as usual at Barnevern cases, or because the police or other authorities have asked them to shut up (just a thought). Very likely the police want as much secrecy as possible while they are searching for the couple, not least so that the Polish population will not wake up properly to what is going on until they have caught Natasha and Erik and can put it across that “nobody much objects” when they demand them (and certainly the twins) extradited. I have seen some such Interpol –> catch –> arrest –> put in prison abroad –> extradite or keep them there until they soften and agree to be transported home to a criminal court case here. The children will of course be transported here at once, to their “legal custodians” = Barnevernet.
         

        • I see. I thought you might have meant that I should have found better sources.
             Actually, social media and other private sites on the internet are usually far better sources regarding Barnevernet. They have to be assessed and sometimes “interpreted”, it is true, but so do Norwegian newspaper articles on such topics; they are often quite misleading. I did see your remark to Mr Nygaard about a nameless facebook site not being a prima facie dependable info source and I agree, but newspapers are not either.

        • You have so much more experience than I with the Norwegian media, Marianne.

          However, I must slip something in here.

          The big article in the Dagbladet about Nadia and Caspian’s case is one example that I have experienced. I have found different comments about Dagbladet on the internet; one calls it a tabloid source and the other calls it a “leftest” periodical.

          Whatever the truth is regarding the leanings of the Dagbladet, I did read a translation of an article it did on Caspian’s case. I was very disappointed. The article said nothing about the main facts of the case and, perhaps worse, it seemed like a propaganda piece for Norway’s Barnevernet. I’m not even sure the editor printed what the journalist wrote. In any case, everyone I spoke to said it was not a good article. I admit that I had stronger negative feelings than most.

          My limited experience with the Norwegian press has been disappointing. After all, a true journalist should give the facts. Editorializing is fine if it is identified. So many papers today are an unhealthy mix. Sometimes one can read the front page and think they are in the editorial pages.

          The press should not be in business to pander to the status quo. The freedom of the press is supposed to be an effective tool within a democracy to shed light in dark corners.

        • Chris, I see a definite tendency in Dagbladet articles on child welfare since mid April. Less and less facts and more and more propaganda unfortunately. And they do not dare to open comments.

  43. Czytalam artykul

    m.niezalezna.pl /82771 – szokujaca historia – norweska para ucieka z dziecmi do polski sciga ich interpol

    Jest mnostwo komentarzy .Ludzie chca pomoc ekonomicznie , zakladaja petycje, domagaja sie natychmiastowego azylu , pelne poparcie.Mnostwo komentarzy , oferuja schronienie, groza politykom ,ze jak para nie dostanie azylu i pieniedzy na pobyt to na nich nie zaglosuja.No jest super !!!

    • There are some interesting comments as well, stating something like the current government could politically spit onto its own face if they let Norwegians to take the family easily. Related to the story there is a domestic political edge in Poland I guess.

  44. W Polsce juz jest glosno .Polska tych ludzi Norwegii nie odda.Wszyscy staneli za nimi murem.Wszyscy chca pomagac.

  45. Zacytuje jeden komentarz( ( z ktorym sie w pelni zgadzam ):

    Gdyby niedorozwoj umyslowy mial byc przeszkoda w posiadaniu potomstwa to Norwegowie juz dawno , dawno temu wygineliby jak DINOZAURY .Wsrod europejczykow trudno znalezc druga populacje o rownie niskim IQ.

    To jest komentarz Ewy Gilles.
    BRAWO EWA !!!!!!! Jest dokladnie tak jak mowisz.

  46. I have just read through this thread and find that Hildi, Jasper, Marianne, and Octavian all help to make Knut more transparent.

    Transparency is something that Knut doesn’t want, but his words betray him.

    I hope Knut doesn’t think that you are an organized “supportteam” of some kind. I have been watching this conversation for some time and understand that each who have commented today are doing so without “connections” to the other. It is a good conversation, however, and it seems that you are outnumbered based on content and truth, not on some effort to “gang-up.”

    It is interesting how Knut uses language to mean two things at times. It can be very difficult to understand what point he is making. I wish he would be straightforward with all of us so that we wouldn’t have to interpret “Knutspeak.”

  47. Grupa wspierajaca tych ludzi to teraz prawie cala Polska.Maja niesamowite poparcie.Nic im sie nie moze stac zlego .Do Norwegii wyjada jak sami beda chcieli .Na razie wszyscy chca zeby dostali azyl i zostali polskimi obywatelami jak szybko sie da.Poparcie jest mniej wiecej takie jakie mieli Bodnariu.
    Knut moze bic piane dalej , w koncu dadza mu jakies tabletki – moze mu pomoga.

  48. Knut wnosi zastraszanie. niegrzecznie traktuje ludzi , nie odpowiada na pytania.Nie powinno sie go traktowac powaznie.Barnevernet powinno wyslac jakiegos lepszego obronce,Ten jest do d……

  49.  
    The “best interest of the child” hasn’t been mentioned for a while, I think. It is, however, very important, because it is a kind of magic phrase which tends to win over all sorts of objections to the way Barnevernet and our police and our courts go about things. Both formal and material objections evaporate when this magic wand is waved. Because, you see, it is Barnevernet and the authorities who are the goodies and who therefore KNOW what the best interest of every child is. Parents never know this – they are just selfish and don’t understand anything. Fosterers understand, because they have been taught by Barnevernet and their psychobabblers.

    Get it now?

    So before I toddle off to a good read in bed and a restful night, I will venture a suggestion:
       Enough facts have been exposed in this and other threads on DiT by now to make it possible, I think, for readers to judge whether the Norwegian Barnevern system can reasonably be said to be totalitarian in itself, and whether all the circumstances around it, such as the lack of due process and the way of legislation and its practice, the behaviour of our press, the behaviour of municipalities, their politicians and administrators, – – whether it also might say something about Norway generally?

    Those of you who have experienced East European conditions before 1990 are perhaps best placed of all to form an opinion, if you have not already done so. Is it justified to call it “totalitarian”?
       This is not (altogether) a rhetorical question on my part.
      
    Good night, good friends. Let us pray for Natasha, Erik and their twins, and for Nadia and Caspian (cf https://chrisreimersblog.com/2016/07/06/baby-caspian-kidnapped-in-norwayupdate-6/).

    • To be a little more specific: it seems Barnevernet’s interpretation of best interests of the child are a high likelihood of Separation Anxiety Disorder, and a high likelihood of poor school results and integration into society, as foster children in general have much more poor results than the ones left in the families…

      • Z tego co ja wiem to w okresie 0 -3 lata dziecka ksztaltuje sie przywiazanie do rodzicow.Jezeli dziecko nie ma w tym czasie swojego opiekuna to w doroslym zyciu zachowuje sie jak kukulka -nie nawiazuje wiezi ze swoimi dziecmi.Nie jestem w tej dziedzinie zawodowcem , mam inne wyksztalcenie , nie pedagogiczne.Ale mielismy wsrod znajomych kobiete , ktora byla adoptowana jako dziecko.To co wyprawiala jako dorosla , rozbijajaca malzenstwa i podrzucajaca swoje dzieci partnerom oraz czeste zmiany decyzji , ktore dziecko chce sobie w koncu zostawic -bylo szokujace.Trzeba byc super ignorantem ,albo super sadysta, zeby w tym poczatkowym okresie zabierac matce dziecko ( oczywiscie matce , ktora sie dobrze dzieckiem opiekuje).

    • Good night, Marianne.

      I hope I have waited long enough that your computer is turned off and that you are already reading something interesting or are sound asleep.

      I appreciate this comment in more ways than one, but I will only go in two directions.

      1) In spite of an imperfect CPS (DHS) in America, the intent where I live is always reunification between parent and child. DHS personnel bring kids to visitations using their own vehicles (I’m sure they are reimbursed at a certain amount per mile), and mostly seem interested in the welfare or “best interest of the child.” There have been exceptions to the rule but the things happening in Norway are strangely different than in the United States.

      I have lived in the same state for 20 years, five of which were spent working in a Parenting and Pregnancy Center. I got very acquainted with the “system” of handling “abuse” cases here. In my 20 years here and in my five years at the Center, I have only heard of one case that compares to hundreds in Norway. The case to which I refer happened in my county when seven children were taken from their parents without warning. BECAUSE OF DUE PROCESS and BECAUSE OF THE OUTRAGE OF THE PEOPLE, all seven children are back with loving parents. It is the only mistake that I am aware of like it here and it has been resolved except for possible litigation against authorities. I think because the parents are Christians that they may not pursue litigation but I don’t know as this is a pretty recent case (last year)

      I suppose it is why I view Norwegian ways, when it comes to foster care, as totalitarian in nature. Even though I wasn’t in Romania when the evil government fell, I have watched videos and read a bit about Romania’s communist history.

      Only today, one of my Romanian blogging friends wrote this to me:

      “Before communism fell Christians were in fact persecuted in a more subtle form than today’s christians are being persecuted in the middle east. While some christians leaders were imprisoned and a few were killed, most christians who did not join the communist party were persecuted in other ways. They were not promoted even though they help university degrees. Their children could not attend the ‘free’ universities. In many cities, teachers would purposefully hold class on Sundays so that kids could not attend church. And of course the atheist teachers ridiculed Christianity and Christians. The communist party did not want any other allegiances other than to itself. Also, no one was allowed to leave the country, but if you were in the communist party and loyal to it, there were rare cases where people were given passports to travel. The borders of Romania were patrolled with soldiers and dogs with a shoot to kill order if anyone was spotted trying to get out of the country on foot, and some were indeed shot in the back trying to escape Even so, in the 70’s and 80’s many romanian Christians did just that, including my husband, who walked over the border with a secret map given to him and then walked on foot the entire country of Yugoslavia over to the border of Italy where he gave himself up to the italian police and asked for political asylum.
      To give a bit of an understanding, each place of work had a communist party boss and informant and it was stated after communism fell that 1 out of 3 people in Romania was a communist informant. I remember during my brief childhood there, my parents would whisper when they talked any noncommunist ideology or when they talked about the communist party, and they would whisper in our own home because of the fear of being reported. If someone reported you, the Securitate would show up at your home and question you and raid your house and ask you to give an account for every item you had in your home. And if you could not prove you bought it or could have bought it given the salary you had, they would confiscate it. As it is, they confiscated a lot of folks items, especially from farmers, they would confiscate their goods for themselves. I visited Romania the year before communism fell and when we arrived at our destination we had to register at the police station and tell them exactly which cities we were going to visit and whom we were going to visit. When we went to the international hotel which also had a shop where you could purchase american and foreign goods, there were Securitate agents everywhere hovering on the grounds, not even looking inconspicuous, it was like being in a James Bond movie… The reason we bought those goods, like coffee, and they also had american cigarettes, was because everywhere you went, you had to bribe everyone. For ex. The relative who drove us everywhere had some really awful tires that he kept having to pump and patch so we decided to buy him a set of new tires before we left. At the tire store, we had to bribe the clerk with a 2 or 3 lb bag of coffee just so she can show us the tires she had available. It was like this everywhere, including at the doctor’s or at the hospital, you had to bribe every single person in order just to be seen and then bribe them again for the procedures. One of the reasons my husband left Romania is that while in the army, serving was mandatory, he and another good friend were the only Christians in that unit. They were ridiculed day in and day out, which they accepted, but what they did not expect was the tasks and jobs they were given, the two of them would be given a task equal to what the rest of the entire unit were given. Whatever the lowliest and worst and hardest job needed to be done, that was given to the two of them and they were told the reason, because they are Christians. So, weeks after they got out of the army, they both planned out and executed their escape successfully from Romania.
      The worst part of communism was the food shortages. While Romania exported everything to other countries, there were horrible shortages. I remember my parents waking up all of us little kids at 3 or 4 am in order to ride the bus to the town single store and wait in line in the freezing cold for hours just to get a lb of sugar and or flour. If you didn’t have your kids with you, you would get much less, so parents carted off their infants, toddlers, no matter what age just to show proof that they needed a little more than a single person would need in order to get the most basic of things. And many times we would wait, only to have them shut the door and say there’s no more, and they would just keep stuff for themselves (in effect stealing it) to sell on the black market later. The shop keepers were king of those times because everyone bribed them for food which they stole from the state run stores. And I didn’t mention the fact that each factory or place of work was in fact state run, so that you could not escape the communist party anywhere. And so, their attempt at indoctrination was also everywhere because you could not escape it. Some Christians did in fact give in and secretly joined the party. I remember my father being approached when he worked as an airplane mechanic in our city of Arad, His boss loved my dad because my dad ran their airport library and they allowed him to order the books and were amazed at his knowledge of authors and writers and his boss really wanted to promote him and begged him to sign the paper that he renounces Christianity and that no one would ever have to know, the boss would bury the paper and get rid of it and say he signed it and then he could get promoted. And my dad told him he could never do such a thing… and of course he never did get promoted, but he also never compromised his faith. Interestingly, the other folks actually learned to really respect him because of it.”

      I actually view totalitarianism as worse than communism by definition. At the same time, it comes down to the power and personality of the leader(s). How much power are they given (have they been allowed to take) and how evil are they? The above view comes from a Christian, a view I also hold, however, certain evil leaders aren’t selective when it comes to those they persecute.

      Socialism and fascism are two other systems that are not as good as a democracy in my view.

      In the end, it comes down to the majority of the people and what they tolerate or are forced to tolerate if they are born into it.

      More than a few in Norway who have had their children taken were taken from their parents themselves. Their lives have been dominated by a system that has been out of line with good morals and common sense. Since they were very young when taken from their parents, they have felt helpless to fight against the system as it is all they know. Many equate it to the Nazi’s and thus, fascism. I think I would say “yes” to Marianne’s question about Norway acting totalitarian. I think it fits. I also think totalitarian and democracy ideas are fighting one other in Norway at the moment. It remains to be seen which direction Norway’s government will eventually go.

      • I forgot to put a 2) near my second direction. There are a few places it can fit. 2) can fit up near the top when the discussion of political systems begins. 🙂

  50. Pozwole sobie wyslac link do filmu o rumunskim domu dziecka z muzyka (oczywiscie ) Michala Lorenca

    You tube Bandyta – caly film lektor .pl

    A jesli chodzi o totalitaryzm to polecam eseje Havla

    Sila bezsilnych – Vaclav Havel

    Przeczytalam o podrozy , ktora musi odbyc Nadia do swojego dziecka.1 -godzina autobusem .. nastepnie 1 – godzina samolotem … i jeszcze 1 – godzina autobusem.
    Chyba cos napisze specjalnego dla BV za ta podroz.Za tydzien mam urlop , to bedzie troche wiecej czasu.
    Jasnie wielmozny BV wezwal Nadie na rozmowe.Ciekawe co sie stalo ?Zdecydowali sie . ze moze zobaczyc swoje dziecko.Laskawcy (litera l musi miec daszek na poczatku , mam nie polskie litery)
    Torturowanie rodzicow podroza, nie mowiac o kosztach.Sadysci z BV ze swiatowych wyzyn swojej arogancji pozwola matce zobaczyc sie z dzieckiem.

  51. Gdyby ktos nie chcial obejrzec filmu , moze posluchac muzyki

    You tube Michal Lorenc muzyka z fimu Bandyta 1997 ( caly album)

    z komentarzy do muzyki
    Pan Michal Dutkiewicz napisal:

    Kiedys slyszalem ,ze zycie to nie kino , nie mozesz wyjsc kiedy ci sie znudzi , ale po czesci jest jak film – trzeba sie postarac o role dobrego czlowieka….wszystko zalezy od nas samych

    • Maybe she was exaggerating a bit, but it seems clear that rebuilding confidence without the deep involvement of the initiators of the concern letter is not likely to work out at all.

    • They are bound by the Schengen treaty.

      https://www.politi.no/om_politiet/internasjonalt_samarbeid/schengen_samarbeidet/

      I think Poland as the other 25 member countries take this treaty seriously.

      Hmmm… while we are waiting for something to happen in the summer breeze of 2016 – Europa is in a serious situation – the Christian faith is no longer alive in the hearts and countries – islam is among us….

      This movie from 2015 give us a considerations of where faith has gone out of the nation thinking and the hearts of most of the inhabitants of Europe – I mean the faith in the Living God – not a wallpaper God – this movie takes us back to September 11th 1683 and Vienna – and I didn’t know that Poland had such a great part in this dramatic hour – neither that 2 monks had such a great part as messenger in a time they believed in the Living God.

      • Bound by Schengen to do what?
        I think they have to bring the case to a court and the court is not bound by police or administration bodies, just like Norwegian courts are not bound by them either.

        • There are no witch scene in this movie, but the parents are wanted by the police after the Criminal law – if they are wanted tooo according to the child welfare act § 4-31 their lawyer is – of cause – doubtful about – that’s her job as a lawyer for the parents.

        • The lawyer said the family has not been informed that there is a proceeding at the County Board.
          In case the lawyer was right about it, nullum crimem sine culpa is to be applied.

        • European Convention for Human Rights is in force in Poland since 1993.
          This treaty should be enough to question fairness of procedure (Article 6) and necessity of care order (Article 8) and Polish judges being obligued to deal with these questions (due to Article 13).

      • The freedom of this family may well be a result of a battle between lawyers in the end, Knut.

        I don’t know this “Schengen treaty” or all of its ramifications well at all. I have made a translation using Google translate and found information about the “treaty” found on the internet.

        “To compensate for the loss of border checks at internal borders, it established a set of so-called ‘compensatory measures’, which aims to prevent and combat organized and transnational crime.”

        If this is the main legal statement in the Schengen treaty, how does it fit this case?

        What have I missed, Knut? How will the Schengen treaty apply in this case?

        • As far as I know there is a general obligation of cooperation.

          However, it is not only a Norwegian authorities vs. Polish authorities case. As soon as Polish authorities start to coopearate with Norwegian counterparts it is a Polish authorities vs. human beings case, with all human rights implications, and then Polish authorities are immeadiately bound by Polish and international law — for example on domestic legal remedies against their actions.

        • If the Polish are bound by international law, Jasper, it seems that this family has a good chance of staying in Poland. Please correct me if I am wrong.

          Also, I’m curious about something.

          Has Poland given up much of its national sovereignty to be bound by international law?

  52. Knut you forgot that the family has legal remedy options. As they are on Polish soil they have legal remedies against Norway’s request at Polish courts — European Convention for Human Rights applies in Poland as well.
    In case the family wants to stay in Poland, Norwegian authorities may not bypass Polish courts.

    The first question will be if accusations are grounded enough for an extradition at all.
    And at that point the comments from the lawyer of the family will be relevant. The question will be if there was any non-expired care order related decisions that the family had known about. Without such a knowledge the alleged crime could not be committed, and the Polish jugde(s) should let the family stay.
    Just like in football: the first to move was OK, and who moved second made a foul.
    The question is if the family has moved first or Barnevernet noticed them first. Pretty easy to determine from the documents available.

    Especially about the babies: the babies was likely to be not under the scope of Norwegian Child Welfare Act any more on non-Norwegian soil when the last care order has been issued — hence likely not subjects to the Norwegian law any more — and if there was no crime committed there is no reason for Poland to do anything.

  53. Przeciez w Polsce barnevernet ma opinie Gestapo i wszyscy wiedza ,ze trzeba im pomoc.Jest duze zainteresowanie sprawa, ludzie oferuja pomoc mieszkaniowa , pieniezna, planuja postulat o jak najszybszym zalatwieniu sprawy ,Nikt ich nie wyrzuci.Maja tez na pewno ochrone , bo my wiemy o innych porwaniach .Wszystko jest OK.

  54.   
    If anyone thinks that after the Bodnariu case Norwegian Barnevern and the Ministry have understood that they should change something, he should read Norwegian newspapers every day. The mood is undisturbed. They are going ahead with more jobs, more of everything ….

    Earlier this year the Minister of Children and Equality wrote a letter to the municipalities reminding them of their responsibility of having sufficient resoures on standby for giving help out of office hours and in holidays.

    Here is the Governor of Sogn og Fjordane County (the state’s top representative in a county), where the municipality of Naustdal is situated:
    https://www.fylkesmannen.no/Sogn-og-Fjordane/Om-oss/
    She responded to the Minister’s earlier letter by asking the Minister to specify exactly the contents of this responsibility.

    The answer comes from Bufdir, and in lots of words and paragraphs says that all children in Norway must be helped whenever immediate intervention is needed because conditions in the home may be to their disadvantage.
    https://www.fylkesmannen.no/Sogn-og-Fjordane/Barn-og-foreldre/Barnevern/Akuttberedskap-i-kommunalt-barnevern/
    https://www.fylkesmannen.no/PageFiles/831240/Brev%20frå%20Bufdir%2011.06.2016.pdf

    That is business as usual, and what they “did” in the Bodnariu case. And that is the way municipalities are going to continue.
      

    • You have written things like this before, Marianne, but it is worded differently this time. This is, I would guess, the viewpoint of the typical Norwegian who is paying any attention at all. For someone like you, it sticks out like a huge black fungus attached to a whitish background.

      Since you are living there, this is important information for those of us who are living outside of Norwegian culture and particularly for those of us across an ocean. I have not been away from work in a Child Welfare job for long. During the past several years when there have been large decreases in numbers of children taken from homes in Norway, there has been no change that I notice in America. Emergency removals here are rare compared to the percentages in Norway.

      It is sad information, Marianne. Yet, it must be acknowledged. Hiding from the problem will help no one. Being aware of the problem may still help no one, but an attempt should be made to correct human rights violations no matter where they occur.

      Decreasing the number of biological parent/child relationships will only hurt any society. Children are our best natural resource. They are a gift from God to their parents. No governmental agency on the planet should be allowed to take children from deserving parents. Despite the undisturbed mood, the effort to change the philosophy in Norway must continue. I know I’m “preaching to the choir” here, Marianne. But maybe someone new will stumble on this conversation and have an eye or two opened a bit. No time is wasted time if one tries to help others.

      • Chris:
        Simple misprint here: “large decreases in numbers of children taken from homes in Norway” – – increases!

        “Being aware of the problem may still help no one” – –
        Perhaps not directly, at that moment. But knowledge, insight, is the first necessary building block towards change, surely!

  55. Hi Marianne,

    It is a glaring mistake. It should be “increases” indeed. My brain must have been in reverse for a second. I am so glad you noticed it.

    “Being aware of the problem may still help no one” – –

    Perhaps not directly, at that moment. But knowledge, insight, is the first necessary building block towards change, surely!

    Your comment reminds me of a popular Christmas children’s classic with a song that starts: “Put one foot in front of the other…” It ends with: “and soon you’ll be walking out the door.”

    “the first necessary building block towards change, surely!”

    Indeed, these are necessary and I, for one, appreciate all you have done to lay a foundation. It is there for all to see. Some may choose to look away but that is their choice. You have made the better choice. 🙂

  56. Moj komentarz nie przeszedl.Mam ostatnio spore problemy z internetem .Przypadkowo oczywiscie.No to pisze jeszcze raz

    Znalazlam w polskiej prasie wytlumaczenie diagnozy i interpretacji tej diagnozy przez bv.
    Byl donos na 13 letnia dziewczynke.Byla nadpobudliwa , szalejaca nastolatka.Psycholog Barnevernet , ktory odwiedzil jej dom wysnul wniosek , ze jest ROZTRZEPANA I NIESKONCENTROWANA bo miala BALAGAN w pokoju.Na tej podstawie wysnul wniosek , ze ma niedorozwoj umyslowy.Kod diagnozy F 79.1 – niesprecyzowany niedorozwoj wraz ze znacznymi problemami z zachowaniem.Lekarz dolaczyl mkomentarz -testy zdolnosci umyslowych mieszcza sie ZDECYDOWANIE W GRANICACH NORMY.

    Mozecie zobaczyc w norweskiej tv komentarz tej sprawy ( przed ucieczka )

    http://www.tv2.no/v/1054124

    Rodzicom postawiono w Norwegii zarzut wykroczenia § 216 norweskiego kodeksu karnego mowiacego obezprawnym odebraniu prawa opieki nad maloletnim.Jest to sprawa o uprowadzenie dzieci.Adwokat tej pary twierdzi ,ze w chwili ucieczki mieli faktyczne prawo do sprawowania opieki nad swoimi dziecmi.Ich sytuacja byla alarmowa, uciekli ,bo nie mieliinnego wyboru.

    Kobiecie zrobiono 2 inne testy psychologiczne . oba wykazaly zdolnosci umyslowe w granicach normy .Ta kobieta jest normalna.

    Moj komentarz : KARAKTERDRAP .Ta 13 letnia dziewczynka byla normalna , stwierdzil to lekarz.To barnevernet na podstawie je balaganu w pokoju i ( moze ) wiekszemu temperamentowi uznal , ze jest niedorozwinieta umyslowo.

    O sprawie w norweskich mediach panuje cisza.Henryk Malinowski tak pisze o Norwegach w polskiej prasie:W Norwegii panuje znieczulica i otepienie, brak reakcjiludzi.Odbieranych jest tak duzo dzieci ,ze ich losem nikt sie nie przejmuje.

    W Polsce juz jest glosno o tej sprawie .Ludzie wykazali pelna solidarnosc.Jest duzo komentarzy .Ludzie deklaruja pomoc , domagaja sie jak najszybszego zalatwienia azylu dla norweskiej pary rodzicow.

  57. Jeszcze raz , muzyka z filmu The Piano ( Fortepian )

    You tube The piano beach scene -The Heart Asks Pleasure First

  58. I jeszcze jedna sprawa.
    Adwokat tych uciekinierow twierdzi ,ze ludzie ci mieli prawa do dzieci w chwili ucieczki.

    Adwoaet BV na to samo pytanie zaslania sie tajemnica i nie odpowieda.Manipulacja , sugeruje , ze nie moze powiedziac .Czyli wie ,ze uciekinierzy mieli w chwili ucieczki prawa do dzieci.Nikt im w tym czasie tych praw nie zabral , tylko adwokat bv nie chce sie do tego przyzanc.

    To jest ,,sprawa o nieposluszenstwo,,.Norwegowie okazali sie nieposluszni i nie zaczekali na werdykt zabierajacy im prawo do wlasnych dzieci.

    Ciekawa jestem opinii Interpolu.Co oni mysla o kierowaniu do nich spraw o nieposluszenstwo obywateli jakiegos panstwa.Moim zdaniem policja i bv wprowadza Interpol w blad.Ciekawa jestem jaka jest kara za wprowadzanie w blad Interpolu.I czyje zdjecia tam wisza
    – pracownikow bv , ktorzy zostawiali dzieci w rekach pedofili
    -policjantow , ktorzy wiedzac o seksualnym wykorzystywaniu dzieci w instytucjach bv zabieraja dzieci biologicznym rodzicom i dostarczaja te dzieci do instytucji bv
    -politykow , ktorzy to toleruja ( ciekawe ktore zdjecie Pani Horne wybrali -to po torcie , czy to bez tortu )

  59. I’m not full of knowledge about international law and the Haag convention, but I read on my translation from a polish news side that these parents ( Erik is the father?) should have planned their escape better – if it is an escape and not just a holiday with considerations of living in Poland.

    They are referred to as partners – a naming that attracts polish considerations – they have the same name – are they brother and sister – same name? – married? – they both are named Myra Olsen in Poland.

    If they are runaways they should have gone underground – no trace given to anybody – for a year – as I read this paper the Haag convention give Norway and the Norwegian authorities a year to deal with this situation when it’s about abduction of children. I read this to be – the international warrent given lasts for a year and after that the family can come out of hide and try to get Poland to give them shelter and a future

    The paper also tell that Poland have many germans and austians in the same situation – running away from the Jugendamt.

    Poland is a county that is sceptical to foreigners – and so are the comments given.

    • I found the link – in Norwegian that states what is commented above –
      https://www.regjeringen.no/no/sub/barnebortforing/om-internasjonal-barnebortforing/landoversikt/til-konvensjonsland–haagkonvensjonen/id733000/

      It’s just like the Child Welfare Act used in the opposite direction:
      Tilbakelevering kan unnlates dersom en av de følgende betingelser foreligger:

      foreldreansvaret ble ikke utøvet på bortføringstidspunktet, eller søkeren har senere godtatt bortføringen/tilbakeholdelsen i ord eller handling

      det har gått mer enn ett år fra bortføringen/tilbakeholdelsen fant sted til søknad om tilbakelevering, og barnet har funnet seg til rette i den nye oppholdsstaten ( a year has passed since the abduction and the warrant was given and the child has been accustomed to it’s new situation in the new country)

      det er en alvorlig risiko for at tilbakelevering vil påføre barnet fysisk eller psykisk skade

      barnet motsetter seg tilbakelevering og har oppnådd en alder og modenhetsgrad som gjør at det er naturlig å ta hensyn til barnets mening

    • Knut, is it really abduction of children?
      If the care order came first it could be, I guess this is your assumption so far.

      However if the family moved first without committing a crime, it is not an abduction and the children were simply not under the territorial scope of Norwegian law any more. Plus the care order is first instance only and the family can have legal remedy against it via their lawyer.

      Plus: even if the care order came first, it could violate ECHR and it might be invalid.

      So lots of international treaties around, and the case is surely not as easy as you see, and the assumptions have to be proven first.

    • My summary is:
      1.Norwegian authorities can force (by international treaties) Polish authorities to make steps.
      2. But for any steps done by Polish authorities, the family has the right for domestic legal remedies in Poland.
      3. especially transfer to Norway is not possible without court decisions in Poland.
      4. Polish courts will not have an easy job as it is a pretty complicated case, and the verdicts of the Polish courts cannot be easily foretold. Any small details could make a huge impact on the final verdict.

    • I would say the major question is if the care order was valid, or for some reason not valid. In the second case, even Polish courts can declare it null and void, and then there is no more criminal case and no more abduction case either.

  60. Jaspis juz to wrzucil.

    Chris – ja bede pisac po polsku.Jezeli nie chcecie tu tekstow po polsku – to zawsze mozecie wcisnac klawisz – skasuj.Ale prosze nie wypowiadaj sie negatywnie o moich tekstach zanim nie przeczytasz ich – dobrze przetlumaczonych na angielski.Wtedy mozesz byc zaskoczony.Poszukiwales kiedys materialow akademickich.Twoim zdaniem to jedynie wiarygodne.Moim zdaniem – nieaktualne.Swiat zmienia sie tak szybko , ze wole czytac reportaze.Duzo lepiej oddaja wiedze o swiecie.Akademicki , zazwyczaj jest konserwatywny i raczej aktualny ,, na wczoraj ,,Sa rowniez dziedziny wiedzy ktore nie maja odbicia w szkolnictwie , nie mozna tego studiowac na uczelniach Mam wlasnie taka specyficzna wiedze.Wypracowalam ja sama sie uczac przez wiele lat.Szkol w tej dziedzinie brak.

  61. Ex-lawyer Marius Reikerås is in Poland just now and he showed us a picture of himself together with Natacha and Erik – and the polish private detective Rutkowsi – all this as a pr. stunt and ammunition aganist Norway, Norwegians and the CPS – it must be hard for the two to find out that they are just propaganda ammunition.

    I think the police should talk to Reikerås as soon as possible.

    • No Kunt, Barnevernet is not Norway, it is organised crime group, so no surprise they hired a private detective to help them escape from mafia.
      You are one sick individual.

    • I haven’t heard of any wrongdoing by Reikeras.
      And about the couple — most likely they have a pending asylum request which cause all other proceedings to wait for the asylum decision.
      Polish seem to have a good sense of justice, warm hearts and also a good sense of sarcastic humour. I really appreciate that!

      • Oszalales ! Jaka ekstradycja , tam wyrok juz zapadl i wydali ten wyrok ludzie .Oni zostaja w Polsce.

        Ale ja chyba odkrylam , dlaczego ta 13 latka miala balagan w pokoju .Bo to bylo tak……

        Cyndi Lauper – Girls Just Want To Have Fun ( official video)

    • You forgot about for every steps Polish authorities take — that Norwegian authorities force them — the Myra Olsen family has the right for legal remedies in Poland, taking the case into Polish courts.

      In general courts are not bound by police or administrative body decisions, but they are supervising them. And they can request and scrutinize all details of those decisions under supervision.

      Your reasoning fails due to Article 13 of European Convention for Human Rights. Practically you defy human rights with your comments.
      Topsy, I think you should propose Norway to quit the European Convention for Human Rights.

      • Jasper:
        “… the Myra Olsen family has the right for legal remedies in Poland, taking the case into Polish courts.”
           If it becomes a case of speedy extradition and Poland is not enough, or not firm enough, to stave Norway off, then in that situation the European Court of Human Rights might also be a possibility. They do have an emergency procedure, for taking cases up immediately.

        Jasper:
        “Topsy, I think you should propose Norway to quit the European Convention for Human Rights.”
           That would be tantamount to leaving the Council of Europe, and there are two “interesting” factors to note in that connection:
           One is that Norway’s Barnevern is already under investigation by the Council of Europe on account of its child protection procedures:
        “A very important report is coming from the Council of Europe”
        http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=7801

        The other is that guess who is Secretary General of the Council of Europe at the moment? Right you are, a Norwegian:
        “Torbjørn Jagland”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorbjørn_Jagland
        (Note what he has been awarded the French title as commander of the Legion of Honour for!)

        Norway will never leave the CofE voluntarily and I doubt whether they would be forced out. But the Council might stigmatise Norway considerably. Even preparing preliminarily such a report is a signal. Anthing like that, and likewise if a Norwegian couple is given asylym in Poland to protect their children from Norwegian ravages, it will add up and, hopefully, in the end make other nations wake up and understand that if Norwegian refugees arrive on their doorstep with children, then what such parents can relate may be TRUE and that the official Norwegian version NOT !
         

        • Marianne:

          1. I do not understand why legal renedies againnst emergency care orders cannot use the same speedy way to ECHR as extraditions.

          I have found 2 motions at PACE in the forum link.

          2a. for the first one from 2015, I have seen so far only a draft report yet, however draft resolutions made — after minor changes — to actual resolution with unanimous vote in PACE: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21737&lang=en
          (See related documents allow seeing votes and to see the draft report as well)

          2b. the even more interesting is the news article. The motion can be found here: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=22505&lang=en

          I would like to emphasize that this motion is mentioning the Bodnariu case as an example only:

          “But in some cases the best interests of the child principle is interpreted in an abusive and disproportionate manner leading to the children’s removal from their families. In this respect it is worth mentioning the case of Marius and Ruth Bodnariu, […]”

          it also expresses concern about Barnevernet’s practice in general as well:
          “The significant number of cases of removal of children from their families – in 2013 out of about 53 000 cases approximately 9000 led to removal of children is a fact that indicates a systemic problem of Norwegian social services that are dealing with the children welfare […]”

  62. Czesc Topsy ! Jak milo uslyszec , ze Pan Rutkowski jest znowu w akcji.Bardzo sie ciesze.Lato zapowiada sie ciekawie.Nawet dobra pogoda nie bedzie potrzebna.I pan Reikerås z odwiedzinami w Polsce . Witamy , czujemy sie zaszczyceni pana obecnoscia.Bardzo sie ciesze .Na pewno polska policja sie z nim spotka , on ma tak duzo informacji o barnevernet , ze taki czlowiek to dla nich skarb.Bardzo dobre wiadomosci.

        • Zwrot grzecznosciowy – najlepsza forma zrozumienia polakow i sytucji jest przyjazd do Polski.A wiec witamy w Polsce ,wszystkich ktorzy chca nas poznac.Zawsze to lepiej odwiedzic kraj i ludzi w nim mieszkajacych niz wyrokowac o nim z pozycji wlasnej ignorancji .Topsy nie jest moze najgrzeczniejsza osoba ,ale jest szansa na zmiany po przyjezdzie do Polski i poznaniu polakow.Regula tu jest niedocenianie polakow oraz polskich towarow.Ta slynna norweska arogancja.Ocenianie innych jako gorszych na bazie niewiedzy , przesadow , wlasnego zadufania.
          Fajnie by bylo zmienic Topsy w kulturalna osobe.Moze to jest mozliwe.

        • Jaspis ja jestem bylym agentem ubezpieczeniowym ,to na ogol mili ludzie.nawet jesli ktos mily w stosunku do nich nie jest.Musisz tolerowac rozne zachowania.Nie mam zwyczaju byc niegrzeczna ,arogancka w stosunku do innych .Nie urodzilam sie tutaj ,mnie uczono czegos innego.Zly sposob traktowania innych wzmaga tylko agresje .
          Oczywiscie pozostaje pytanie z kim rozmawiamy ? z maszynami ?Nie wiem – to jest internet , mozliwe jest wszystko.To by bylo nawet ciekawe .kulturalne traktowanie automatu.Czy automat ma prawo do bycia traktowany dobrze?

      •   
        Excellent news from Mr Nygaard here, he is becoming extra useful, albeit probably unintentionally. The first link goes to pictures which obviously come from Poland, showing that there has indeed been a demonstration in Warsaw yesterday!

        The other is to an article google-transated into Norwegian. It is quite understandable and has useful pieces of information:
           As regards the past: Natasha is herself adopted (or is “fosterchild” intended?). It says that the reason why she was stamped with a “retarded” diagnosis was that the family tried to get some extra money for education because Natasha had “behavioral problems”, and a diagnosis is needed to release monetary help.
           As regards now: “På fredag, før den norske ambassaden i Warszawa vil være vert for picket mot handlingene til norsk Barnevernetu.” confirms either that a demonstration was intended to take place yesterday (Friday), or else it says that it had taken place. Literally translated it says: “On Friday, before the Norwegian embassy in Warsaw, will be host / place for picket against the actions of the Norwegian Barnevernet.”
          

        • Conclusion: Barnevernet thinks it is in best interest of children to have an increased probability to get retarded?

        • And another conclusion: how the best could be for a child to be grown up in a foster family that even does not tell about such a diagnosis when the child grows up.
          This whole system is sick, and now I am thinking about adding suspicion of money-laundering on the list…

      • Knut, you forgot about a few things:
        1. Poland is a sovereign country and not a colony of Norway.
        2. As far as reported, there is a pending asylum request. Until the asylum request is judged, the family is to be treated as refugees due to Norway violating their human rights.

        As far as I see Poland os reacting completely legal — Norway’s requests should stay be pending until asylum request is judged.

        • Jaspis – podejrzenie o pranie brudnych pieniedzy ? Dlaczego tak myslisz.
          ?Mozesz mi to wyjasnic ?

        • Paying out extra compensation for a child told to be retarded who is not is a very very good way to pay for something that was otherwise illegal…

          I have no evidence at all… however if Octavian is right about a mafia taking over public authorities in Norway this would be something very very logical.

        • Jaspis jezeli barnevernet wysyla po dzieci swoich pracownikow z policjantami….Jezeli ci policjanci wiedza o przypadkach wykorzystywania dzieci w instytucjach barnevernet a mimo to zabieraja dzieci z domow biologicznych rodzicow i oddaja je do rak barnevernet…oraz jezeli dziennikarze o tym milcza ..a politycy nie reaguja …to mamy przypadek groznej mafii.Tylko dlaczego Norwegowie nie reaguja.Nie wiedza ?A gdyby wiedzieli to by zareagowali , czy tez nie ?.czy to jest powszechna zgoda na poswiecenie jakiejs grupy dzieci ,zeby inne mogly spokojnie zyc ?Taki spoleczny straszak , proba zdyscyplinowania spoleczenstwa poprzez poswiecenie jakiejs grupy osob?Ja nie wiem dlaczego to jeszcze trwa., nie rozumiem.I jak mozliwe bylo doprowadzenie do takiej cenzury.Ja tej sytuacji nie rozumiem

        • That’s Natacha and Erik’s own explanation. You live in …. Sweden, Jasper .. or? Sometimes it’s useful to know a little about the reality you live in.

          Natacha is most likely diagnosed as moderate mentally retarded. That diagnose gave her resources both in school and in the leisure time. My experience is that it’s not easy for a child to grow up with an outer image like evertybody else, but lack in the cognitive – f.i. understanding time and money. They use much efforts to hide their shortcomings and to blend in with the crowd. They know very well the limits and try to avoid to be disclosed. For some this will be a life outside looking in – on welfare.

        • I think Knut is so cold because he himself grew up in foster home, I heard, and perhaps has bitterness in his heart against his parents. He always paint a negative picture in describing parents, in the cases he discusses.

        • Knut, you are arguing with a doctor’s pretty fresh diagnosis on the basis of an about decade old diagnosis that have nobody double-checked.
          I guess you are not a doctor yourself and I guess you have not met Natasha in person at all, especially not for medical investigations.

          So I consider your allegations as over-speculative, lacking any reasonable observational basis or known facts around.

          Due to the nature of your comments on tracking down people I am not giving my consent on your handling my personal data about my whereabouts.

        • If Natacha was diagnosed a moderate mentally retarded in her early childhood and a doctor thinks different today that might be right. As I said in the comment earlier on this matter this kids and now young adults are masters of hiding their shortcomings. I think you must live close to them and observe what they are sure about and what they need an advisor or mentor to manage. I have noticed that the internet is a helpful tool especially for these because it give them an impression of distance – it’s not that harmful if they get disposed. If they are lucky they have one or two good friends that give them the information they need to cope with the situation or the day – someone that translates the details so they get the understanding of the context. Alone they are more in danger than others – they can’t read the situation and often rely one someone that exploit them f.i. sexually or with their finances.

          You’re paranoid, Jasper? I don’t have your last name – I don’t know if your name is Jasper at all- it will help me to understand what you are supposed to know – or not – f.i. if you live in Scandinavia or in Australia – but to be somehow afraid of giving that information to me – a CPS is Norway – you have to live in … Norway.

          I have never been in a fosterhome, Trine – I was adopted – and that is a great difference.

        • Knut, you are still stucking to allegations without any observational basis. You seem to claim to know better than the doctor, but you have pretty nothing behind your claims.

          I would say it is far more likely that Natasha got either fully recovered (if we stick to the documents, this is the right explanation) or it is far more likely that the old diagnosis was false than the fresh one as you can still go to the doctor with the fresh diagnosis and the doctor should remember Natasha.

          Your version is nothing more than a conspiration theory without evidence.

        • Knut, I can tell you that I have only visited Norway for one day, as a child and am living in another country.

          Respect my privacy, please.

        • Ok, knut, so you’re saying that because you’re adopted, it’s not supposed to explain why you judge other parents/ clients, like Nadia, Natasha and Ruth just to mention the last discussions we had..
          To me it seems like you systematically underestimate (mothers) their ability to provide good enough care for their children and their daily functioning is too much dangerous for their children..
          And when others question your reasons/ knowledge/ insight, you have endless of “good reasons” to storm into a family home with police and remove these children from their loving mothers, or even better in barnevernets eyes: snatch them away at birth, or other removal measures, which you’ve mistaken by “help measures”, and all this social control you describe in warm terms, but with a frightening cold heart and no empathy ?? How come you hate women/ mothers/ female clients so much?

        • Some adopted kids develop a hate against women because they were abandoned by their own mother. If they ever get in the position to revenge their feelings by taking kids from any mother, they do, more or less conciently, while they at the same time feel good about it. They are nurturing their own ego by projecting their own deficit social ego to others in their work (and ofc outside work as well).

          Anyone feel guilty here?

        • Forgot to take your pills today, Trine. Your comments and your assumptions are dreadful today – behave and read the comments – me as a person is not interesting.

        • K. N, yet another example of woman/mother’s issues/ hate?
          I have taken my a, b, c, vitamins today, and cod liver oil, what kind of pills were you thinking that I should take in addition to these, doc?

          I ask you politely for the third time:
          Do you have any example/ statistics that barnevernet are not going after rich parents to steal their children, and if barnevernet do, do you have examples/ statistics on rich parents loose in court against barnefjernet??

          Otherwise, I will remind you of what I was talking about, before you insulted me in front of thousands. You said you personally had are of no interest, put insulting mothers who’s had their share of hurt in life – ifrom your employer & ideology is supposed to be factual?

          To me it seems like you and the Norwegian authorities systematically insult and underestimate (Natasha and Nadia for example) the not rich mothers; producing lies about their assumably disability to provide good enough love & care for their children, and you blindly believe in the systems rights to prejudge mothers functioning as too dangerous for their children..

        • And if you read my comments you find that I have answered you two times as best I can. And I work in barnevernet – if you want me to comment you- please behave and don’t use your activist language. We both know that the public service do help children and their parents – that the service is necessary.

          It’s the childs situation that is interesting and the one that this public service has the focus on. We are there for everyone in the municipality.

        • I didn’t know you had a so low level for commenting, Skorstad – have you nothing else to comment than your thinking of me as a person? If this had been a real blog with a moderator your comments would be taken away. My thoughts about you as an activist that stick to the known facts are completely gone – you are a waste like much of the other, You don’t have anything else to say than attacking me as a person?

        •   
          Mr Nygaard: “And I work in barnevernet – if you want me to comment you- please behave and don’t use your activist language. We both know that the public service do help children and their parents – that the service is necessary.”

          I think we are seeing revealed here an example of how Mr Nygaard is used to talk “down” to others in his work. No doubt Mr Nygaard is used to throwing his weight about, towards people who are helpless to put him in his place because they are in Barnevernet’s power.

          In the light of how Mr Nygaard both addresses people on this website and characterises them, and has done from time to time for several months, I think he should be among the last to command others to “behave”. It sounds like a threat and a bossy way to decide over a website which is not his own.

        • No, you don’t see an example of any conduct in that direction you and others try to indicate when you have nothing else to comment that to try to do a psychoanalysis of me. That’s over my limit for comment behaviour. Jasper f.i. has made his limit to be “not all be recognizable as an indiviudal” – mine go with the psykoanalysis conducted by activists.

        • “..Knut Nygaard. JULY 11, 2016 @ 3:19 AM. I didn’t know you had a so low level for commenting, Skorstad – have you nothing else to comment than your thinking of me as a person? If this had been a real blog with a moderator your comments would be taken away. My thoughts about you as an activist that stick to the known facts are completely gone – you are a waste like much of the other, You don’t have anything else to say than attacking me as a person?”

          Great point Nygaard! Thank you very much. It hurts when somebody attacs you, psychoanalyse you, write wrong things about you, intentionally tries to push you over the edge, writes lies about you in order to built up a case against you to take the apple of your eye, even you have not broken the law. Barnevernet have such a low level of “help measures”, and know nothing else to comment than lies and accusations about poor parents in my country. My thoughts about barnevernet as helpers are gone many years ago, bv is a waste. All they do is attacking parents and their lack of parental abilities in your eyes.

          It breaks my heart to read these stories, not only the babies I’m really worried about (stolen by police and barnefjern, put in strangers arms, many of them coldhearted and pedofiles) but indeed I also worry about their parents, as I know how bad cps in Norway is, how bad they will mess with mothers – this way they have made me an activist, your words..knuta

        • Knut, if you felt guilty of my psycho-analysis, then you have a problem – not me. Then you get to know how barnevernet attack parent, like you shouldn’t know that already.

          Sorry if my post insulted you, but it was, yeah, intended. 🙂

          You have written so much crap, so it was indeed time to set you in place.

        • I know I take a big risk explaining my opinions about Norway, Norwegians and the CPS as a whole in over 700 comments on this activist blog. I have only seen around seven comments made by you, Skorstad – and one gave me hope of a man that had understood that you must talk with the CPS to have a chance to make impact – then I lost you – and the rest is the usual from that source – not useful to anything. This movement still lack an agenda with a context other than removing the CPS and I know why – you don’t know what the alternative should be and if some of you have a private thought you dare not to say it out load in fear of loosing your position in the movement for something else no one knows what is.

          I think we are doing a great job – much better that the USA. We don’t let the children at risk grow up to be longtime inmates – taken away for years and barred in from the day they became young grown ups. We interfer and try to alter a negative course at an early stage.

        • Knut, the problem I have with you, together with most employees of barnevernet is that you lack the ability to see the case from our side. There is a diagnosis for such deficiency. People that don’t work in barnevernet have an exuce to not understand, because they don’t know. You, on the other hand, have no excuse.

          You write:

          “I think we are doing a great job – much better that the USA. We don’t let the children at risk grow up to be longtime inmates – taken away for years and barred in from the day they became young grown ups. We interfer and try to alter a negative course at an early stage.”

          By this statement, you acknowledge that you are willing to put away kids “at risk”. Can you elaborate on what you mean with “at risk”? I would like to compare it with what the law says….be honest now 🙂

          I understand that you actually believe in what you say. And that gives you some point, even if we don’t agree. And, ofc, it’s wrong to hang you out with personal attacks, even if it wasn’t really meant so. Why do you think so many employees of barnevernet quit their job?

          To say this another way, how do we try to explain our side of the story about barnevernet if the listener is not capable or willing to understand?

          When you “interrogate” a family to find their weaknesses so you can save their kids from the “risk”, how do you portray them in your dokuments? Are you not writing about all the weaknesses you have found about them and use it as a momentum in the case, is it §4-6 or §4-12? Do they respond to you claiming that you are attacking them with personal insults? That you are accentuating their negative sides in order to get enough elements in order to justify taking their kids? Do you follow the law, that states that you are suppose to be objective and also accentuate the parents good sides?

          The problem is that barnevernet do 2 basic things wrong all over the line, making it a system failure.

          1. They have intensified there “help” by lowering the level for interfering in families lives, thereby breaking the Human rights.
          2. They have a way too low level for activating a §4-6 and §4-12 decision.

          This has resulted in too many kids in foster homes that shouldn’t be there.

          If you help 100 kids at home and take 1 kid wrongfully, you must understand that you’re doing something wrong. The usual thinking among employees of barnevernet is that it’s better to take 10 kids and save 1, even if the 9 others are wrongfully taken, than not take any at all and let that poor kid suffer. Don’t you agree that this is true?

          I’m talking from personal experience. Not all employees at barnevernet are bad. But my focal is those bad apples, because they don’t belong there. They ruin many families. And I’m fighting to make it happen so they are taken away and never get the ability to work in barnevernet again.

          At last, I will acknowledge that in some cases, but not all, it is to the parents advantage to cooperate with barnevernet. But if the case worker is one of the bad guys/girls, they will use ANYTHING to get what they want even if you cooperate. Anything you say or do will be twisted and used against you. They will lie, falsify documents, break the law in order to “win” – get what they want. Those are the bad apples that make these bad cases that we all talk about. I hope you’re not one of those, Knut.

        • @Raymond:
          The usual thinking among employees of barnevernet is that it’s better to take 10 kids and save 1, even if the 9 others are wrongfully taken, than not take any at all and let that poor kid suffer. Don’t you agree that this is true?

          As far as I see Barnevernet staff is blind on any unintended side-effects their intervention could cause. Just like a doctor who thought chemotherapy was not dangerous at all and sending all patients for chemotherapy, as the ultimate curing tool.

          The even more serious issue I have read about that even District Courts and Appeal Courts are many times blind on this topic or they are playing if the jugdes were fool…

  63. This posting does not really relate to Natasha and Erik’s case, and may easily “drown” here among all the postings. But it is of importance:

    The police have reached a decision in the Bodnariu case!

    Now, in the middle of the holidays of the legal system!

    As you will remember, a criminal case over physical punishment is considered separately from a Barnevern case of where the children are to live.
    Cf
    https://delightintruth.com/2016/06/12/pastor-john-piper-comments-on-norway-law-and-bodnariu-case/#comment-73122

    Delight may perhaps have a separate article about the outcome of the criminal investigation on the Naustdal case?

  64. It is so lovely to see the recent family pictures of Natasha, Erik and their twin girls. The girls look so healthy and happy. I can even see some excellent eye-contact between mother and daughter:-) What more can Barnevernet ask for?

    • You are so right. I have seen those pictures. They are joyful and they must make any person wonder what the problem is. Surely happiness is not harmful to children. But it might seriously harm the reputation of the CPS.

  65. Doceniam i bardzo , bardzo dziekuje.Domyslilam sie , ze Polacy zainteresowani sprawa w Ameryce to Twoja robota.Pragne tylko dodac , ze w przeszlym tygodniu zainteresuje sprawa tych , ktorzy mieszkaja w Polsce.Mam juz opracowana strategie i miejsca -w ktore trzeba dotrzec.

  66. Poczytala troche dzisiaj i to sa moje przemyslenai do wypowiedzi

    Rodzice w Norwegii maja obciete skzrydla.
    Tak ,ale tylko biologiczni rodzice.Duzo frekwencja na kolejnych protestach to- obciete skrzydla BV.

    Knut:Swiadczymy uslugi publiczne dla wszystkich mieszkancow gminy.
    Ja : Prosze o informacje gdzie – to sie przeniose.

    Knut:Jeazeli jakis rodzic prosi barnevernet o pomoc….
    Ja: To nalezy go skierowac na psychiatrie , natychmiast

    Knut : Wykonujemy nasza prace z tego samego podrecznika.
    JA :Na pewno z tego w ktorym podkresla sie jak szkodliwa dla dziecka jest biologiczna rodzina.Tam sie stosuje jedno rozwiazanie na wszystkie problemy -zabiera / usuwa sie dziecko z biologicznej rodziny.

    Knut: Uzyskanie niezbednej pomocy na wczesniejszym etapie
    JA :Czyli zabieranie dziecka z izb porodowych zaraz po porodzie , ,bo ,,rodzice moga byc szkodliwi ,,
    Etap nastepny -zabieranie dziecka jeszcze wczesniej .Czyli cesarskie ciecie i zabranie dziecka przez bv.
    Mysle ,ze juz wkrotce troche wiecej poprosi o azyl w innych krajach , a Rutkowski bedzie mial co robic do emerytury.

    No i jeszcze apel ekologiczny.
    Jak widze te tony papieru z barnevernet u rodzicow to mam ochote krzyknac

    Chronmy lasy , zniszczmy barnevernet

  67. Normalnie tego nie robie , poniewaz staram sie , zeby piosenki rozumieli wszyscy , najlepsza jest wiec muzyka filmowa.
    Ale dzis patrzac na twarz pani z barnevernet i te informacje o ich lekturach (podrecznik szkolacy , ze biologiczni rodzice sa dla dziecka szkodliwi ) to jednak wysle piosenke polska.
    Szkoda , ze bedzie zrozumiala tylko dla Polakow

    You tube Basia Melzer ,, Ballada o chirurgii plastycznej ,,

  68. Knut, I would like to give one more comment on your allegation — I would say your conspiracy theory — that the doctor’s recent diagnosis could be incomplete.

    As the doctor has acted as a forensic expert, such allegation/suspicion is to be discussed with the help of another forensic expert at least.
    Another doctor’s opinion could be the minimum for requesting care order.
    County Board then should go into the details and ask the doctors if necessary and then write detailed reasons why they favor one of the expert opinions over the other.

    Latest at District Court level — due to the requirements for fair procedure at an independent and impartial tribunal — the experts should be summoned, asked to discuss the case, ask questions on the details what each other has observed, provide alternative explanations for each others observations, and each expert to tell the judge(s) what is the basis of their opinion.

    An emergency care order based on such a conspiracy theory is clearly violating Article 6 of ECHR on fair procerures as well as Article 8 of ECHR prohibiting any state intervention into the rigth to family as it is on the contrary of the facts.
    I wonder if Barnevernet had anything else than the many many year old diagnosis. If not, the whole procedure should be declared null and void in any democracy. One of the major pillars of democracy is respect for human rights — democracy ceases to exists without such a foundation.
    I guess in some months we will know more due to proceedings in Polish courts.

  69. Trine wrote;

    Great point Nygaard! Thank you very much. It hurts when somebody attacs you, psychoanalyse you, write wrong things about you, intentionally tries to push you over the edge, writes lies about you in order to built up a case against you to take the apple of your eye, even you have not broken the law. Barnevernet have such a low level of “help measures”

    Very well said, Trine! Here we also see a good example of how somebody working for Barnevernet reacts when they are being psychoanalized……

    It is terrible and cruel the way Natasha got the false label. But even if it was the case that she was mentally delayed, it would be inhumane to deny somebody parenthood on such grounds. I didn`t even know that it was legal to do so. Should mothers, according to Barnevernet, have to go through all kinds of tests, including an IQ test, to see if they are fit for motherhood? Why doesn`t Barnevernet try to find ways to help instead? And what about friends, family and neighbours? Are we not there to help each other if someone is struggling ?

    When Barnevernet takes children from their biological parents who might be struggling in one or another way , they are just creating new and more serious problems. Parents as well as parents will obviously be so hurt that it is hard to cope. If they give them some real help measures instead, they have the chance to even solve their problems and grow as a family and as individuals. Barnevernet should, instead of advertising for more foster parents, advertise and challenge people to help their neighbours.

    • Hildi 🙂 “Why doesn`t Barnevernet try to find ways to help instead? And what about friends, family and neighbours? Are we not there to help each other if someone is struggling?”

      The problem is barnevernet already kind of did this, by propaganda (that sadly almost everybody believes: “it’s too many children that are living silently in sexual abuse and violence – and they are too scared to tell, then their parents will be more violent, their lives are in dangr – you can and have responsibility to help: look for these signs…, inform barnevernet, give the name of the parents, we will help them”). This propaganda are all over, in newspapers (and media in general..alot of stories about abused children who grew up with evil mothers in particular, and nobody knew..) same propaganda in schools, kindergarden and all over, so it’s become a gigantic informer-system (angiversamfunn).
      The only “help-measures” bv gives is paid personell, many of them professionals in making analyses about parents faults! Also this without parents knowing what’s going on, they actually believes in some cases that barnevernet care for all the members of the family and genuinely want to help, let’s say a single mother working or studying – will always feel the need for a bit of help.
      But sadly it is not at all about helping a mother becoming a better mother by having some kind of help if she would need it, No; It’s all about observing parents’ negative traits, because they are not allowed to have any..When the negative traits/ faults are found, analysed etc. it’s got to be removed by the further forced “help measures”, or else..This is the reason most mothers are shocked when bv say they will take their children, because the mothers thought they were beeing helped, but barnevernet just monitored and analyzed them for at lest 3 months, in order to build a legal case against her in the county appeal board/ coart (Fylkesnemda) to take over the care of her children, it says in one of bv’s books!

      Barnevernet, by it’s propaganda and laws, force and/ or encourage everyone to analyse parents everywhere they can (in the homes, at school, at the mall, on the street, on public transport, on vacation, delivery and pick up of children in kindergarten, and the contact parents have with schoolstaff are thoroughly analysed and reported to cps, so everywhere parents are beeing watched. As you can imagine – these kinds of second hand observations and wrongly psychoanalysis and exaggerations, accusations, allegations reported about you for many years, can actually be wrong, or it can destroy you, it can and will make you a worse parent actually, cause when reading these reports on how people accuse you, analyse your every move, are felt like evil, and easily can make your life miserable without consequences for the informants. The law protects them!
      For sure this will make you nervous, you become scared of all these people and places where they watch and report you – after a while you go to the doc – he give you pills and report it to barnevernet – then you are quite finished, then barnevernet have an easy case against you..

      “The help” barnevernet use as propaganda is: to make everybody blindly report their observations, suspicion, thoughts, feelings, an hunch about parents and children to barnevernet. And without the informants like neighbours, friends, family, parents of your childrens friends, kindergarden- and school staff; barnevernet would have to be as it should be; only the serious cases would be reported as it should be to the cps; those cases where children grow up in abuse, violence etc…and barnevernet could spend the 20 billions a year saving those, insted of going lunatic in families with no more serious neglect than beeing not perfect, in the informers eyes, where barnevernet then investigate parents for months to years,as criminals with no freedom or rights. Everything about you are analyzed: your past, future (predictions), family, friends, economy.. all the info are beeing mapped by form (kartlagt nøye etter skjemaer), and if cps suspects too many negative risks for your children to grow up with, according to the forms (skjemaene og malen), the matter is settled. You don’t have a chance, this is why bv wins in 87 % of the cases in court, according to one of their books, where they are taught how to do their deeds..

      And all this happens without parents knowing it, behind their backs. There are serious human rights violations, we all exept bv workers can see that, as bv do not care about human rights because they do not look at parents as humans with rights, they have delusions (vrangforestillinger) that all children grows up in violence or abuse and must be rescued by them – they are sadly brainwashed by the curriculum during their education, and very few of them are able to think and act according to normal respect and knowledge. They are not social workers but police, judge and executioner in one evil, powerful monster. No one over or beside them, totally powerful.

      I am not sure if this kind of informant-culture (angiversamfunn) are amongst the higher sosio economic groups, but I would guess it’s not! I think they actually respect each others, and leave their neighbour alone. Or barnevernet respects and leave them alone? In most cases neglect, abuse and violence are behind those perfect homes walls, never reported. I’ve adressed these issues before, and this is the root of the problems in my eyes, not from outside, but for decades on the inside.

      • So insightful and true what you are writing, Trine! What you write also helps me get a clearer picture of Barnevernets foul working methods.

        Yeah, Barnevernet knows how to brainwash people through their propaganda and so-called “help measures”. Their inhumane cold-hearted help measures make me really upset. How dare they go after mothers and fathers offering them “help” when they in reality are looking for something they can blame them for to give them the right to take their children away! It breaks my heart when I think about these parents. Being a parent myself, with more or less grown up children now, I know just how challenging parenthood can be in periods. I also know how wonderful it is in those times to have family, relatives and friends who really care and are not looking at your mistakes, but are there to give real help, encouragement and to tell you what you are doing good despite all your failures. I really wish all those parents who have been put down so cruely to hear that they are the best mums and dads their children ever could have!

      • >>> “it’s too many children that are living silently in sexual abuse and violence – and they are too scared to tell, then their parents will be more violent, their lives are in dangr – you can and have responsibility to help: look for these signs…, inform barnevernet, give the name of the parents, we will help them”). <<<

        This sounds like what American researchers call "foster care panic" — when Child Welfare Authority panics and takes many children into foster care who do not need it.

    • Barnevernet is indeed making more problems for the kids than necessary in this case. They should never have done the emergency care order to begin with.

      Imagine these facts:

      – First take the kids at hospital and bring to foster parents
      – Then give back the kids to parents while in mothers home
      – Then want to take the kids AGAIN and place back with foster parents…

      These acts doesn’t go along with the best interest of the child.

      • So true, Raymond! The children are being thrown back and forth and in whatever direction Barnevernet wants to like balls. This can never be the best for a child!

  70. For some years I served on a municipal committee in Bergen, Norway. The task of the committee was to go through Barnevern (CPS) cases before they could be taken to the social board or the courts. I have consequently read a quantity of case documents from such cases.

    Around 80 per cent of the decisions to take children into care were based on claims to have diagnosed deficient parental ability to give care, so that there might be a care failure some time in the future. In only few cases was present care failure documented. In no case was there any documentation of actions that could be labelled child abuse.

    There were statements and accusations by Barnevernet against parents which, when investigated, turned out not to be true. An example is that of a mother who had a spot on her cheek when she came to a meeting. Barnevernet records this in the file. By the time a report arrives on the municipal committee’s table, they have changed it to a black eye (insinuating violence in the home). In another case, a social worker writes that the mother drinks and that one should find out whether the father has alcohol problems also. Later in the same report, written on the same day and with no investigation having been carried out, the social worker claims that the father drinks a lot.
    Barnevernet wants to control every aspect of the lives of a foster child, to make sure that it follows the plan they have drawn up. Since they considers frequent contact with biological parents to be negative for children’s “attachment” to new “care givers” once they are placed in foster homes, the right for parents and children to meet is cut down to a minimum and the plan is for the children to remain in foster homes until they are grown up. The need for control means that other close relatives are not considered as foster parents, except in cases where the fosterers are made to consider the biological parents enemies.

    In sum there is reason to say that Barnevernets methods of working are more than criticisable and have a very poor scientific basis. It is abundantly clear to me from my experiences on the municipal committee and from research literature that the Norwegian Child Welfare Service does not serve the population with welfare in the humane and competent way intended by the law and by international conventions Norway has signed.

    • Thank you for your insight, Age. We have seen this type of unethical behavior in Norwegian social workers in the Bodnariu case. You mentioned unethical documentation in your comment, but in the Bodnariu case, they used coercion and attempted to have the mother sign false statements against the father. They also told her she would get her children back if she divorces him. Who will bring those CPS employees to justice?

    • Barnevernet’s want to control does not justify that the master plan is not reunification. All these are severe violations of human rights. ECHR precedents are clear on this matter…

      I would argue that Barnevernet staff here commits criminal offense: abuse of authority. They have the obligation to respect all laws, including human rights obligations which they seem to deliberately ignore.

      • And it’s the job of the County Board to check that the juridical terms are followed correctly. They fail in most cases. In the district court, there are, I guess, more experienced judges (maybe), but it seems that parents sometimes win there when they appeal.

        The worst part of the proceedings in the County Board is that they relay too much on the written statements from so colled “expert witnesses” (psychologs).

  71. The method often used by Barnevernet consists in describing parents’ background, personality and relationship to their children in terms of a series of so-called strain indicators or risk indicators, such as immaturity, psychological problems, psychosis, psychic retardation, alcohol and drug abuse, and other possible deficiencies and departures from the normal. The lives of the parents are analysed into categories. Along with several other factors, complications such as pelvic distortion in pregnancy and deformities in the child are counted as risk indicators for later failure to care for the child.
    External risk indicators comprise housing problems, economic problems, limited social network and problems at work. The fact that these categories are included explains why single parents, recipients of disability benefits, and immigrants are parent groups in special danger of being deprived of their children. They are among those with the weakest economy and least energy to take part in social life and societal concerns.
    Parents’ alleged self-esteem as an indicator is given great importance, in spite of the lack of scientific evidence for any correlation between self-esteem and child abuse. In California the state administration had a research group investigate how important problems could be solved by “increasing the self-esteem of the population”. This task force went through 65,000 research articles in psychology dealing with self-esteem. The result was published in the book The Social Importance of Self-Esteem in 1989. The chapter dealing with child abuse and care failure concludes that there is no documentation for allegations of any connection between low self-esteem and child abuse. The team found no basis for claiming that higher self-esteem would reduce abuse and neglect of children. Nor was any connection found between low self-esteem and aggression or violence. – Although several hundred studies surveyed showed no such correlations, our CWS still claims that there is a clear correlation between failure to give care and low self-esteem, which therefore counts as a risk indicator in assessing whether children are to be deprived of their parents.
    Immigrants in Norway are often branded with “low self-esteem or lack of self-confidence” through the attitudes they are met with in Norwegian society. This alleged risk indicator is therefore liable to be salient in this section of the population.
    Certain risk indicators are thought to predict better than others and the sum total diagnosed for a parent will be a strong factor in the decision made by a social worker of whether to take the child into care.
    To work out an assessment of the parents’ ability to give care, they are observed by social workers in their home. Unfortunately it is rarely possible to check what kind of methods of observation are used. Several problems follow. Since observer and observed are living individuals who influence each other and each with attitudes and prejudices, “observation” is no clearcut activity and this objectivity question must be taken into account.
    Such problems are standard and have to be accounted for in any methodologically acceptable study in any social science. They do not seem to be, though, in the view of CPS personnel. Their observations do not take place under natural conditions but in situations where those being observed are nervous, upset, or for other reasons cannot be expected to behave naturally. These confounds are ordinarily not mentioned in CPS reports, nor are observers’ effect on observed discussed.
    In many cases these deficiencies have led to misinterpretations which have contributed to creating the case for Barnevern intervention.

    • Thank you for your comments, sir.

      You are a great source as you have been there, seen it, heard it, and have articulated Barnevernet actions.

      Anyone who can read and understand your words here, Age Simonsen, should understand why so many are concerned about the Child Welfare Services in your country.

      As you have been aware of these issues for years as has Prof. Marianne Skanland, I consider your comments a primary source.

    • These risk indicators could be more-or-less OK if it would be used for some follow-up meetings, monitoring only.

      According to international law on human rights, which Norway has declared to abide requires any state intervention to be necessary in a democratic society. It does not mean any intervention was necessary but that the actual intervention is necessary and lighter intervention is obviously insufficient.

  72. Thank you so much, Åge Simonsen for your insights and excellent resources of information! This was interesting reading! What you write makes very well sense with all the other puzzle- pieces we have till now about Barnevernet. The picture is becoming clearer. The foul working methods of the Norwegian CPS are being exposed as they should be.

    There are too many parents and children suffering injustice under the cruel system. It has to stop!!!! I just wonder how. Those working for Barnevernet can hide all they do from the public under their obligation to remain silent about cases.I have the impression that Norwegians in general( apart from those who have been affected themselves) trust Barnevernet and believe that they are doing a good job. Whenever they hear about a case, they believe that the parents must have done something wrong to their children. It is then quite interesting to learn about what you wrote about strain/risk indicators. That also explains how Barnevernet can just go and take newborn babies where the mothers by no chance can have done anything wrong to their child. Is it at all legal according to human rights?

    Maybe the information you have given us should be more available for the public. I wonder how people in Norway would react if they learned that Barnevernet don`t actually work according to the way they say they work. Taking away a child from their biological parents is often not the last resort . One could almost say it is even before a first resort. In some cases it seems like Barnevernet decides to take a baby away even before it is born. That is how crazy it is!

  73. There is an article in Hamar Arbeiderblad (local paper, Hamar is the town close to Stange, where N & E came from) on 13 July. Here is a link and some translated quotes.

    “Justisdepartementet jobber med å få familien hjem”
    (The Justice Department are working to get the family home)
    http://www.h-a.no/nyheter/justisdepartementet-jobber-med-saken
    “Politiet og Justisdepartementet jobber med ulike metoder for å få Natasha, Erik Olsen Myra og de to tvillingene tilbake til Norge.”
    (The police and the Justice Department are working with different methods to get Natasha, Erik Olsen Myra and the twins back to Norway)
    Hamar Arbeiderblad, 13 July 2016

    Norwegian authorities go on and on. A solution to the case is, according to the police, for Norway to get hold of the children by force and have the parents forced back in order to take them to criminal court:

    “Elin Rønne, som er politiinspektør i Asker- og Bærum politidistrikt, sier det ikke foreligger noen endret status i saken.
    – Vårt hovedfokus er å få barna tilbake til Norge. Vi håper på en snarlig løsning, men kan ikke gi noen garantier, sier Rønne.
    På spørsmål om hva de gjør, forteller hun at de følger politisporet, mens Justisdepartementet er inne i saken og følger det sivile sporet. Justisdepartementets rolle i slike saker er blant annet å samordne og koordinere kontakt mellom norske og utenlandske myndigheter og mellom myndigheter og privatpersoner for å oppnå en rask avgjørelse.”

    (Elin Rønne, police inspector in Asker and Bærum Police District, says there is no change in the status in the case.
    – Our main focus is to get the children back to Norway. We hope for a rapid solution, but cannot give any guarantees, says Rønne.
    To the question of what they are doing, she says that they are following “the police track”, while the Justice Department are involved in the case and are following the civil track. The role of the Justice Department in such cases is e.g. to arrange and coordinate contact between Norwegian and foreign authorities and between the authorities and private individuals in order to have a quick decision.)

    Erik’s father, Jan Erik Myra, of course has something different to relate:

    “Han sier både barna og de voksne har det bra og lever trygt, men i skjul.
    – Jeg har hatt bittelitt kontakt med dem, sier han.
    [My]ra forteller at foreldrene ikke har til hensikt å reise hjem til Norge foreløpig.
    – De kommer ikke hjem før tingretten omgjør avgjørelsen og gir dem foreldreretten tilbake, ellers må de bli polske statsborgere, sier Myra.
    Han påpeker at de to foreldrene hadde foreldreretten da de valgte å reise ut av landet 4. juni.
    – Hva tenker du om at politiet har siktet dem for barnebortføring og at det er internasjonalt etterlyst?
    – Det som er fælt er hvordan norske myndigheter behandler dem og barna deres. Hvordan de lyver og bruker alle midler for ta fra dem barna deres. Veldig mange sier det ville gjort akkurat det samme.”

    (He says that both the children and the adults are well and live safely, but in hiding.
    – I have had a bit of contact with them, he says.
    [My]ra says that the parents do not intend to return to Norway for the time being.
    – They are not coming home before Tingretten (the District Court) reverses the decision and gives them back their parental rights, otherwise they will have to become Polish citizens, says Myra.
    He emphasises that the two parents had the parental rights when they chose to leave the country on 4 June.
    – How do you feel about the police having charged them with child abduction and that they are searched internationally?
    – What is terrible is the way Norwegian authorities have treated them and their children. How they lie and utilise all possible means to take the children from them. Very many people say they would have done just the same thing.)
      

    • I totally agree with Erik`s father! In my opinion, it was a shameful crime done by Barnevernet from the very beginning to intervene by taking away the twins from their mother and father.

      I read somewhere about a Barnevernet boss who said;

      “If we take small children away from parents it is a dramatic decision. We never do it unless we have very good documentation over time that it is not possible to improve the situation in the home”.

      I wonder how they could have this “very good documentation over time”? Did they really look for ways they could help the parents financially, for instance?

      Once again, it only show me how Barnevernet is trying to defend themselves and make a good impression to the public by hiding away the truth of what they in reality are doing.

      The Norwegian authorities are desperately trying to give people the impression that Natasha and Erik are dangerous and criminal. People in Norway will soon be very surprised to find out how far from the truth the authorities and Barnevernet is in this case. With the help and support of loving and caring ordinary people around them, the twins get all they need and are happy:-)

    • Elin Ronne seems to be a little more wise than our CPS-friendly commenters — when he says he cannot give any guarantees.

      The fate of the family is now in the hands of Polish judges.

  74. Hei Knut Knut Nygaard,
    er du egentlig en levene Person eller en slags SIRI fra BUFDIR eller pseudonym for Barnevernets lobbyvirksomhet ?

    Hilsen fra Tyskland.Jeg har bodd og jobbet noen år i Norge og har (heldigvis, i vert fall for min del) flyttet tilbake til hjemlandet.

    Først : Jeg er sikker i at 90 % av de ansatte i Barnevernet er omsorgsfulle mennesker som viser empati og tar jobben alvorlig, som ønsker å tjene barna og famile og ikke å skade. Så vi snakker om Resten av 10 %, ikke sant ?

    Høysangen 2,15 :
    Fang revene for oss, de små revene som ødelegger vinmarkene.

    Etter min mening ødelegger de 10 % , de onde tjenere for å si.

    Hva synes du egentlig om at Naustdal Kommune har selv bedt om å ble gransket angående Naustdal Barnevernets Gestapo eller Stasi lignede aksjon mot Bodnariu Familien og krititikere av Naustdal BV.
    At det går an å være så ukritisk og dum ?

    Jeg mener at det er på tide for deg og Vebjørn Selbekk i Dagen å legge seg flat og å beklage at dere er forsvarere av Naustdal Gestapovernet.

    Ja, Vebjørn, mein deutsch norwegischer Freund, es ist Zeit Dich zu entschuldigen dass Du das Verhalten von Gestapovernet gegen die Familie Bodnariu verteidigt hast !!!

    Gestapovernet in der Naustdal kommune und der Stange kommune ist böse und ein Feind der Eltern !!!

    At det går an ikke å ta selvkritikk er med min bakgrunn ikke å forstå !!!

    Nur die dümmsten kälber wählen ihre metzger selber !!!
    Only the dumbest calves select their butcher himself.

    Jeg som tysker har rett og lov å si det. Det var flere jøder før hitler grep makten som sa : Så ille kan det ikke være med Hitler.
    Som i dag: så ille kan det ikke være med barnevernet.

    Knut Nygaard, Du er kristen ikke sant ?
    Da vil jeg i tillegg sende noen ord fra bibelen til lære og for å få visdom.

    Markus 9, 42 :
    Men den som lokker til fall en av disse små som tror på meg, for ham var det bedre om han var kastet i havet med en kvernstein om halsen.

    og til slutt til AP, SV, og Inga Marte Thorkildsen:

    Galaterne 6,7:
    Far ikke vill! Gud lar seg ikke spotte. Det et menneske sår, skal det også høste.

    Stå på i kampen mot det onde i Barnevernet.

    Hilsen
    Andreas Krüger

  75. An interesting article came on tv2’s website just now. Natasha and Erik invite Norwegian authorities, who claim to be terribly worried about the wellbeing of the twins, to send “independent experts” down to visit them. “I think they will find the same as so many others have found,” Natasha says, “that we function great with our children. And they are as well as it is possible to be.”

    Neither Barnevernet nor central authorities will answer or comment.

    Their lawyer Ole Andreas Thrana says that the authorities are acting in a contradictory manner. “It is remarkable that the same authorities who express great concern about the children, will not go to Poland to see how they are.”

    Good exposure!!
    “Natasha og Erik vil inngå avtale med norske myndigheter”
    (Natasha and Erik will enter into an agreement with Norwegian authorities)
    http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/8554761/

    This has probably been on the tv news too. I’ll try to see it in a repeat.

    • Yes, that is it. Barnevernet has changed a date in an agreement, by pen, to a date 10 days earlier. The earlier date would mean that Barnevernet could take the children back to the interim foster mother (who, they claim, the children are so much more “attached” to) BEFORE the case came up before the County Board.

    • The interim foster mother has changed her opinion, she now says she supports the family, has visited them in Poland.

      “– Jeg så en familie på fire som har det veldig bra. Og to jenter som utvikler seg akkurat som de skal utvikle seg. Og jeg så trygge og gode foreldre, sier Mona, som har blitt en av familiens viktigste støttespillere.”
      (– I saw a family of four who are very well. And two girls who develop just as they should. And I saw confident and good parents, says Mona, who has become one of the family’s most important supporters.)

      “– Jeg er kjempesint. Og jeg er kjempeskuffet over et system som jeg inntil for et år siden trodde fungerte, sier Mona Utheim.”
      (I am very angry. And I am hugely disappointed in a system which I believed in until a year ago, says Mona Utheim.)

        • This is simply crazy. If the Myra Olsens have consented to the amendment of the dates then why is their signature missing from the amendment?

          As Erik and Natasha deny their consent for date change and there is no evidence for their consent, the original date should be considered still valid, as that date is the one that all parties have signed.

          That would mean the whole emergency care decision had been invalid and there are no more grounds for accusation on care evasion but there are grounds for a criminal case on forgery of a document by unknown perpetrator.

          No one simply amends a contract by overwriting with a pen, even private parties among each other… There should be signatures (with stamp from barnevernet) from all interested parties at the amendment, mentioning consent to date change: new dates: , and also a stamp from barnevernet.

          Even better, writing a completely new paper stating amendment on date for the previous document and everyone signing it.

          PS. 26 of June to 17 of June is an empty interval so the whole amendment story does not make sense at all.

        • The contract was for a voluntary stay at the mothers centre. The were no acute emergency at that time. That bv changed the date on the contract had no impact on anything but the awareness of the couples lawyer and the parents. Now, they did not trust bv anymore.

          Before, you could leave the country before the case came up in county board and get away with it, as no law prohibited you to leave the country. But a new law that came into effect recently, closed that «loophole» by saying t h at no one could leave the country with the kids after a case for 4-12 care takeover had been initiated. And such was the case here. But on the other hand, no case can be judged in county board if the kids are not in norway. So this district court was about the legality of the earlier decition in the county board, as laye d out by the couples lawyer. But the judges didn’t have to consider it since the bv turned and put down same statement as the couples demand, that the earler judgment was annulled, but they did it for a different reason. If they had lost the case, which they would, all their wrongdoings would have been exposed. No agreement was made, but bv offered help if the couple wanted it. If and when they return to live in Stange, bv can start a new case any time they want, since they havent lost the case in court, they just had the previous verdict annulled. Even if they settle in another city in Norway, Stange bv can still go and get t h e children. There is no law prohibiting them to do that, even if it is not their responibility any more.but Stange major may not like that of economic reasons. They would be best off staying in Poland and try to get permission to work there and at least wait a year or more begore considering going back, but never to Stange.

        • I have read about that law — I would like to see the actual text of the law.
          I learnt this new law intends to overwrite a precedent in Norway’s Supreme Court. I have the suspicion that the judgement of the Norwegian Supreme Court which is not favoured by the lawmakers is rooted in the European Convention for Human Rights and that Norway has just attemped to overwrite international law by national law which is simply a nonsense.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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