This is a great article written by Christian blogger Becky Hastings. It applies to Americans who find themselves crossing paths with the Child Protective Services. Seriously, what would you do if they knock on your door?
******
Since more parents are experiencing a visit from CPS than ever before, and since sometimes those visits have resulted in the quick removal of children – despite no grounds to allegations of harm or abuse – it is critically important for every parent to have a good idea of how to respond to a CPS visit. Don’t think ‘it can’t happen to me.’ Take any visit by CPS seriously.
The most significant mistakes made by parents are usually in the very first encounter. If you can understand how to handle the very first encounter with CPS, you can increase your chances of maintaining your family’s rights and freedom. CPS will often seek to take a family by surprise. Be prepared.
1. THE KEY: Be polite & SAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. You might be terrified inside. You might be absolutely angry if you feel there is injustice going on, but the number one thing you can do is stay calm and be polite. Anything you say can be twisted. Do NOT DEFEND YOURSELF. Do NOT volunteer information.
2. Do NOT let them in your house. Be nice but STAY FIRM. Have one statement ready and repeat it over and over “I know you are just doing your job, but my main obligation is to my children and to help them avoid unnecessary trauma.” If they do not have a warrant and there is no obvious emergency, they are not allowed access to your home. If a police officer is with them, they all know it is illegal to enter a home unless you CONSENT, or unless they have a warrant, or can hear an emergency situation going on. DO NOT CONSENT.
3. Ask permission to ask THEM questions. “I realize you are just doing your job. Would it be ok if I asked you a couple of questions?” Then, ask if you can record the conversation. If you need to get your cell phone, close the door and say, “I need to get something.” These are the questions to ask them:
- “Firstly, do you have some identification? After you get their ID, write down their name, then ask, “Can you give me the name and phone number of your supervisor?” Write it all down. Take your time.
- Next “What are the exact allegations that have been made against me? Federal law requires that I should be informed of any allegations against me.”
- Ask them if they have a warrant. Be direct. “Do you have a warrant to search my home or speak to my children?” If they produce a warrant make sure it is signed by a judge and dated.
Without a warrant they must gain your consent to enter your home or speak to your children. They are doing their job. Their supervisor has instructed them to make this visit and they will use whatever tactic they feel will be effective to GET MORE INFORMATION AGAINST YOU. They may alternate between: trying to be nice, being firm, threatening or trying to bargain with you. Stay immune to every tactic. Be Nice, but know your rights. Do not get caught up in their games. Don’t engage them in any discussion, except on the questions above.
4. Tell them you are going to contact your attorney and when you get them on the phone, you will allow them to speak to your attorney. Close the door. Phone your attorney so the attorney can speak to the CPS case worker and help them to leave. Your attorney will know the law and remind the case worker of your rights. It is always a good idea to have an advocate on your side.
What do I do if I don’t have an attorney?
If you are a Christian and Homeschooling, you might like to consider joining Heritage Defense. If you are homeschooling you might like to join Home School Legal Defense Association who will defend you against allegations by social services as they pertain to homeschooling. Both organizations require a monthly or yearly fee but are available for telephone help immediately in any emergency situation you might face.
I pray you will never need to use this information. Unfortunately, in the present time of extensive government involvement in the lives of parents, many parents have found themselves in complex situations with CPS. It is better to be forewarned and forearmed. Your number one desire is to protect your children from harm. Too often CPS has brought more harm than help.
Becky Hastings
Delight in Truth 
Becky Hastings is really excellent and sensible.
Since she is probably thinking of people in America, I would suggest that people should also know about this resource, run by Linda Martin for many years:
FightCPS: Child Protective Services – CPS – False Accusations
http://fightcps.com
Marianne, are the same protections listed in the above article available to people in Norway when CPS knocks on the door?
In main lines, yes. The question is how it works in practice. Without a justice system which works properly as regards proof, the right to remain silent, not to incriminate yourself (cf 5th Amendment), you are in a weak position because they have the power to confiscate the children. Most people also think they have nothing to hide, so therefore – – They could hardly be more wrong.
There is a paragraph saying that parents whose home Barnevernet wants to visit, cannot refuse such a visit. (I think that relates to planned visits.) How it works out if they do, may depend on several things, but of course it counts very heavily against anyone who does. Possibly Barnevernet might then be so “alarmed” that they take the children on “emergency”.
If they come unannounced and plan to take the children, they will have police officers with them. If they have no warrant, but just the emergency order signed by their superior, and you refuse, they will of course say it is an emergency and take the children against your objections.
I would, like Mrs Hastings says, not admit them to my home in any case, I think. I would certainly not give them any information. People so often think that it is all a misunderstanding and that if they just tell Barnevernet how things really are, Barnevernet will “understand”, sympathise and be a helper.
The CPS hardly knock on any door as the first intervention in Norway. If it’s a child with no history in the CPS the will receive a letter that tells the parent(s) involved that the CPS have received a concern from … and then telling in a two-liner something about the context so the receiver is informed enough to know what this is all about and be prepared. When we send this letter we know nothing about the parent(s) – if the work or their working hours, but we tell them to take contact if the date or time for the first conversation at our office is not suitable.
In this first conversation we give the parent(s) general information about the CPS – the concern and the opinions given back – the investigation to be done together with the parent(s) – we togehter work our an invstigation plan – who to get information from – date for home visist – where to speak with the child(ren) involved – a timeframe that give us a conclusion before three months as the Child welfare act requires.
Occasionally we have a parent that don’t show up or take any form of contact. What we do next and how fast is then being considered in accordance with the content of the concern and who it’s from. If serious and from a reliable source – and not showing up is suiting the known information we go to the next step – the door. This can first be done without the police – the with the police. I have once been outside a door where a mother was hiding with her baby after receiving a care order. In that situation no reaction came with the police outside the door – this situation ended with firemen tearing smashing the door and the child brought into safety. The mother was disturbed – there was dark music coming from the apartment and it was possible that this might end in a very tragic way.
Domestic violence and other dramatic situation for the most part appear after our normal working hours and are handled from the guard office in the police building. This is a cooperative intervention where the CPS workers go to steps behind the police and find the children involved in closets or under beds – the abuser taken away and the other to the hospital …
Emergencies seldom has the door as the first intervention. The children are for the most part either in school and kindergarden.
The advice is plenty good regardless of when and where the CPS wants to intervene in a family’s affair: Never speak to them. Never let them into your house. Never let them into your thought. Just say that they will have to direct all communication to your lawyer.
Their “plans” for cooperation is never what it seems. We know this well enough by now.
It is clear that you have to take action in situations where children really are in acute danger. But how often do they occur? what about all rhose cases where children are forcefully taken away because Barnevernet figure out that they will not have an optimal future with their biological parents? How can you just go and take babies away just after they are born?
Mr Nygaard: “Emergencies seldom has the door as the first intervention. The children are for the most part either in school and kindergarden.”
Quite right. Barnevernet’s people avoid the parents and unpleasantness. They would rather move in at schools and kindergartens, where the personnel are their willing or cowardly helpers, so that they perhaps even do not need the police muscle.
Great advices. But some of it not so easily done whith small children in your home, if cps and police stoms into your family home, in order to “check if everything is ok”, or to remove the children. In those cases the shock, stress, and panic in addition to your quite serious anxiety that they will take your children are making you not able to think clearly or properly. And it will affect your life negatively forever.
Better still perhaps (?) would be if the authorities “forced” parents on parenting courses before the children are born, prevention measures where they are taught how to avoid neglect, violence, mental and physical abuse, etc. in addition to be taught human rights, child protection laws, the public help measures and info on how cps works , and info on where parents can go if they need advice, help or just someone to talk to.
(In Norway they can not talk to anybody in public sector without it beeing reported to cps, relatively small things like: I’m a bit tired..or she looks exhausted, will healthcare staff write in the journal and it will follow you the rest of your life, they will not tell you what they wrote, and one day maybe cps asks for this journal without you knowing it, and cps workers will interpret it wrongly to that you are depressed or suicidal and can build a case to take over the children only on this basis, in fact. When it comes to parenthood, there are no privacy here).
I agree with Trine here that advice number 2 is difficult to follow in reality if one has little children. I can imagine that the children would be quite curious about who was at the door and start to misbehave if they were not allowed to come to the door. This would just give the CPS more fuel to take the children away.But maybe the parent(s) could tell the CPS worker that they needed to take an urgent phone call and then call somebody they trust to come to their home to take care of their child/ children for a short while. Just brainstorming. But in general, I think the guidelines were good. At least for USA. However, I don`t know if they would help in Norway. Especially when I think about that case we know all too well about, where about 4 police came to take a little breastfed baby away from her mother by force…. I can imagine how my heartbeat would start racing and how I would go numb and have a complete blackout if I had been in her shoes. It is just so unbelievable cruel!
As the American CPS system has its problems, they pale in comparison to Norwegian CPS problems. Both countries consider themselves democratic. In America, Becky can legally make this recommendation:
“2. Do NOT let them in your house. Be nice but STAY FIRM. Have one statement ready and repeat it over and over “I know you are just doing your job, but my main obligation is to my children and to help them avoid unnecessary trauma.” If they do not have a warrant and there is no obvious emergency, they are not allowed access to your home. If a police officer is with them, they all know it is illegal to enter a home unless you CONSENT, or unless they have a warrant, or can hear an emergency situation going on. DO NOT CONSENT.”
My understanding is that no warrant is necessary in Norway. Someone like Becky Hastings would probably find themselves involved in a lawsuit or worse. She might be jailed like some parents in Norway who have spanked their child(ren) and done no permanent harm.
I have written this before but I will repeat it again. Where I live, I am only aware of one case in 20 years where children were taken in the same way that children are routinely taken from their parents in Norway.
In that one case, there was public disbelief and protest, due process was observed, and the children were returned home.
The only potential question to what you say here, Chris, is whether it is true. After all, 10-20 years ago I read postings by a number of Americans who had been exposed to quite similar things to what families are in Norway. From other countries too, it is standard to hear social workers say that oh no, they almost never remove children, only when … and their aim is always to reunite. It is not past tense in America either. Cf this case from New Jersey:
“Family must come first”
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page236/page236.html
Mrs Aiyar and others managed to contact American lawyers to get help for the Sahas, and those lawyers, if I remember her rightly, were very well aware that their social services were in no way willing supporters of the family, not even of the grandparents.
Did I ever ask you to read this article from Massachusetts?
“Social Workers Meet Counter Protest at State House”
http://forum.r-b-v.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=8114
I nevertheless think that at the moment, families in Norway are in particularly dire straits, and that both our legislation and practice have developed to the worse, probably more so than in many other countries.
I believe agressive ideology and action is potentially there in much social work, and may come in an upsurge, or wax and wane in different countries, perhaps in company with other trends in the culture, perhaps even by some accident.
I probably should have asked a direct question, Marianne.
Thank you for this information. Along with the information you have shared with Delight above, I am now even more concerned for Norway and more concerned for my own country.
You have written to Delight:
“I would, like Mrs Hastings says, not admit them to my home in any case, I think. I would certainly not give them any information. People so often think that it is all a misunderstanding and that if they just tell Barnevernet how things really are, Barnevernet will “understand”, sympathise and be a helper.”
And you have written to me:
“I nevertheless think that at the moment, families in Norway are in particularly dire straits, and that both our legislation and practice have developed to the worse, probably more so than in many other countries.
“I believe agressive ideology and action is potentially there in much social work, and may come in an upsurge, or wax and wane in different countries, perhaps in company with other trends in the culture, perhaps even by some accident.”
Maybe you can answer a few questions that I have, Marianne.
Who writes the “emergency care” orders?
Whose job is it to carry out the emergency care orders? (Are the police always involved?)
Does Norway keep annual statistics on deaths of children in child care per 100,000 children?
As you would “not admit them to my home in any case,” how is it that the police and CPS seem to enter Norwegian homes almost anytime they wish?
I have looked at the link you have shared here and have done a bit of research. I previously looked at the percentage of American children in foster care and contrasted that with Norwegian children in foster care. I may have to go back and check but I recall that the numbers showed that Norway had an unusually high number in foster care.
The link about an annual number of fatalities among all children and children in childcare in Massachusetts is an abnormality if true. The numbers in this link are over 300% higher for that state than annual national numbers that I could find. This doesn’t mean that the U.S. doesn’t have problems.
I will continue to look at statistics as they do tell a story but they can also be misleading when looking at one number. We each live in our own “little worlds” and we must be careful, as you well know, to compare apples to apples.
My experience with the Department of Human Services in Arkansas (DHS) is that reunification with children, placed in care for any number of reasons, is the goal.
I have recently returned to teaching and am required by law to report (as a “Mandated Reporter”) any suspicion of child abuse. I have recently retaken the “Mandated Reporter” course and the laws haven’t changed much since 2012. I’m sure that other states have similar laws.
I have yet to make any such report but I know that more reports are being made to the child abuse “hotline” as certain professionals are being asked to watch for signs of abuse. Where I live child abuse reporting laws are continually changing, the last major one within the last five years. I also read that fewer than 5% of all reports lead eventually to some kind of child care. I’m still trying to find better figures than “fewer than 5%.”
Here is a list of 40 types of individuals who are considered Mandatory Reporters in Arkansas:
http://www.arkansased.gov/divisions/communications/safety/mandated-reporters
You have lots of questions for me here, Chris! I shall have to try to remember to return to most of them later. Just a couple here:
Chris:
“Who writes the “emergency care” orders?”
The boss at the local CPS office. It can then be carried out right away. Then the CPS has to take this emergency take-over to the County Committee for confirmation, also very rapidly. (A draw-back with this very rapid treatment by the CC is that they tend to think that “Obviously it is early days yet, so the CPS must have time to do proper investigations and in the meantime the children are safe with them.” The CPS, not the family, are given the benefit of the doubt.)
*
Chris:
“Whose job is it to carry out the emergency care orders? (Are the police always involved?)”
CPS workers carry it out. They may call on the police to assist them, and in practice I think they always do. On the spot, if parents protest, the police are usually the ones that physically take the children and restrain the parents, the social workers standing to one side looking on, until the police hand over the children to the social workers.
Thank you for your thoughtful answers, Marianne.
My reason for asking the first question is an impression that I get. It seems that, if an emergency care order is written in Norway, it is closer to the end of the investigation than to the beginning of the investigation.
I assumed the answer to the second question you answered here, but it is always bad to assume, so I wanted to make sure. In all of the cases I’m familiar with, the police have been involved.
About CPS in America:
This is quite interesting:
“Rettsbeskyttelse mobilisert mot barnevern i Texas! Med suksess!”
(Court protection mobilised against CPS in Texas! With success!)
November 2011
http://www.mhskanland.net/page2/page110/page110.html
Our neighboring state to the west is Texas, Marianne.
It has become a state of ideological battles in recent years. Almost every one of the 50 states is experiencing the same types of battles.
Our nation, like yours, is heading towards moral and financial bankruptcy. I believe the cause is spiritual bankruptcy.
Still, small battles are won everyday just as others are lost.
What can we do but keep trying?
There is no other option.
I have worked in the municipal Norwegian CPS since 1987 and before that in several institutions. The headliner for this post – includes the word “door”. We seldom come to the door as our first intervention, but in this movie based on what should be a true story from Bakersfield in 1982 we see first and foremost the police entering the door together with the CPS after getting a concern. This is a emotional story and should be a part of the educational material – I myself have trained on the turn of the cards – how would I react if ??, but I don’t know if this is a part of any education today
Historic we have seen how – for some more or less unknown reasons – an area – or a period – have ended up in tragic ways. In the US you had a period in the 90’s when many meant to see satanic movements behind .. every corner and in almost everything.
The story above is much focused on what the children finally said. In Norway we had the Bjugn case in the 90’s – scroll down and you find information in english
http://www.voy.com/9201/216.html
I have never entered a home in the way showed in the movie, but entering a home togheter with the police is here in Bergen done with experienced CPS workers located in the same building as the police with working hours ending at 02.00 or longer if considered necessary.
“We seldom come to the door as our first intervention, but in this movie based on what should be a true story from Bakersfield in 1982 we see first and foremost the police entering the door together with the CPS after getting a concern.”
“We seldom come to the door as our first intervention…”
Please define “seldom” for me, Knut. Do you have any statistics?
“…what should be a true story from Bakersfield in 1982,” Knut?
I don’t doubt that something like this can occur but I need more than Hollywood as a primary source.
Also, the link you have shared doesn’t seem to tell the location of the incident. Maybe I missed it or maybe the article did. Where did this supposed incident happen and is there a primary source for it?
“police is here in Bergen done with experienced CPS workers located in the same building”
Does the CPS and the police department work out of the same building in Bergen, Knut?
As has been the case in previous comments, this comment again creates more questions than it answers.
Another of Chris’ questions:
“As you would “not admit them to my home in any case,” how is it that the police and CPS seem to enter Norwegian homes almost anytime they wish?”
Partly because people are too naïve to refuse entry, partly because it is up to the CPS to define what constitutes an emergency. Cf Becky’s article: “… or can hear an emergency situation going on.” They may have more strict demands on the definition of an emergency in the States, although I doubt whether it is really restricted to being able to hear noise from ill-treatment or wails of distress. What about children who are really ill-treated and hidden away, even taped over their mouths? I expect if the police have GOOD reason to suspect someone is kept prisoner like that, and may even be killed if they are not taken out immediately they are entitled to go into a house even against the protest of the owners?
Becky: “Without a warrant they must gain your consent to enter your home or speak to your children.”
Now this may be a real difference between Norway and the USA. In Norway, all sorts of people in public employ are entitled to talk to children, trying to get them to say that things are not good at home, etc, saying that they have to tell, frightening them into even inventing accusations against their parents. Even for fairly old children it is difficult to “man up” against it all: school teachers, social teachers at school, health nurses at school, kindergarten personnel, psychologists, police, judges, and even groups of mates and their parents.
“…this may be a real difference between Norway and the USA.”
Your experience there is way beyond anything that I could gain if I started now.
It seems to me that there is a difference in philosophy at the core.
Also, spanking that is not abusive is allowed in America. So many cases there seem to have spanking as the main issue.
“…Partly because people are too naïve to refuse entry, partly because it is up to the CPS to define what constitutes an emergency.”
I understand the implications of this statement. I am surprised that so many don’t seem to know this important option in Norway.
On Knut’s “..I have never entered a home in the way showed in the movie, but entering a home togheter with the police is here in Bergen are done with experienced CPS workers located in the same building as the police with working hours ending at 02.00 or longer if considered necessary..” allegations that barnevernet enters family homes along with “child guard police” (barnevernsvakten) which is barnevern workers in the police station.
I have experienced twice that the local barnevern (Cps) has gone to the maintenance guy (vaktmester) which had keys to all the apartments in the area (quite convenient for barnevernet), made him to come with them (because they are not allowed to enter homes just like that), and he had to lock them in – without us knowing it.
One of the times they locked themselves in to our family home, they had with them two police officers who by the way did not care about me or the kids, didn’t even look at us, just went straight to the bedroom and arrested my husband for something else.
Both times they stormed our home were very early in the morning, we just woke up, were on our way to the bathroom and so on, in order to go to kindergarden later and normal family activities. And both times the kids and I got very frightened and traumatized. We never received any explanation or excuse! Were just treated as scum for more than 15 years, and I have never broken any law, been violent, or in any other way deserved to be treated as a criminal or a child abuser – or what they suspected me of for a lifetime.
Big, big problems they created for my kids when they grew up, and me they nearly destroyed! Who can live like this for a lifetime?? And when my kids get children, will we be safe then, or will the nightmare continue then??
Maybe I should write a book about it, but here in Norway almost everybody respects, believe in and love barnevernet, they even want them to be more aggressive and take much more children from their homes, so the book won’t sell, so what’s the point..
In our case, he CPS was wrong both times that “something might have happened in the home and the children were in danger” or what they fantasized or psychoanalyzed in their evil minds, instead the result for my two boys and I: we were disgraced twice in front of neighborhood and neighbors, friends, and you can imagine the negative social impact and stigma.
We learned the hard way that the Cps in our district is not only hyperactive and nervous but also very scary and aggressive, in addition to makes ALOT OF MISTAKES, not at all only in our lifes but alot of others, without ever saying sorry for distroying mothers and making her children very nervous, my kids could notice that the teachers and barnevernet cooperated and watched them closely, so it was a disturbing childhood due to barnevernet in our district!
😦
This barnevern office was/ is known as the country worst (the most aggressive, I also think Marianne also has read a book written on one familys experiences : “Det store barnevernspøkelset” Wang (?).
Since barnevernet in Norway is the world’s most aggressive cps, it means that in this particular barnevern office in Bergen are the most scary Cps in the world!
Perhaps they’ve changed for the better, I doubt it. And if I’m not mistaken, this is where K.N. do his daily christian deeds..
I am sorry to hear about what kind of nightmare Barnevernet has put you through, Trine! You have really felt the terror, pain and shame. I hope the drama is over for you by now. But I guess one is scarred for life from such an experience. Never say never about writing a book or writing your story in a book together with stories from other victims of Barnevernet. I had a picture in my mind a little while ago, just before the Bodnariu children were set free, about barnevernet being a huge trojan horse out of glass. People were able to see their misdeeds and it was thereby smashed to pieces. Oh, how I hope that it will be one day soon true!
Trine, here you can read something I wrote after I got to know about the Bodnariu case which opened up my eyes for the evil deeds of Barnevernet. The reactions were rather cold….
http://www.verdidebatt.no/debatt/cat19/subcat20/thread11622012/
Thank you Hildi again, wonderful!!! not only the poem, but also the response; which might be of interest for some of us 😉
Can’t be Trine. If you relate to Wang and her book – from 1992 – it must be from a period – if Bergen is the place – when we still were 12 districts. In 2000 we became 8 and now coming up in 2017 – i guess – down to 4 districts. So – that office is history – and an office change as people change. We all change and we live in 2016 – not in old books and the archieves of Mrs. Skånland.
If you relate to yourself I don’t know anything about your address or history, but to your information I have worked with the CPS located in the city hall of Laksevåg from 1993 to 2000. In 2000 Laksevåg and Loddefjord became one unit located in Vadmyra. I think we soon are on the move closer to Fyllingsdalen.
About the Kern county child abuse cases, Chris – they were real
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_County_child_abuse_cases
The Bjugn cases – they were real – here in Norwegian
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjugn-saken
Barnevernvakta in Bergen and the neigbouring municipalities are real
http://barnevernvakten.no/kommuner/bergen-kommune
Estimate – the door as first intervention – my guess – a very low percent – one to three – at most.
When did you mention the Kern County abuse cases, Knut?
I looked at your link. If it is true, it is an isolated case that is not government sponsored.
The validity of most of the case seems questionable as “The convictions of most other defendants in Kern County molestation rings were overturned -”
The entire story in this case may never be known, but I researched it only a tiny bit and there are questions on every side.
Knut, it appears you are trying to take the focus off of your organization only to place it on individuals who have done bad things.
The wiki link you shared stated: “The cases involved claims of paedophile-sex-ring-performed Satanic ritual abuse,”
1) note the word “claims”
2) When did we start discussing “paedophile-sex-ring-performed Satanic ritual abuse” cases, Knut, be they true or untrue?
You are going to have to explain why you put the last two links up, Knut. They are in Norwegian and I’ve already been on bit of a wild goose chase.
Finally, why are we getting estimates from an organization with so much funding. I would think you could be more specific. Your 25% number represents what exactly? Where did you get that figure?
Almost forgot to put up my source for my quote above:
“The convictions of most other defendants in Kern County molestation rings were overturned..”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/magazine/who-was-abused.html
Knut, thank you for many interesting points you shared last 12 hours.
Just one thing, this time; “..Estimate – the door as first intervention – my guess – a very low percent – one to three – at most..”
33.33 % is a huge number, why do you think the number is so high?
I notice that both Chris and you read me wrong – you read me as to be one out of three first interventions, but what I thought you all would understood was that I estimated the the door to be in a percent of one to three – with then 99 to 97 percent telling you the office to be the first intervention.
When you used the phrase “one to three,” I took it literally, Knut. To me, that phrase means exactly what it says, “one to 3 cases” which I thought to be 1 intervention to 3 non-interventions, which would be 1 in 4 cases or 25%.
As you can be very clear when you seem to want to, Knut, this is probably another attempt at causing confusion as many would think something different by your comment.
Like Jasper, I don’t understand what this “new” number is telling us.
Now I understand it is 1% – 3% and not 1:3.
However I still do not understand door as intervention.
Jasper – the lady making up the article for this thread: “Americans, what would you do if the CPS showed up on your door?” talks about an American situation as we in Norway seldom – or 1 to 3 % show up on the door as the first intervention.
Chris: “Does Norway keep annual statistics on deaths of children in child care per 100,000 children?”
Yes, they do. I agree very much that statistics are important, although I fail badly myself in looking up and making use of all potentially useful figures. But here is one (I may have posted about it before, but never mind). I should no doubt look for newer statistics, although it is unlikely to have got much better:
Lars B. Kristofersen:
Barnevernsbarnas helse (The health of children in care)
Uførhet og dødelighet i perioden 1990-2002 (Disablement and mortality in the period 1990-2002)
NIBR report 2005-12
Click to access 2005-12.pdf
NIBR (Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning = Norwegian Institute for city and regional research), is the earlier name of an organisation which has now been incorporated into the Regional College of Oslo and Akershus (same place where they educate CPS and other social workers in Oslo, by the way).
http://www.hioa.no/Om-HiOA/Senter-for-velferds-og-arbeidslivsforskning/NIBR
NIBR has produced a number of very interesting reports.
In this one, on pp 12-13, it says that the number of CPS children who had died was 16 per 10,000, as compared to the general child population with 2 per 10,000. So, eight times as many. At the top of p 12 it says that although there has been focus on the higher occurrence of mental/psychological problems for CPS children, the public debate has shown little interest in the fact that a considerable number of CPS children have somatic illnesses or disabilities.
I not sure if I have a good number, Marianne. Maybe something is being lost in translation.
“This means a substantially higher suicide mortality
child care group ( 16 per 10,000 ) than in the normal pediatric population
(2 per 10,000 ) during the period.”
This is a suicide mortality rate and not a rate specifically for children in BV foster care as far as I can tell.
There is a much lower figure named in the same document. This number is located in the article not too far above the 16 per 10,000 figure:
“In 2001, died 168 people aged 1-17 years throughout the child population .
This corresponds to a mortality rate of 0.17 per 1,000 children and
young.”
These statistics are pretty old and who knows how accurate.
Anyway, one number seems very bad (high) and another seems very good (low).
Thank you, Marianne. I don’t expect you to do any more “digging,” but if you ever stumble on such a figure, or if I have mistranslated or taken this information out of context, please let me know.
Chris: You mention the article from Massachusetts. The statistics are indeed important. But there is something else in the article which I think it at least as important, when it comes to assessing whether social workers do what they say, and whether their opinions of necessity and emergency are acceptable:
The social workers had arranged a demonstration for more resources. They said:
“Claiming that budget cuts would put more Massachusetts children in danger of abuse, the group read the names of 100 children who died in the Commonwealth in the past year.”
They were then asked whether these 100 included the 79 WHO DIED WHILE IN STATE CARE, and they said yes, they did!
So,
“If 79 out of the 100 that died last year were in state care and 21 died while at home, how can DSS claim children are ‘better off’ in their custody?” questioned Nev Moore, Executive Director of Justice for Families. “The numbers speak for themselves, she said.”
There is no reason to believe that most of these 79 died due to abuse they had been victims of BEFORE they were taken into care. So the numbers indeed speak for themselves.
I think Nev Moore made an excellent point here, Marianne:
“…how can DSS claim children are ‘better off’ in their custody?”
Also, these figures, if accurate, are higher than the norm as I have checked national records for the past few years and this would be higher than usual I think. I know figures can vary from state to state for various reasons and that there will always be numbers that are abnormally high and low.
It is an interesting number and it is already filed in maybe not the best place (my brain) but I have a feeling that I will remember this number. I know where to find it if necessary.
Thank you for the information, Marianne.
Chris: “… more reports are being made to the child abuse “hotline” as certain professionals are being asked to watch for signs of abuse. Where I live child abuse reporting laws are continually changing, ..”
My concern would be with the kind of “signs” they think are really signs of abuse. “Signs” often naïvely accepted as signs of physical abuse are often the same as those thought to signal sexual abuse, and it is tied up with beliefs in repressed memories and trauma.
A very worrying thing in Norway is that, after the Bjugn case exposed the “expertise” about “signs”, the believers lay low for several years but never revised their beliefs. And now it is full go again. Just recently there was an official announcement that all sorts of personnel in kindergartens and schools are “going to learn about signs of abuse”. So we are in for new rounds of crazy cases, no doubt. There are already cases about sexual and physical child abuse in the media every day, and it is impossible to know whether all or most are true or not. People TRUST – would you believe it – that the “experts” know how to “find out”.
I cannot do any better than really recommend Robyn Dawes’ 1994 book “House of Cards. Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. On pp 157-159 he lists 48 “signs” believed in by some professionals in the child professions. The paragraph leading up to the list:
“Having exaggerated statistics and grossly misunderstood the nature of memory and the role that leading interviews can play in recall, some licenced experts then go on to provide lists of “symptoms” of sexual abuse that children may display. These lists often include the following symptoms:”
1. withdrawal or excessive daydreaming
2. poor peer relations
3. poor self-esteem
..
14. overly compliant behavior
..
17. sexual play with peers, toys, or themselves
..
24. inability to concentrate in school
25. sudden drop in school performance
…
33. hypervigilence
..
35. irritability
..
41. sleepwalking
..
47. poor relations of a daughter with a mother
48. overdependence
and so on. So whether a girl dislikes her mother’s rule and discipline, or whether she clings to her, the girl “has been abused” (47 and 48).
Dawes concludes: “This list includes, of course, virtually every behavior about which parents may be concerned– with the possible exception of homicide and psychosis – and even a few behaviors about which some parents are not concerned, such as an “age-inappropriate” understanding of sexual behavior (as determined by whom?) and “maturity (“pseudo” or otherwise). … The list also reflects a remarkably incorrect belief that perfectly normal boys and girls have no interest in sex.”
About low self-esteem: A large, statistically competent investigation in the USA concluded that there was no relation between high esteem and various other items of success or otherwise, except as regards teenage pregnancy. And there the correlation went the wrong way (from the pov of people who incessantly say that high self-esteem is so important): the higher self-esteem, the more likely with unplanned, unwanted teenage pregnancy. As anybody but psycho-babblers could have foretold: a bit of uncertainty and shying away is likely to protect better than cock-sure uppety-ness.
The “expertise” regarding signs of child abuse of any sort, be it physical or sexual, is all founded on psychology which is not valid. Better to keep absolutely down to earth, oldfashioned regarding evidence and the professionals’ possibility of investigating and finding out the truth. They don’t have x-ray eyes, they are not experts on lies vs truth.
I think Norway will have more mandated hot-line reports per ca pita than the US by a long shot in the upcoming school year.
As it always seems to be hard to find Norwegian statistics, it will be difficult to compare the two.
American statistics are usually pretty easy to find. Yesterday, I found some very specific information about abuses in the area in which I live. This information was from a governmental source.
The “Mandated Reporting” class I took just days ago covers physical, sexual, and emotional abuses and signs to look for.
“This course meets the requirements of Act 1236 of 2011 for the 2014-2015 school year,” and is being used for this school year as well.
It is a two-hour course which covers:
When you have completed this course you will be able to:
Better recognize the signs of child abuse and neglect
Define the types of child abuse and neglect
Determine what professions/individuals are mandated to report
Know your role as a Mandated Reporter
Understand your legal obligations as a Mandated Reporter
Know when and how to report abuse and/or neglect to the Hotline
I
dentify the steps and tools to use when making a child abuse report
Identify which groups of children may be at a higher risk of being abused or neglected
Understand the process that occurs after a hotline call is made
The course includes common sense instructions like not making a call if a child who has a record of good attentiveness falls asleep in class one day. The child is to be observed and if the behavior continues it should be reported.
This is only one example of common sense suggestions that are included in the course work.
I am aware of similar (if not the same) reports on “self-esteem.” It is helpful information.
“Better to keep absolutely down to earth, oldfashioned regarding evidence and the professionals’ possibility of investigating and finding out the truth. They don’t have x-ray eyes, they are not experts on lies vs truth.”
I agree, Marianne. I have found that many are very good liars in our day and included in that number are young people. One must have evidence to confront a liar. At the same time, how many do we know who have “cried wolf” like the little boy and have shown us that they are not dependable?
When school is in, I am aware of all of these issues and keep my eyes and ears open.
On “Which families does cps/ barnevernet intervent?”
Socio-economic low status families vs. wealthy families:
It appears that when the mother is considered under the status”non-employed” the child is most often located outside the home (31 percent). Children with parents classified in the top and bottom class is thus often located outside hjemmet.6.3.1
Age of child and family’s class affiliation children with measures outside the home where parents are calculated in the lowest classes are more often placed in foster homes.
This may indicate that the cps/ barnevernet comes later into families with high class affiliation than they do in relation to families with lower class affiliation.
Please comment or provide more facts on this interesting topic Knut, or anyone.
Link: http://www.nordlandsforskning.no/getfile.php/132580/Dokumenter/Rapporter/2009/Rapport_08_2009.pdf Page 46-56
Sorry, outside hjemmet.6.3.1, should be: outside the home..
Marianne, do I understand you that social workers are cherry-picking from the symptoms list and state likely sexual abuse?!?!
Qualification as a social worker but even qualification as a psychologist degree does not authorize for such a diagnosis based on this symptoms. Any real psychologist must roll on the floor laughing/crying when reading such a report. This would be pure quackery and should be reported to the police.
The most they could tell that they cannot rule out the possibility of sexual abuse and it was necessary to involve a psychiater or a clinical psychologist.
@Chris, Marianne:
Are we talking about Mandated Reporters or are we talking about forensic experts telling their opinion to the county board / courts?
Picking a few symptoms could be OK from a Mandated Reporter, should be eligible for further investigations, but that level of knowledge is far far away from what is expected from a forensic expert, and far away from justifying an emergency care order!
Hi Jasper,
I was just mentioning Mandated Reporters as I have recently had to take a class on the subject. You sound familiar with the definition of a Mandated Reporter. Mandated reporters have nowhere near the expertise of a forensic expert in most cases.
A mandated reporter can be a teacher, dentist, doctor, and even those with no credential of any kind. If a person is in a position of responsibility with children, they are generally considered a mandated reporter.
In my state, the concerns of a mandated reporter get called in on a hotline and a hotline worker determines if the concern goes any further.
Anyone can make a call to the hot-line.
If the hot-line worker thinks there is adequate concern and investigator is put on the case.
This is how most of these matters are handled where I live:
http://humanservices.arkansas.gov/dcfs/pages/childprotectiveservices.aspx
Here is another good link that links to all states in the U.S.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/arkansas-law/arkansas-child-abuse-laws.html
Also see:
http://www.arlegalservices.org/courttype
Cases that go to court are usually heard in a juvenile circuit court.
Click to access IntroBrochureEnglish.pdf
I have been a witness at a few of these hearings and present in more than a few.
For the less serious cases, usually one judge makes a decision. Parents usually have lawyer(s) and the DHS (CPS) is represented by at least one lawyer. Different parties may be asked to testify based on their knowledge of the case.
I know someone who has represented the DHS in the position of prosecuting attorney. She is a wise person who looks at each case individually. When I have testified in such cases, it is usually only to verify that the defendant has completed a parenting course.
Here is an article that describes how a serious case is handled:
http://arkansasnews.com/sections/news/arkansas/court-affirms-fort-smith-couple%E2%80%99s-convictions-child-abuse-case.html
Most democracies have similar systems as you probably well know, Jasper.
On the subject “door intervention”, Mr. Nygaard needs to provide more information on the following good questions :
* Jasper “I still do not understand door as intervention”
* Chris has several questions you didn’t answer:
1):“We seldom come to the door as our first intervention. Please define seldom for me, Knut.”
2): “Do you have any statistics?”
3): “Finally, why are we getting estimates from an organization with so much funding? I would think you could be more specific.
4): Your 1-3 % door as intervention represents what exactly?
5): “Where did you get that figure?”
* Knut’s claim: “Estimate – the door as first intervention – my guess – a very low percent “
* My “claim”: (Bufdir: In 2014 in total 52996 informations of worry/ worry messages (bekymringsmeldinger) were given to Cps/ barnevernet in Norway). If as Knut tells us maximum 3 % of these ends with door as intervention/ cps storming in with police, that means 1589.88 families experiences this every year.
Let’s say there are one mother and one father and two children in the homes as average, which means that 6359.52 inhabitants in Norway are having quite negative door interventions a year, and that’s a lot!
In 10 years that would make 63595.2 individuals being put through this kind of police-state intervention in order to remove children from it’s parents, and that is really a huge number of traumatized inhabitants barnevernet creates. I wonder in how many of these cases and interventions ends for the good, so that the life changes for the better for those children involved, perhaps 10 (?), I would guess. And how much money did the state use on barnevernet for ten years.. guessing 2000 000 000 norwegian krones.
A. The link provided below you can get some insights in how it feels for a family these kinds of “door as intervention” from barnevernet in Norway:
http://lesernesglomdalen.no/-/bulletin/show/692976_da-politistaten-stormet-vaart-hus-med-skarpladete-vaapen-og?ref=checkpoint
(Roughly translated)
“..This story is unbelievable for those who haven’t been in such a situation. The police-state is a fact that can no longer be swept under the doormat. 19. December 2008 our family home were surrounded by police in the middle of the day. They lined up with a force of 16 to 20 policemen and policewomen against us, which are a peaceful family with three children.
They rang the doorbell and the house phone, but we refused to open the door. Then they went to action with special tools and broke the door and stormed into our home with all strength. We lingered upstairs then all 5. Harald was trying to hide the children: the boys in a closet along with me, and the girl in a massive TV box”…
B. Another story, also provides a video:
http://thirdseconds.org/her-braser-politiet-og-barnevernet-inn-i-dorene/
Janne H. from Ringsaker municipality, were in the shower when she was told that the police were standing outside. Suddenly breaks Cps/ barnevernet and the police into the home to take the child from her. When she was told that the police came, she’d rush right out. This was to be one of the worst nightmares of her life.
C. This movement’s; this petition’s (underskriftskampanjen) demands:
(Also roughly translated) “..Almost none of the cases barnevernet wins in court (Fylkesnemda for Social Affairs) are about “evil” parents, or children who have been abused or seriously neglected!
Last 5 years is almost 50,000 children were taken. From 2000 to 2010, it was registered about 700 suicides (statistics from 2010) that’s one Utøya (Breiviks’ massacre) every year!
Often cps/ barnevernet shows up on your door along with the police, storms in and drag your kids out of the family homes with raw, power and driving them away to strangers.”:
http://www.underskrift.no/vis/4691
Questions:
1. Why can’t the families who need help, get the same quotes, encouragement, guidance and financial support that foster families get?
2. We demand investigation of all suicides and quietness of responsibility from those who are responsible.
3. Create a separate independent children’s parliamentary commissioner (Ombudsman) in the UN, as we demanded for Norway the last 20 years.
4. We demands that Cps/ barnevernet must take the burden of proof in all cases!
5. No to raw police-violence against a minor by forced removal!
6. We want supervision in all cases BV.
7. We demands that BV uses video surveillance in a dispute situation and with the parents permission rather than forced removal of children with violence from the authorities!
@Chris: as far as I understood Marianne, she was talking about people who testify before county board and before courts.
Those people should know far more than a mandated reporter and they should be aware of what are they authorized to by their qualifications and what are they not authorized to. Taking the diagnosis of sexual abuse due to the symptoms in the list requires far more advanced and far more specific qualifications than those people usually have.
It is simply quackery if they try to play the role of those who had the real qualifications.
@Trine:
1. The government propaganda always tell that county boards are court-like — I am laughing at those obvious liars.
European Convention for Human Rights requires an “impartial and independent tribunal” — as far as I see neither condition is satisfied.
Part of the issue is that the cases get to real courts too late due to the role of County Board — which I think is a violation of Article 13 of ECHR — legal remedy being not effective enough due to being too slow.
2. The cases you mention are crazy. Unless a real suspicion of terrorists with detonators etc. before storming the house police must attempt to make contact and show warrant for searching the house. If someone is in the bathroom, they should give reasonable time to quickly dry and take clothes on etc.
3. Does county board have authorization for house searches? If yes, than that sounds like contrary to any democratic constitution.
We were “discussing” “hot-line” reports, Jasper. Most of the reports are made by Mandated Reporters. Mandated Reporters usually remain anonymous with exceptions as agreed upon.
“It is simply quackery if they try to play the role of those who had the real qualifications.”
I agree with this Jasper, but most Mandated Reporters never get a chance to even attempt to play this role as they are only reporting abuse or perceived abuse of some type.
Chris, it seems it was my misunderstanding then.
Mandated reporters are not expected to have any more knowledge, I agree.
It was my misunderstanding that the comments were on the actions by the assigned investigator.
The dispatcher should then know that it is a mandated reporter on the other line without any further knowledge, and that the symptoms mentioned could be signs of sexual abuse among many other things (some of the symptoms could be also signs for grief due to loss of a close kin etc. etc.), so on a scale of ruby – red – orange – yellow -green codes it should be yellow code. No need for immediate emergency actions, however the report should be verified in a reasonably short time, a meeting between the investigator and the child should be scheduled within a few days or in case of reasonable obstacles within a few weeks. The investigator should be on forensic expert level on sexual abuse — I would suggest psychiatrist or clinical psychologist.
I like your color code scale, Jasper.
Any call to the child abuse hotline in my state is taken by someone who is trained in deciding which cases need to be forwarded to the appropriate investigator(s). So, the decision is made then if there is enough to warrant investigation. Those who do warrant an investigation are forwarded to investigators within the state police system or in the Department of Human Services (DHS) system depending on the circumstances. If a forensic expert is deemed necessary, the system is designed to see that such an examination occurs. I was a client advocate in one case where the court decided that the case was so special that only two people in the state were qualified to make a assessment. It cost the parent a good sum to retain the particular expert. If I remember correctly, the expert in that case had specialized in some type of psychology.
I’ve been around the system enough to see that it doesn’t work perfectly but due process has never been denied in any case I am aware of.
Due process seems to be available in Norway but, in many cases, it seems that no matter how great a case the defense attorney has, he/she has little chance to win once the Barnevernet decides otherwise.
Which country’s system are you most familiar with, Jasper? You seem to be well informed in the area of child care.
The statistics Mrs. M have in her historic archieve is from socalled longitudinell research – the numbers shown are for ages far above the CPS age and show that children and youth coming from a short or long stay in the care of the CPS as grown ups have higher score on risk factors and suicide than compared to others at certain ages up to around 30. This show that we work with the right children.
Mr Nygaard: “This show that we work with the right children.”
It shows no such thing. It shows that the “work” the CPS does, has no beneficial effect. In addition it is likely that this “work” is what creates most of the elevated number of suicides and other deaths.
I have overseen the last comments so far.
The statistics show that
– either Barnevernet is taking care of the right children
– or the side-effects of Barnevernet taking care of the children
– or in some cases this, in some cases that
– or even sometimes both at the same time.
A qualitative, retrospective research on the reasons for the scores is necessary.
However international scientific articles show in general that there is a significant level of side-effects for forced foster care and for forced adoption, so I would say we can be confident that the side-effect has some significant part.
It is also likely that there are some children who really deserve help which arrive very late. Even Knut Myrebøe’s comment estimated 20% was still a significant portion.
My conclusion is that it is most likely the side-effects of foster care (which are there independently of Barnevernet doing a good job or not) plus sometimes the right children.
One more comment: if Barnevernet takes the right children, the authorities, foster parents and adopting parents seem to be weak — it suggests that perhaps less but better foster/adopting families were needed.
I appreciate your comment, Jasper. At the same time, taking the entirety of you comment, I think you are being generous to the Barnevernet of Norway.
Chris,
as far as I know, the color codes are widely used at emergency wards and ambulance hotlines, most likely across Europe, for prioritizing cases.
In case the hotline was intended to cover emergency calls as well, it would be pretty unprofessional not to prioritize.
I am not really familiar with child protection systems. To be honest, I am computer scientist. I had the option to study some selected juridical topics as part of my studies. Especially about introduction to law which has also covered legislative hierarchy and human rights we got one of the best professors from the Faculty of Law. Great professors can teach the substance of the topic at an incredible pace, some lawyers tell me that they I can surprise them that a non-lawyer can see so sharply when to bring in human rights perspective into the case.
Thank you for sharing some of your history, Jasper.
I agree that prioritizing is always very important. I am sure that it is done after the trained hot-line worker has decided “yes” or “no” that a complaint needs to have follow up.
I’m don’t know who does the prioritizing but my guess would be that once the hot-line worker makes a decision, his/her role is over. I can check it but I’m pretty sure the investigators make prioritizing assessments.
Pingback: Americans, What Would You Do if the CPS Shows Up at Your Door? | ARMONIA MAGAZINE - USA
Reblogged this on Dumnezeu e în control.
I’ve read Knut’s theory here. No wonder that Norwegian Government see no big deal for removing children from biological families! Norway is a country in which people are brainwashed to believe that terminating parental rights is always in the best interest of the children. What a hypocrisy to claim that Norway is a good country for families, for raising children. Norway is a “good” country for foster parents.
Exactly, Octavian.
Now that the Hague Convention has been implemented in Norway, the incredible cameleon Mr Terning (next-in-command to the Minister) appeared in a news program and said that now! it will be possible to share confidential information with other countries’ CPS and transfer some children taken in Norway to their relatives in these other countries (to CPS-monitored care there).
Then the program took in a representative of a foster parents’ association, who was “very worried and sceptical”. She said that this would weaken the children’s safety and legal protection. One could no longer be sure that the children would be visited by competent (Norwegian) social workers 4 times a year. And (she got a bit heated), if the usual pay was NOK 8000 a month per child to foster parents, in a country like Poland this would be a fortune! (She did not elaborate on what kind of danger she thought this entailed.)
My question is if being blind on unintended side-effects was the cause or just a consequence of the brainwashing.
Pingback: Americanilor, ce-ati face daca Protectia Copilului ar aparea la usa voastra? | Pastor Ciprian Barsan
Reblogged this on Nagazaki's Blog.
Anybody knows if Cps staff in America systematically alter, interpret all wrong and exaggerate small things and change the facts in documents to become serious psychiatric diagnoses to use against parents in order to take the children away?
Do they also twist the facts in records (journaler), and monitor every movement or things from the past, and it’s usually interpreted as “too poor care capabilities”,?
And do they only target the not wealthy families (as if in those families no children are neglected, abused or beaten)?
🙂
Slava Domnului! Multumim pentru rugaciuni si pentru protectia lui Dumnezeu in toata aceasta perioada! Marius, Ruth si copiii sunt intr-o vacanta mult asteptata in afara Norvegiei! Nu conteaza atat de mult locurile pe unde vor merge, SUNT IMPREUNA TOTI SI ACEASTA ESTE CEA MAI MARE BUCURIE! Dumnezeu sa vindece sufletele lor si sa le dea pacea, au nevoie de liniste, de siguranta si de calauzire din partea lui Dumnezeu! Ii asteptam si noi cu drag sa-i vedem si ne rugam sa se incheie odata pentru totdeauna acest cosmar, sa fie lasati in pace sa-si creasca copiii in liniste si sa se bucure de ei! Multumim inca odata tuturor celor ce ati fost alaturi de noi si multumim lui Dumnezeu care merita toata lauda!
Dumnezeu sa se indure si de ceilalti care sunt nenorociti, ne rugam pentru ei…
Knut, Bodnariu case has nothing to do with the things we’re discussing here, did you forget your pills today?
What did you want to tell us Knut Nygaard?
Hmmm … I read this to be … almost what we could name “Breaking news” – I read the translation and the the two lines following – “Bodnariu left Norway! It does not matter where they are – they are eventually safe!”
I read this to be – they are moving from Norway to either Eastern Europe or more likely – the USA, but …. it’s seems that I misunderstood – they have only taken an ordinary vacation like everybody else – and that’s nothing to comment.
That is great if the Bodnarius are taking a vacation! They really deserve it! I pray that the Lord will give them the most wonderful time together to relax and enjoy!
Dear Friends of various nationalities – welcome to Norway!
Many qualified comments above here, but one discipline is missing that is Quality Assurance/Quality Control! As a retired professional Quality Auditor (73) from the international shipping and Oil Industry (EPCI = Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Installation on Oil Rigs, Drilling Ships and Trading Ships) from Management over a period of 40 years, I over the last 5 years since retirement concentrated on Human Rights by and large and Childrens welfare in particular. With my Background, I am familiar with Tactical and Technical Investigations as well as Interrogation-methods.
I have concentrated on Human Rights in Norway, applicable to both Norwegian and foreign residents, based on the UN Conventions and National Laws, Rules and Regulations that every Norwegian Community Administration/Politicians shall follow without deviations. For such a purpose, just a few Rules are the most important: The Internal Control Rules including HSE – Risk Analyzis – The Community Law – Ethical Requirements – Tolerance – Child Protection Requirements, etc. These shall grant Quality Assurance be maintained, but that is not the case! Why not?
Since August 2007, I document all my studies and Analyzis in 1500 Articles distributed on Home Pages and directly to a large group of people of various relevant competences and qualified viewpoints in the debate around Human Rights/Childrens Rights, Public Corruption and Public Law Violations. I have investigated around 2000 cases all over the country. Around 150 of the cases are Children separated from the parent(s) and given to Foster Homes. Why I studied around 75 cases of these on the CPS Decisions and their arguments for turning on § 4.12 and not § 4.6 Active Support in the Home, as Law prefers. Abt. 80 % of the “Note of Concerns” was of very poor Quality and Investigations and Evidences did hardly enough exist!
I consulted several Colleges and Universities and studied CPS Candidates program, competence and Qualifications compared to my suspicions. Which I then had confirmed. It is basic in various Analyzis Methods, to establish and divide characteristic segments. As I did with following approximate results:
1. The CPS do a good job – abt. 20 %
2. When the CPS takes charge in cases they should not touch at all – abt. 60 %
3. When they should have offered the clients help instead of force – abt. 60 % (ex. 1,2 and 4)
4. When they should have taken charge based on available information, but ignore – abt. 20 %
Confronted with this thorough professional research over many years, previous Childrens Minister Inga Marte Thorkildsen emphasized, “CPS never make mistakes”.
Of our abt. 1500 Articles, 874 are solely dedicated “Barnevernet” (CPS). The largest investigation, based on professional Quality Assurance and Analyzis ever performed. Ignored by the Minister & Co!
The Solutions are now presented to KMD (Kommunal-departementet) as recommendations upon the ongoing revision of “Kommuneloven”. A professional Quality Manager in every Municipality! With the special education and experience you only compiles in the private sector! Total Quality Management – from day to day!
Great to have your insight in these cases, Sir. Thank you for the info! It is very interesting indeed, and alot of us had a hunch, a feeling, but didn’t have survey’s numbers etc.
Does it say which socio-economic level the families had?
QA is important, but I think the major problem is an ill-functioning juridical system.
Courts should be able to pick the tasks of QA, but they seem to completely ignore the topic and completely ignore human rights considerations as well.
On “What to do if Cps knocks on your door America”
I found 3 quite interesting booktitles on Amazon: Link follows;
1. The Case Against Child Protective Services
by Carlos Morales
2. Child Protection/Abduction Services:
The Modern Mafia: Federally Financed Perjury, Fraud, Kidnapping…
by Dr. Eric D. Keefer D.D
3. Fighting CPS: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
of Child Protective Services Charges
by Deborah K. Frontiera
Link: https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-CPS-Innocent-Protective-Services/dp/0980006163/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V3JMCX3FEBKX96GK3XST
Good points Jasper, but since lawyers and judges joined the monster-bureaucracy and sice they all are alergic to QA this may be the way to go. My intention is to present QA as a way to earn a hell of a lot of Money and not a kick in the a…. They always underestimate such a Trap? Human Rights must be Quality Assured and I know we will make it within a year!
share and notice what Knut Myrebøe wrote above. These facts are known, but it would be a catastrophe for the state/ Barnevernet/ CPS, to admit. Or for any newspaper to publish. This is what they don´t want anyone to know. As Knut writes..The ministers, the leader of Buf dir ( the directorate who really controls this) the police and mainly everyone who is involved in this human trade business…would not accept these facts, even if they are proven. But…what would they answer to a journalist who knew about them, got an interview, and asked the right questions…AND..worked in a news paper, which was not dependent on support, from the state or the local commune/ commune…Well it might happen one day…but, right now, Barnevernet/CPS functions as a protected, high ranked criminal for the STATE…The state itself, can´t do all the dirty work..so they “use” the system..and protect the people in the system…which does the job for the “state”…some have just stopped to call it the state..but are calling it Statan..or…I guess you can all guess what that means in Norwegian..It is time for the human trade, crime business to fall..There is a time for all ” empires” to fall
♥ Amen (Let it happen)!
Arianne Christiansen wrote;
It is time for the human trade, crime business to fall..There is a time for all ” empires” to fall
I also say an amen to that! It is great that we have got a some people who have done some thorough investigations here and can document Barnevernet`s foul tactics. It is important to bring it to the surface so that it can be exposed. It is time that it falls soon!
The New Year Eve in Cologne was a catastrophe for the German Authorities to publish as well.
It is the high time for Web 2.0,
Knut Myrebøe wrote;
As I did with following approximate results:
1. The CPS do a good job – abt. 20 %
2. When the CPS takes charge in cases they should not touch at all – abt. 60 %
3. When they should have offered the clients help instead of force – abt. 60 % (ex. 1,2 and 4)
4. When they should have taken charge based on available information, but ignore – abt. 20 %
Confronted with this thorough professional research over many years, previous Childrens Minister Inga Marte Thorkildsen emphasized, “CPS never make mistakes”.
Thank you so much, Knut M. for your very interesting findings.It looks like you have done thorough investigations. This was very helpful!
Mr Nygaard: “The Bjugn cases – they were real – here in Norwegian”
So Mr Nygaard thinks the accusations in the Bjugn case were true? The Bjugn case was a case of blatantly false accusations, not a case of maltreated children. There are perfectly good accounts of that infamous case against a perfectly innocent man.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume7/j7_4_4.htm
I know that case very well indeed, among other things from the writer of this paper, Astrid Holgerson, a forensic psychologist (expert witness in about 250 cases in Sweden) who witnessed for the defense of the one person accused. Several others were at first arrested, I have also read the long judgment in the case they won for false arrest etc and conferred with the judge of that case at a seminar we had in Stockholm. Actually, the foundation for the Bjugn case and its crazed development were laid by cooperation between some CPS people, kindergarten people, and others, who held a “course” on how to elicit from children accusations – the course is in reality a recipe for obtaining statements by leading questions and indoctrination.
It was one of the “kindergarten cases” of which you have had several, equally crazy, in the USA also, the McMartin case, the Kelly Michaels case and others:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/other.html
not to mention the Cleveland case
http://abuse.wikia.com/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal
and the Shieldfield case in England:
http://www.richardwebster.net/cleared.html
(Richard Webster is completely dependable, and I have also read Judge Eady’s 300 page judgment on the libel case which the unjustly accused Reed and Lillie won),
the Zartbitter case in Münster, Germany (also mentioned in Holgerson’s article).
Is there not anyone of you that have intact the ability to read and reflect – or – is there something wrong with the ability for the readers to follow the commenting done on this blog? Here we have the one serial misunderstander after the other.
In the comment somewhere above I made a point of – since this thread start with “Americans” – the hysteria that went on in the Kern county in the eighties – with innocent parents still – as I mean to have read it – are in prison for accusations coming from children after being forced to tell lies and later end up believing them .. or at least … doubt about them enough to keep quit about it.
Then I commented that the hysteria in Bjugn municipality was of the same kind.
Please try to read me right and ask me if you wonder – I’m to accustomed to explain myself in english, but I try to do my best.
“Is there not anyone of you that have intact the ability to read and reflect”
I can only answer for myself, Knut.
Comments like this one are impossible for me to read and reflect on because they make no sense to me.
Knut,
if you meant that the hysteria was real in the Bjugn case, your translation to English has been totally misleading.
The numbers in Kristofersen’s report, cf Chris’s post
https://delightintruth.com/2016/07/12/americans-what-would-you-do-if-the-cps-shows-up-at-your-door/comment-page-1/#comment-73858
You are quite right, I must be getting too tired, what I referred to was the relative suicide rate. The whole paragraph has the title (almost at the top of p 12): Death as health indicator.
Kristofersen’s figures are as far as I know quite dependable. They are based on official sources and come as a result and a continuation of previous longitudinal studies. There is sa summary in English on pp 15-19.
They have studied the causes of death for the 700 + deaths of CPS children. They were 7.6 per 1000 od the total CPS children population. He also says that children with Norwegian background were the cause of the higher mortality among CPS children, foreign children in CPS care have a somewhat lower mortality rate.
He says:
In 2001, out ot the total population of children 1 – 17 years old, 168 persons died. This is a mortality rate of .17 per 1000 children and young. This is a very low figure compared to the CPS children, even when it is taken into account that the death of CPS children was taken over a much longer period and that some of the young in CPS arrangements were then of age (over 18 years old).
In the next para: Especially so-called violent deaths (traffic accidents and other accidents, suicides and killings) were frequent. 50 out of the 702 deaths were suicides.
Did you see Knut’s response above, Marianne? Here it is:
“The statistics Mrs. M have in her historic archieve is from socalled longitudinell research – the numbers shown are for ages far above the CPS age and show that children and youth coming from a short or long stay in the care of the CPS as grown ups have higher score on risk factors and suicide than compared to others at certain ages up to around 30. This show that we work with the right children.
This comment by Knut is again quite confusing and doesn’t appear to discuss the same “archive.”
I appreciate that you have tried to get me the correct information, Marianne. You have had to use the Barnevernet’s own statistics.
The report is from 2005 and includes statistics from 1990-2002.
So, the report was issued over a decade ago and the statistics are at least 14-25 years old. For a society that spends so much on child welfare, I would think that we would have something more current.
Here is a statement from the Barnevernet source given:
“Most, slightly over 26,000 (very nearly 26 per cent), where registered for no more than calendar year. This repudiates myths which, according to certain newspapers, thrive among parts of the public. When children and
their parents end up in the “clutches” of the child protection
authorities, extricating themselves is far from easy. This study
shows, on the contrary, that the child protection agencies deregister
considerable numbers under 18 every single year.”
My observations:
1) A good study will repudiate myths without having to state them.
2) Where does the study specifically show numbers of de-registered children?
3) Is it possible that those “registered for no more than a calendar year” are not counted the second time they are registered? Just asking.
4) Where are the “certain newspapers” that propagate such “myths?”
I have been informed that pro-Barnevernet statements in every part of the Norwegian public square way outnumber anti-Barnevernet sentiment by factors.
5) In what way do the “myths” “thrive among parts of the public?”
I think no one would question these two parts of the report:
“Every year, many infants receive first-time intervention, but there
is an influx of first-time youngsters as well.”
and
“Many children received assistance or care for many of the years.”
Then there is this:
“Most of the children cluster towards the latter part of the period.
As a percentage of all children with assistance/care between 1990 and
2002, only 17 per cent were assisted/in care in 1990, while the
share in 2002 was 34.6 per cent.”
My question is: “Since the percentage of all children with assistance/care doubled in 12 years between 1990-2002, what has happened in the most recent 12 years that we should have numbers for, 2003-2015?”
An organization with the resources of the Barnevernet should have better statistics. I can find certain child-welfare statistics in my state from last month.
Statistics can be written and read in more than one way. If I am almost certainly comparing apples to apples, then I can be assured that my numbers are close to being correct. I guess I’m becoming a bit skeptical when it comes to numbers from the Barnevernet, particularly since they are hard to come by.
I agree with much of your reasoning here, Chris. And I have stated before that I consider statistics important.
When it comes to what I should spend time on personally, it is like this though: Official bodies in Norway, manned with personnel of various sorts, flood the market with reports and studies. One little example is the study they have come up with now, which the minister Solveig Horne is citing to sooth down criticism every other day: a report showing that 80% of families receiving help from Barnevernet are satisfied with it. There was a similar one some 10-15 years ago, showing 90%. It doesn’t take much ingenuity to find out that the selection of families has been done by or through Barnevernet. Nor does it take much imagination to put a question mark at whether the answer will be totally free and honest from a family that is in the process of being “helped” by Barnevernet on the lines Mr Nygaard so often recommends: placed under surveillance and experimentation to find out whether they can improve or whether their children should be confiscated.
No one would have the time to go through all the figures and seemingly interesting statements from official sources. Least of all it would be possible to do everything from scratch, to obtain better figures and ask better questions. Only officially sanctioned personnel get access to all that they keep confidential. None of us have the possibility to do better statistics than a huge public body supplying the national statistical bureau with results.
Within my limited time and capacity I have rather chosen to concentrate on a couple of things:
One is that even from CPS-friendly sources or from themselves you find reports and statements showing, like Kristofersen’s, fact which are devastating for Barnevernet themselves, like 8 times as many CPS children committing suicide. These are supposedly children and youths whom Barnevernet has “worked with”. There are many such reports, actually world wide too but not least in Scandinavia. The LEAST it shows is that Barnevernet’s care does not help much! It is, as with everything, impossible to prove causality logically, so nothing can prove that Barnevernet has CAUSED such bad results, but the possibility of it should certainly be taken into account. In fact, there are studies showing that absolutely comparable groups of children, with the same background factors as the ones growing up in CPS care but growing up with their own parents, even with single parents, do much better, even just as well as the average for the population. There are even some smaller sibling studies, of which some siblings have been left at home while others have been taken into CPS care. These too have shown no better results for the siblings taken than for the ones left in the conditions their parents provided for them. One particular study I am thinking of, though, has such small numbers that it is statistically uncertain.
The other topic I have chosen to concentrate on, in all this caboodle, is the “inner reality” of what the CPS does and its ideological foundation. This has turned out to be completely unscientific and unrealistic, and this fact is demonstrable through a large number of solid, valid and important articles and books written by a wide variety of people of different professions and backgrounds. This lack of proper foundation accounts for the statistics of CPS work being as bad as it is. In this light it seems to me that actual, absolute and relative numbers are less important than our authorities would have them be. It is not only a question of how many reported worries about children there are and how many of them lead to investigations and intervention. It is more a question of WHAT the content was of those worries, whether the “signs” that something might be wrong were sensibly interpreted, whether the idea that everything troublesome or wrong does in fact stem from the parents, whether all that is based on real knowledge of real life. Not only “how many children are taken” but “on what basis”, “what is the result”, “how does the CPS’s account of cases square with what families can report and even prove”.
So Chris, the most important thing in being a mandated reporter I think would be for you to be utterly careful about what the “signs” of possible abuse are which your authorities teach you, whether there are single cases showing the basic beliefs and expertise to have been wrong in the very origin of their arguments. The statistics are only a signal of what is or may be going on. What is the inner content of cases, and what does that show? Here it is not enough to listen to what the social professions SAY is their aim (like re-uniting parents and children). The USA, too, has had bouts of forced adoptions. I remember an article from Chicago about 10-15 years ago, about legislation pushing for forced adoption if parents and children had not been re-united within 15 months. That is not a lot of time, given the way the CPS (not only in Norway) tends to prescribe parenting classes, evaluation of this and that. The article I read said that the law had been found to be unconstitutional.
I so appreciate your well articulated and understandable statement here, Marianne. I only wish Knut’s recent comments were as easy to understand.
“One little example is the study they have come up with now, which the minister Solveig Horne is citing to sooth down criticism every other day: a report showing that 80% of families receiving help from Barnevernet are satisfied with it.”
I have rarely known any society to have an 80% satisfaction rate with anything important unless it is a country like North Korea whose citizens will respond almost unanimously in favor of the way their current leader operates.
It is a place in the world where an unfavorable statement about the leadership might lead to worse than “surveillance and experimentation to find out whether they can improve or whether their children should be confiscated.”
I think it is a wise thing to focus on certain areas that help the truth to be told. I am trying the same by focusing on a few individual stories and learning about the BV “system” as I go.
The second thing I am trying to discover is similar to one you are focused on. I would like to understand the philosophy behind the apparent disdain for the biological family. This understanding may help me get to the root of the problem. As a Christian, I believe the roots of all worldly problems eventually leads to sin in some form. I would like to know the particulars of the sin in this case.
I know the word “sin” is not a popular word in our world today. However, God’s Word explains the wages of it clearly and I think it is dishonest to ignore that it exists.
Norway is not unique in that once held moral foundations have recently been changed. The redefinition of marriage is one thing that has recently been done in the U.S. Many see this as an “accomplishment.” I see it as another sign of moral decay. No matter what one thinks about this issue and even if one disagrees with me, I think most would agree that something is amiss in our world. The problem is that we can’t find common ground on what is amiss.
There are some who think we are progressing or evolving to a higher “self.” There are “Christians” who believe that the “Church” will help to create a harmonious world where all is well and where we all get along. I do not find this “world” in scripture. In fact, I read about the opposite in places like Matthew 24. The general teaching is that things will get worse, and then they will get worse than worse before they eventually become wonderful.
Off of my rabbit trail and back to your comment, Marianne. I know that I will need to be careful about the Mandated Reporting that I am required, by law, to do. There are possible penalties, some serious, if I neglect to report something obvious. I’ve been around kids most of my life and I think I know abuse when I see it. I will do my job to the best of my ability and I will try to remember to pray for wisdom.
There are a few things that have come out of my growing familiarity with the Barnevernet. One is my increased knowledge of the DHS (CPS) in my own country. Because so much information is available these days, a good deal of very important items get left on the cutting room floor because of the volume of news.
I have spent much of a lifetime around child advocacy and several years in a client advocate position that related to this exact topic.
Do my experiences and knowledge mean that I won’t make a mistake. I don’t think anyone could guarantee such a thing unless one thought they were God (which some do believe in our day). All I can do is my best and leave the rest up to something I trust that is much bigger than I.
Mr Nygaard has some curious idea of an archives he believes I have, Chris. I don’t know how this would even be relevant, but I think he means to say that it is dusty and old-fashioned and that I don’t know anything at all about the way Barnevernet works today. You may have noticed the way he often says that they are changing the whole time. That ought to make a difference, of course, and preferable in the right direction. But a well-known French saying seems appropriate: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (the more that changes, the more it is/remains the same thing).
“I think he means to say that it is dusty and old-fashioned and that I don’t know anything at all about the way Barnevernet works today.”
I got the same impression because of the words Knut used, Marianne.
At the same time, taking anything he writes in total lately and trying to figure it out is like trying to break some type of code. Honestly, unless he can be clearer in his statements, I don’t have time for them.
as a computer scientist I would say the more the changes, the higher likelyhood for making errors due to implementation of the changes.
>>> “Who writes the “emergency care” orders?”
The boss at the local CPS office. It can then be carried out right away. Then the CPS has to take this emergency take-over to the County Committee for confirmation, also very rapidly. <<<
Huge power transferred to an administrative body on municipal level.
Huge responsibility. There are reasonable doubts if local CPS office bosses were well trained on their boundaries, just think about the bias in the Bodnariu case…
What about Article 102 of the Norwegian Constitution? It requires a criminal case for searching a private home, not a criminal case or a child protection case…
Also, County Board seems to give time even when there is not enough initial evidence at all. There should be a reasonable threshold for giving time for collecting evidence while emergency foster care. That threshold seems to be very close to zero. Legal remedies to real courts are extremely slow due to County Board in between, and at the end the final reason seems to be pretty often that the child is already too much attached to the foster family… on the contrary of Article 104 of the Norwegian Constitution itself.
My conclusion is that a significant number of Barnevernet offices, County Boards and courts are like spitting onto the Norwegian Constitution.
The proposal by Gro Hillestad Thune to escalate powers: initiating emergency care order to County Board and District Court for rapid confirmation definitely makes sense.
I’m curious about what you are implying with this statement Jasper:
“What about Article 102 of the Norwegian Constitution? It requires a criminal case for searching a private home…”
Chris and Jasper: Yes, many CPS critics point to this (our constitution can be found here: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1814-05-17) and to §100 about freedom of expression.
Our authorities are unperturbed.
Of the judgments AGAINST Norway in the ECtHR in Strasbourg, several have concerned freedom of expression. The mood and trend in “legal thinking” here continues in the opposite direction.
I haven’t noticed anybody in an official position complaining about the CPS and police going into a house to take children as a breech of §102. Although the CC is not a court and the child protection law is not a criminal law (as you know now, any criminal offense parents may have committed to their children – or to CPS people or the police – is run as a separate trial), nor is it entirely “civil”. It falls somewhere between civil and criminal law. You can be sure that everything necessary to leave the police and the CPS go scot-free has been “defined”. In addition to being protected by law and interpretations of law, they sometimes break the law but are allowed to do so, both by courts and by the County Governor (the state’s local head administrator).
Sorry, “breech” should be “breach” – hehe.
This luxury of breaking the law can be afforded
– in a totalitarian regime,
– or in a democracy only in exigency, like rescuing someone’s life from imminent life-danger.
Norwegians, wake up! You cannot afford such a practice as a democracy! As it seems to be wide-spread practice I have no better idea than reporting suspected abuse of authority in each individual case when law has been broken this way.
Thank you for another thoughtful response, Marianne.
“You can be sure that everything necessary to leave the police and the CPS go scot-free has been “defined”. In addition to being protected by law and interpretations of law, they sometimes break the law but are allowed to do so, both by courts and by the County Governor (the state’s local head administrator).”
I have come to understand this better now. With the comments from both of you, (including Jasper) the laws, the Norwegian interpretation of it, and how the the law is treated in Norway is becoming clearer.
This way of interpretation of laws is the classical continental European juridical system. Anglo-saxon law operates with different concepts.
British law may operate differently, Jasper, but the CPS in Britain is probably the worst of the crazies these last few years.
I think we may basically disagree about the possibility of any law or any law arrangement to take care of essential needs. You write in other comments that it should be such and such, one should report to the police, they should call on forensic experts, who should be psychologists and psychiatrists, etc.
All of this leads nowhere when the source of the madness is in large measure psychology, and when the police and all other sorts of professions are given “courses” of the same babble and come to believe it.
“This luxury of breaking the law can be afforded
– in a totalitarian regime,
– or in a democracy only in exigency, like rescuing someone’s life from imminent life-danger.
“Norwegians, wake up! You cannot afford such a practice as a democracy! As it seems to be wide-spread practice I have no better idea than reporting suspected abuse of authority in each individual case when law has been broken this way.”
Now I take back what I said about you being “generous” to the BV, Jasper, and I apologize.
This is an excellent statement and wake up call, in my opinion.
Chris, I would like to be generous in individual cases during dispute what the case is about. But once the story turns out to be part of an inhuman system or inhuman culture my generosity goes away.
I am simply implying that Norwegian authorities do not care about their own constitution.
As laws may not be on the contrary to the constitution, the regulation in the constitution must be preferred over an act or a decree. The same is with international law. Lower level legislations like decrees are allowed to introduced detailed rules but never allowed to contradict higher level legislation or to change the substance of higher level legislation.
In case of such a clash, the regulation of the lower-level legislation mhst be considered invalid due to clashing with higher level legislation and hence the lower-level regulation must not be executed as higher level legislation forbids it.
In case of disputes courts have to deal with the question, but in case of human rights it is expected not only from public authorities, but from every single adult to detect such clashes — like a soldier is bound to reject an order for shooting into a peacefully demonstrating mass at peace time, even if the order is otherwise formally valid.
“I am simply implying that Norwegian authorities do not care about their own constitution.”
I wish to take back my comment about you being “generous” to the Norwegian BV after this statement, Jasper.
I am assuming you include the BV in the word “authorities” as they are along with the police in most break-ins.
“In case of disputes courts have to deal with the question, but in case of human rights it is expected not only from public authorities, but from every single adult to detect such clashes — like a soldier is bound to reject an order for shooting into a peacefully demonstrating mass at peace time, even if the order is otherwise formally valid.”
I agree, Jasper. The right thing to do is for the soldier to reject such an order because there is a higher law.
Chris, it is a real danger for administrative bodies to get lost in the detailed rules and lose the big picture. Taking the human rights picture always require to see the whole picture at once.
This is due to not only higher level and lower level legislations can clash. Same level legislations can also collide. Especially with respect to human rights, collisions of human rights has a literacy that can fill many libraries on its own.
In case of human rights collision, the goal is to find a good balance among all the human rights involved: human rights can restrict each other to a reasonable extent but human rights cannot nullify each other.
So it makes no sense to bulldoze one human right in the name of another. Human rights are altogether one complex system, and human rights can be altogether respected or violated, and in case of human rights collisions respecting human rights means finding a good balance. For example, in Barnevernet’s practice, finding good balance between children’s right for safety and children’s right for their own families.
Chris – during my years in the nunicipal CPS – I have just once had police assistance – that’s all.
Knut, do I remember well, that you work in a big city?
My impression is that Barnevernet offices in big cities are better on balancing, most likely it is much more easy to ask advice from each other there.
There were crazy cases — remember the photo of the Barnevernet manager with the client from years before the proceedings. That manager should have declared a bias and pass whole procedure to the neighbouring office immediately… and we are at formal check level for fair procedure, not deep-diving into human right collisions, which is a more complex topic to handle.
“Chris, it is a real danger for administrative bodies to get lost in the detailed rules and lose the big picture. Taking the human rights picture always require to see the whole picture at once.”
This is so true, Jasper. I also think I understand the rest of your comment.
There is no question in my mind that human rights violations are occurring in Norway’s Barnevernet. This has been stated by at least one solid Human Rights group which includes agreement by many professional individuals. And then there are the testimonies of so many Norwegian citizens who have had their family lives abruptly halted in a cruel way.
The child welfare act say this about our mandate in the visit(s) to a childs home – Section 4-3. Right and duty of the child welfare service to conduct investigations.
If there is reasonable cause to assume that there are circumstances, which may provide a basis for measures under this chapter, the child welfare service shall investigate the matter at the earliest opportunity; see the time limits set out in section 6-9.
The investigation shall be carried out in such a way as to minimise the harm it causes to anyone affected, and it shall not have a wider scope than is justified by its purpose. Importance shall be attached to preventing the unnecessary spreading of information about the investigation.
The parents or the person with whom the child is living may not oppose an investigation as mentioned in the first paragraph being carried out in the form of a visit paid to the home.
The child welfare service may engage experts. Before the expert’s report is used as the basis for a decision to implement a measure under Chapter 4 of the Child Welfare Act, it shall be assessed by the Commission on Child Welfare Experts; see section 2-5. This shall not apply to interim orders in emergencies; see sections 4-6, 4-9 and 4-25. The expert’s report shall also be assessed by the Commission before it is used as the basis for a decision by the child welfare service to drop a case.
The child welfare service, and experts whom it has appointed, may demand to speak with the child alone in a separate room. If there is suspicion that the child is being mistreated or subjected to other serious abuse at home (see section 4-12, first paragraph (c)), the child welfare service may order that the child shall be taken to a hospital or elsewhere for examination.
I think most of you see and understand the difference between “search” and a “visit”.
We have all seen visits of how investigators search a home if something criminal is under investigation. They look for something that give the criminal case evidence and direction. If necessary the home can be taken apart and not be in the posistion to be set back to the order it was.
We visit – are guests arriving to get the feeling of the atmosphere and conditions the child involved is living in. The child show us it’s room and we spend a couple of hours in the home sometimes invited to the meals the family involved have on it’s daily routine during our visit time.
In some homes we can be curious and thoughts might arise like – do the have food in the refrigator? – what tablets is there in the bathroom? – do the child have the necessary clothes in the closet? – but we don’t do that. That is over our mandate – that is search. We may talk about it if it is mentioned as a serious concern in the worry given, but we don’t take the lead – we ask – “Can you show us….?”
During my years I have been in homes where a search would have found drugs, weapon and person that the parent(s) know shouldn’t be there hidden under the bed or in a closet next to the living room ….. If we should have done a “search” we sure would have set us in real danger.
I’m going to bed, Knut. When I wake up, I’ll try and figure out what you have stated this time.
I think it does not make sense that assessment by Comission does not apply at all for interim decisions in emergency.
It can make sense not to wait for the Comission and take action. However the Comission should review even retrospectively and be able to trigger rolling back decision.
This reminds me on the Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy… when paying for dinner with an article is only allowed in emergency… so the heroes trigger the emergency to be able to have a free dinner…
Japer: “However the Comission should review even retrospectively and be
able to trigger rolling back decision.”
You are describing what should and would be done in a system which is by and large working sensible, where those in declared positions of responsibility and authority do sensible and intelligent things, when authorised experts have real expertise.
How does this work when it amounts to something like complaining to one section of the communist apparatus, say in Romania in 1980?, about another section having confiscated your property?
Finally, something written that is coherent, Knut. Your writing has been all over creation lately.
“Chris – during my years in the nunicipal CPS – I have just once had police assistance – that’s all.”
How about your years in the municipal CPS; how long ago were these visits and how long were you in a position of making visits, if that is indeed what you are referring to above, Knut? I will ask in spite of your track record of evading answers, giving misleading answers, and apparent outright falsification.
Also, what is the percentage of cases where “visits” are accompanied by the police NOW?
“The parents or the person with whom the child is living may not oppose an investigation as mentioned in the first paragraph being carried out in the form of a visit paid to the home.”
“May not oppose” means what, Knut? What about those who oppose these visits? Are their opinions considered?
Hmmm…. you seem to ask questions you have gotten answers for already or you find them in comments I have made. I have written in one comment on this thread about the assistance of police and firemen needed to get a baby in safety – that’s all.
During some years in the CPS guard 24/7 shifts the police and the CPS cooperated in situations as domestic violence. In such situations the police are in the lead.
Including these guard situations I think one to three percent as I have told you a couple of times now – not me – I have just once in nearly 30 years in my ordinary duty – police in seldom involved or necessary – the one to three percent is including the CPS guard – we others hardly need the police except in emergencies – but not with the door – just to take the parent(s) in for interrogations and custody if necessary. As Mrs. M has agreed upon – we find the child involved in kindergarden or at school for the most part – some babies are at home, but I have not been involved with that the assistance of the police.
Again you ask a question I have commented before. The CPS hardly knock on any door as the first intervention in Norway. If it’s a child with no history in the CPS the will receive a letter that tells the parent(s) involved that the CPS have received a concern from … and then telling in a two-liner something about the context so the receiver is informed enough to know what this is all about and be prepared. When we send this letter we know nothing about the parent(s) – if the work or their working hours, but we tell them to take contact if the date or time for the first conversation at our office is not suitable.
In this first conversation we give the parent(s) general information about the CPS – the concern and the opinions given back – the investigation to be done together with the parent(s) – we togehter work our an invstigation plan – who to get information from – date for home visist – where to speak with the child(ren) involved – a timeframe that give us a conclusion before three months as the Child welfare act requires.
Occasionally we have a parent that don’t show up or take any form of contact. What we do next and how fast is then being considered in accordance with the content of the concern and who it’s from. If serious and from a reliable source – and not showing up is suiting the known information we go to the next step – the door. This can first be done without the police – the with the police. I have once been outside a door where a mother was hiding with her baby after receiving a care order. In that situation no reaction came with the police outside the door – this situation ended with firemen tearing smashing the door and the child brought into safety. The mother was disturbed – there was dark music coming from the apartment and it was possible that this might end in a very tragic way.
Domestic violence and other dramatic situation for the most part appear after our normal working hours and are handled from the guard office in the police building. This is a cooperative intervention where the CPS workers go to steps behind the police and find the children involved in closets or under beds – the abuser taken away and the other to the hospital …
Emergencies seldom has the door as the first intervention. The children are for the most part either in school and kindergarden.
These last two comments are pretty unclear, Knut. If you are responding to me, you haven’t answered any of my questions to my satisfaction. There is something about a letter and an instance where the fire department was involved. I don’t understand what you are trying to communicate about the letter or the fire department. You have left too many blanks for others to fill in. I could guess what you are trying to communicate but I don’t want to be writing for you, Knut.
The only thing I will guess at is that some kind of letter is a “first conversation.” It is the only guess I am going to try and make. Please tell me if I am correct or not on this one guess, Knut.
Also, I will ask only one question again:
What is the percentage of cases where “visits” are accompanied by the police NOW?
By “visits” I mean people arriving in person at the home of “client.”
Chris,
translated: “..The use of emergency decisions in Norwegian Cps has exploded over the last few years. The requirement is that it should only be used in extreme cases.But instead it has become the “normal” intervention.
Professor Mons Oppedal has worked with the issues around emergency decisions, and he was the initiator of a study of how these acute decisions seems on the children. There are similar studies from other countries, with the same result: the children exposed to a tremendous stress, and we know that such stress can have catastrophic effect on the children. Still the Norwegian authorities increases the use of emergency decision!..”
Link: http://forskning.no/barn-og-ungdom-psykologi/2012/05/de-fleste-barn-hentes-uanmeldt
Bruken av akuttvedtak har eksplodert de siste årene. Lovens krav er at det bare skal brukes i ytterste nød. Det er blitt det “normale”. Professor Mons Oppedal har arbeidet med problemstillingene rundt akuttvedtak, og han var initiativtaker til en studie av hvordan akuttvedtak virker på barna. Det finnes tilsvarende studier fra andre land, med samme resultat: barna utsettes for et voldsomt stress, og vi vet at slikt stress kan ha katastrofal effekt på barna. Likevel øker norske myndigheter bruken av akuttvedtak!
“..The use of emergency decisions in Norwegian Cps has exploded over the last few years. The requirement is that it should only be used in extreme cases.But instead it has become the ‘normal’ intervention.”
I appreciate your comment Trine but I would like to see statistics on this situation. If you have a link to such information, it could be very instructive.
Very low – I guess far under one percent. Yes, we start an investigation with a letter to the parent(s) involved where we tell them of the worry we have received and two lines about the content and from whom the worry comes. This is the opening scenario for 97 to 99 percent of all cases.
Some statistics for the year 2015 in english
https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/barneverng/aar/2016-07-01
“While working , she was surprised that 80 percent of placements proceeding as emergency placements , while only 20 percent was planned . In acute placements coming CPS without notice and fetch the child. By planned investments are family informed beforehand .”
This is how a section of the article you linked to translates, Trine.
It seems to be saying that 80 percent of placements are emergency placements.
Is my understanding correct, Trine?
Also, I still don’t have a firm number on placements. The 1990-2002 Barnevernet report admits to over 7,500 average yearly placements during that time. It isn’t specific though. It states that the years closer to 2002 had more placements.
I don’t recall seeing any report on numbers of children placed yearly during 2003-2015. It seems that the BV has not publicized any official numbers during that time. I hope I am wrong. Do you know of any type of report that gives numbers during any portion of these years, Trine or anyone?
Knut Nygaard said: “Children and youth coming from a short or long stay in the care of the CPS as grown ups have higher score on risk factors and suicide than compared to others at certain ages up to around 30”. Mr. Nygaard, this study is believed to be true exclusively by CPS in the Foster Republic of Norway…
What do we mean higher score? Less risk or more risk?
Marianne and Chris, what response do you have on the following:
On the subject “door intervention”, Mr. Nygaard needs to provide more information on the following good questions :
* Jasper’s: “I still do not understand door as intervention”
* Chris has several questions knut didn’t answer:
1):“We seldom come to the door as our first intervention. Please define seldom for me, Knut.”
2): “Do you have any statistics?”
3): “Finally, why are we getting estimates from an organization with so much funding? I would think you could be more specific.
4): “Your 1-3 % door as intervention represents what exactly?”
5): “Where did you get that figure?”
* Knut’s claim: “Estimate – the door as first intervention – my guess – a very low percent “
* My “claim”: (Bufdir: In 2014 in total 52996 informations of worry/ worry messages (bekymringsmeldinger) were given to Cps/ barnevernet in Norway). So, if as Knut tells us maximum 3 % of these ends with door as intervention/ cps storming in with police, that means 1589.88 families experiences this every year.
Let’s say there are one mother and one father and two children in the homes as average, which means that 6359.52 inhabitants in Norway are having quite negative door interventions a year, and that’s a lot!
In 10 years that would make 63595.2 individuals being put through this kind of police-state intervention iby Cps in order to investigate if they are able to remove children from it’s parents, and that is really a huge number of traumatized inhabitants barnevernet creates.
I wonder in how many of these cases and interventions the ending is good for the children barnevernet says they “saves”, and their life changes for the better, perhaps 10 children a year (?) , I would guess.
And how much money did the state/ tax payers spend on barnevernets actions for ten years (traumatizing more than 60 000 inhabitant to save 100 children).. guessing 2000 000 000 norwegian krones/ $ 236000000 USD
If nobody in here wants to discuss the point I’m trying to make hear, I would like to know why not!
We don’t need the assistance of the police to get our work done except –
if the parent(s) don’t show up and the worry is serious and from a thrustworthy source. Two CPS workers go to the door – get an impression – are the someone behind the door or not? If we understand that there are someone behind the door we communicate and tell them that we need to speak and that we can do it with or without the assistance of the police. We have given the police the information needed before leaving the office and they will come to the address if we say so. Most people have respect for the police and open the door
– in some emergencies if the child involved don’t attend a kindergarden or go to school
– in some cooperated visits following the police to addresses with children if domestic violence or other situations like drug use or drinking that may have severe consequences for the child – most of these situations end with a worry sent to the CPS that have the responsibility for the address involved.
http://miradetodo.net/engelen-2009-720p-hd/
“Engelen”- “The Angel” is a Norwegian movie from 2009 in the category social drama. As the film opens, a doped-up Lea (Maria Bonnevie) makes an extremely bad impression on her baby daughter’s foster parents; later, flashbacks reveal her disturbing youth and young adulthood. From the wrong side of the tracks, Lea grows up in a small house on the edge of the forest. When her father dies, her fragile mother Madelene takes up with the jealous alcoholic Ole. Unable to prevent Madelene from being beaten, Lea winds up as a substance abuser.
Jasper:
“@Chris, Marianne:
Are we talking about Mandated Reporters or are we talking about forensic experts telling their opinion to the county board / courts?
Picking a few symptoms could be OK from a Mandated Reporter, should be eligible for further investigations, but that level of knowledge is far far away from what is expected from a forensic expert, and far away from justifying an emergency care order!”
https://delightintruth.com/2016/07/12/americans-what-would-you-do-if-the-cps-shows-up-at-your-door/comment-page-1/#comment-73863
Several other comments from Jasper and Chris also go to this question:
JULY 15, 2016 @ 8:41 AM
https://delightintruth.com/2016/07/12/americans-what-would-you-do-if-the-cps-shows-up-at-your-door/comment-page-1/#comment-73862
JULY 15, 2016 @ 11:16 AM
https://delightintruth.com/2016/07/12/americans-what-would-you-do-if-the-cps-shows-up-at-your-door/comment-page-1/#comment-73868
JULY 15, 2016 @ 12:49 PM
https://delightintruth.com/2016/07/12/americans-what-would-you-do-if-the-cps-shows-up-at-your-door/comment-page-1/#comment-73870
JULY 15, 2016 @ 2:44 PM
https://delightintruth.com/2016/07/12/americans-what-would-you-do-if-the-cps-shows-up-at-your-door/comment-page-1/#comment-73873
I will say for Norway: There is no such clear rule or indeed idea of who is an expert. The wooliness of it is indicative of our whole problem.
First of all, everybody in any “child profession” is an expert compared to a parent, who is taken to have no ability or competence or insight into his/her own children.
Then, any such “professional” who has been taught “psychobabble the politically correct way” is taken to be an expert as against people who are professionals of a more sensible sort. Example: Margaret Hennum, who is a pediatric nurse of long experience and practices in a hospital, was considered incompetent about anything regarding Caspian when Nadia and Caspian had lived in her home for over a month. Who were the experts: the personnel at the mothers’ home who had kept them under “scrutiny” and found that Nadia didn’t have the “right” psychological “connection” with Caspian or some such nonsense.
Finally, it is of no help whatsoever to rely on psychologists and psychiatrists who have long experience of such questions and conflicts and have been in court a lot, because their expertise rests on a psychology which is precisely the problem. They have a major role in having shaped the whole system, through the courts and through the cultural perceptions of society, into the state it is in today.
And this whole sorry state of affairs – besides taking the whole unsound and unscientific nonsense of Freud as a basis – originated in America, so there is reason for you all not to be sure, without proper insight, that the ones you trust and the court system you trust over there has really got over the sickness of it all. To Chris I would say: Yes, your first step is to pay proper attention to whether what you are told at courses etc are symptoms of abuse, is really sensible and not only directed against parents. The second is the almost super-human task of making sure what those you report to do with the information, what kind of experts they call on, what kind of investigations they engage in. To Jasper I would repeat what I think I have said before: It is no use relying on a particular procedure which you think is appropriate to guard against miscarriages of justice, when practically all the people in all parts of the system have been taught to “miscarry” it. The only thing I myself can try to do is expose elements of the system and the causes of the shipwrecks. It is no use telling me that Norway should employ experts and report the sick court and CC procedures to the police, when the police have had the same kind of teaching and are part and parcel of the system. The causes of the catastrophe(s) are inner, in the content, not in the lack of a safe procedure.
You might care to read
Margaret Hagen:
“Whores of the Court. The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice”
Regan Books, 1997
Hagen works/worked at Boston University as a developmental psychologist, doing research especially in the perception of art! She was shocked to discover what her “colleagues” in other branches of psychology were doing.
Something which lawyer Dag Sverre Aamodt wrote is relevant here:
“For an extended period of time, I was acting Chief of Police in the police district of Romsdal. Reading suicide notes was one of my obligations. One of these was from a young gipsy girl who had lost her child to Child Care Services. Her letter was heartbreaking and I decided to initiate investigations, so that she at least after her death would be taken seriously. The result was a shock.
Pages and pages of criticism from Child Care Services. I, myself, had small children at the time. Nearly every single action that gipsy girl was criticized for by Child Care Services, were things we did ourselves. My distinct impression was that she could do nothing right in Child Care Services’ opinion. They had already decided, and presented the facts to suit their preconceived impression.”
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page185/page185.html
“Nearly every single action that gipsy girl was criticized for by Child Care Services, were things we did ourselves…….”
It is, all of it, a fraud.
Marianne, as long as I understood you correctly, you are changing the context — expecially about my comments on psychiaters and clinical psychologists:
The original context was that some mandated reporter reports some suspected sexual abuse based on some symptoms from the 48 list. As there is no clear evidence, like a child talking about suffering sexual abuse or a witness talking about accidentally catching the perpetrator, and as a mandated reporter has very limited knowledge about the list, the report has to be investigated further with caution. A psychiatrist or clinical psychologist would fit this task with a definite scope, to be able to exclude sexual abuse in most likely a significant ratio of the cases, and tell that the child had likely suffered sexual abuse in a reduced number of cases.
This task has very definite scope and I don’t think it is comparable to what your talking about — unscientific methods and shaping the system by them. Your comment makes me guessing that the practice is unscientific because there are no boundaries, no definite scope for experts:
it is not the same if X. Y. is an expert in this field (like telling if the few symptoms from the list were really likely signs for sexual abuse or not) or a general expert on child welfare.
I am convinced that
i) there is no general experts on child welfare
ii) it is unscientific — and in some cases I would even use the word quackery — for an expert not to respect her/his scope and boundaries.
iii) I would usually trust a psychiatrist far more than a psychologist in general, due to a psychiatrist is a doctor and most medical universities take it really serious to teach the “at least, don’t make harm” principle: before deciding for any therapy, double-check about any potential side-effects and if the expected side-effects exceed the expected benefits do not start/continue the therapy but start thinking about something else.
Due to the same reasons according to what I heard so far, psychiatrists care more about their boundaries and are far more willing to tell their patient that some question has been raised that is not their field so go and see another kind of doctor etc.
iv) unfortunately what I heard about psychologists is not that good. Of course I trust a psychologist who is a psychiater at the same time… Clinical psychologists I would trust in the little more, as they have many years experience in clinicum letting them see a wide range of cases and cooperating with doctors, as obligatory before obtaining qualification as a
clinical psychologist, and they also need to learn the “at least, don’t do harm” principle very well.
v) it should be a key task for child welfare staff and as well as for judges to see the scopes behind all experts and do not let them talk out of scope of their qualifications.
The comments “tails” are becoming almost too long to handle, so I put this down at the bottom although it relates to something further up (you will be able to find it again searching for the text):
Chris: “Also, I still don’t have a firm number on placements. The 1990-2002 Barnevernet report admits to over 7,500 average yearly placements during that time. It isn’t specific though. It states that the years closer to 2002 had more placements.”
No, it is not 7,500 yearly NEW placements, it means an average of 7,500 children IN placement each of those years. Nowadays it has gone considerably up, not yet to the double, depending on who you count: some are placed voluntarily, etc.
Quite realistic numbers for 2014 from the national statistical bureau:
http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page301/page301.html
Thank you again, Marianne, for being a “voice” of clarity.
Your last three comments have again made the situation in Norway clearer.
This is one of the many reasons I have found you a better source of information, by far, than any CPS advocate who has commented here.
Your comments provide clarity, correction, sound reasoning, and they answer questions. Your comments are not evasive and they are not misleading. Even your opinions are clear.
Anyone interested in this subject should go to the link you put at the end.
I found this thesis statement of sorts to be what I have come to believe, apart from your comments here Marianne, about certain statements made by “authorities:”
“This statement is inaccurate and in part downright untrue. It is aimed at showing a rosy picture of a system which is felt by thousands of Norwegians as abusive and has triggered large demonstrations.”
There is this comment:
“To Chris I would say: Yes, your first step is to pay proper attention to whether what you are told at courses etc are symptoms of abuse, is really sensible and not only directed against parents. The second is the almost super-human task of making sure what those you report to do with the information, what kind of experts they call on, what kind of investigations they engage in.”
The second step is “super-human” and even impossible. The first step is directed mainly against care givers I think but the focus is on the child and not the possible abuser in the courses I have taken. The main concern is the welfare of the child. At least, that is what I’ve taken away from training that is not overbearing.
I only have one question left, Marianne. It is about this statement:
“And this whole sorry state of affairs – besides taking the whole unsound and unscientific nonsense of Freud as a basis – originated in America, so there is reason for you all not to be sure, without proper insight, that the ones you trust and the court system you trust over there has really got over the sickness of it all.”
It is about this book by Margaret Hagen:
“Whores of the Court. The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice” Regan Books, 1997
Does the book cover the information about the American origination or is there a better source that I can learn from about this?
Chris: “The first step is directed mainly against care givers I think but the focus is on the child and not the possible abuser in the courses I have taken. The main concern is the welfare of the child. At least, that is what I’ve taken away from training that is not overbearing.”
That is what everybody in the CPS and CPS-related business says in Norway too. I think there is no other way than to try to find out what they in reality do, not only what they say they do and what they say their ideals are, than indeed to find out by talking with other people than the ones in the system as well as with them.
You find out the truth in the way you find out anything: by searching in likely areas for information, the best we can. In such a search as ours for reality, it is very important to try and take each case one has the possibility of “getting close to” very seriously, if possible talk with the parents, read their case documents, etc. When cases are like they are in Norway, you will not for very long fail to see that they are fraudulent. Then pay some attention to what CPS protesters in the USA have to tell (like this article by Becky Hastings, which was surely not written out of the blue but has sprung from some experience?), go after statistics of how CPS children fare when and after they are in the CPS’s hands. – All of this brings you closer to the “second step” too, although I certainly agree it is impossible to do it in any perfect way.
In fact, Suranya Aiyar in India, who is a lawyer, educated in Britain (and has lived in USA also), has had contact with families in the USA who have been attacked fairly unfairly by the CPS there, and she has read case-documents thoroughly. She has written about some cases, and will put them out in a perhaps more collected way on her blog (she has the same trouble that many of us have: she has to have technical assistance with the blog and it all takes time!)
Yes, Margaret Hagen’s book has quite a lot on exactly what you ask and which would interest you, I think, and she has very reliable references to top relevant and reliable other literature. Her chapters have e.g. titles like
“Whores of the court. Psychologists as De Facto triers of fact in our justice system”,
“Three kinds of liars. History of the forensic psychology industry”,
“Learning to read tea leaves. Growing the forensic psychology industry”,
“In the best interests of the child. Parental rights and psychoexperts”.
You can usually buy it easily on Amazon, if your local library does not possess it.
Robyn Dawes’ book, which I have mentioned previously, is at least as revealing. Some chapter titles:
“Psychotherapy: The myth of expertise”,
“Prediction and diagnosis: More myths of expertise”,
“Licencing: The myth of protecting the public”
“A plethora or experts and what to do about them”,
“Why the myths are believed”,
“New Age psychology”.
Either of these two books would give you very good insight into psychology etc in America. You trust me too much when you ask whether there is an even better source, because I do not follow up on all that is coming. But Dawes and Hagen would bring you to a good enough level of insight so that you could take what could be called “an educated, critical stand” on what you hear or read that is presented today.
“That is what everybody in the CPS and CPS-related business says in Norway too. I think there is no other way than to try to find out what they in reality do, not only what they say they do and what they say their ideals are, than indeed to find out by talking with other people than the ones in the system as well as with them.”
“it is very important to try and take each case one has the possibility of ‘getting close to’ very seriously, if possible talk with the parents, read their case documents, etc. When cases are like they are in Norway, you will not for very long fail to see that they are fraudulent.”
I appreciate these comments, Marianne.
I worked among those who had been reported to our DHS (CPS) for almost 5 years. I would never consider myself an “expert” in child welfare cases. However, a good part of my job was teaching parenting and anger management classes to parents who were required to do so to maintain or regain custody of their child(ren). I also observed visitations. There was never a police officer present for any of the many visitations I observed.
Of course, each case was different. In many cases, our “client” was required by the same juvenile court to take family counseling sessions or meetings with profession psychologists or psychiatrists outside of the facility where I worked.
I did get very close to some cases and, as I still view myself in a position of confidentiality, I can only write in general terms.
Because of the many different types of cases I became familiar with, I will only mention a few of the major types here.
In some cases the child was in the custody of one parent while the other had to come to parenting classes; in other cases, where the custody situation varied, both parents had to take parenting classes. Sometimes the parents had custody, other times the child had been temporarily taken by the D.H.S. until the juvenile court was satisfied the parents were ready to be reunified with the child(ren).
Anger management was required of parents in many different parenting situations.
It was the same for visitations. One or both of the parents may have lost custody the child(ren) causing visitations. Much of the time, visitations continued until a decision was made on a permanent custody situation. Some visitations were required by the juvenile court before overnight or weekend custody was allowed. The “offender” had to work to get back credibility with the local court.
I remember that a large percentage of children who had been removed from parents had been placed with relatives.
You can imagine that I found myself in the middle of many custody battles. When there was a rare case that custody was taken from the parent(s), we were always saddened and it was a big event. They were unusual cases.
An attempt was made to make sure I wasn’t teaching parenting classes to both parents. I met parents who admitted certain things like leaving their child(ren) in their car while “running” into the store to buy something. Parenting classes were usually required of these parents and I don’t recall many similar cases where a parent like this lost custody.
Most parents realized why they were taking parenting classes. There were those who were there just to get their 20 hours in. When there was a he said/she said custody case, most parents put their side of the story in a good light as you can imagine. Reunification was usually the objective by all parties as far as I was aware. Although my superior(s) were called to court many times, they had only one voice among many at the final hearing.
To put this in context, most of the juvenile cases I was exposed to went through a judge whom many considered wise and fair. Also, probably 95% of the cases I was involved in happened in one county. I heard discussions on several fronts about “mistakes being made” but they were the exception rather than the rule.
In short, what I witnessed is nothing like what is being described in Norway. I’ll admit my scope is limited and that my knowledge of the national CPS in the U.S. has only gotten better since I’ve learned about the problems in Norway. Again, in context, I worked in one county in one state of one large nation. What happened where I live is possibly not indicative of events in the entire United States.
My return to teaching almost 3 years ago continued my role as a mandatory reporter with possibly more opportunity to be held responsible for reporting. I have become pretty much a day in day out substitute teacher. This would make my role as a mandatory reporter very limited as I’m sure the educators who see the same students everyday would notice any obvious abuse. I have never had to call the hotline but I will if I see any obvious signs of child abuse.
I am slowly learning about both of our country’s CPS systems, Marianne. You have, I’m sure, much more knowledge about the psychology taught in both countries.
My interest is obvious. I care about families. In a world with so many problems, I find myself thinking about children on a daily basis. I do wish to know more about the psychological and philosophical ideas that have created the current systems. The books that you’ve noted seem like a good place to start.
It is against God’s law to cause “one of these little ones who believe to stumble.” (Mark 9:42)
As time allows, I will learn more and hope to get a better understanding of Child Welfare systems. I know laws are constantly changing so I’ll put up my antennae as time passes.
You have given a desciption that is much the same as we in Norway offer the parents involved that need changes to get the the care for the child back with both parents involved in it’s future – we also want the parent(s) involved to succeed.
Some “say” the same, Knut.
Methods seem different and percentages seem difficult to get even from the well-funded Barnevernet.
I have asked you many questions about Norway’s statistics involving child care that you haven’t answered.
I’ll re-ask three. You have been very evasive to this point so I will try and be very specific with my questions.
You have worked many years for your employer and should be an expert in many ways, particularly since you seem to act like one as you are representing your employer here.
It appears difficult to find any Barnevernet statistics that are official and recent. Trine has linked to this source (above):
Link: http://forskning.no/barn-og-ungdom-psykologi/2012/05/de-fleste-barn-hentes-uanmeldt
Here is one statement from this source:
“While working , she was surprised that 80 percent of placements proceeding as emergency placements , while only 20 percent was planned . In acute placements coming CPS without notice and fetch the child. By planned investments are family informed beforehand .”
Even though the above source isn’t clear enough for me, it does put some numbers out there.
Question #1:
What percentage of first time “interventions” are done using the term “emergency?” By “interventions” I mean the first face-to-face official contact between CPS officials and “offenders” even in the case of interviews.
Question #2:
What percentage of first time “interventions” (the type in question #1) include police involvement?
Question #3:
What percentage of children are taken without parental notification?
These questions should be easy for someone like you to answer. Please do so and your source would be appreciated also.
Mr Nygaard: “You have given a desciption that is much the same as we in Norway offer the parents involved that need changes to get the the care for the child back with both parents involved in it’s future – we also want the parent(s) involved to succeed.”
Chris: “Some “say” the same, Knut.”
I’ll take Mr Nygaard’s word for it that those may be their (good) intentions. Which is again another example that such intentions can indeed pave the road to a certain place.
Idealistic formulations and formally good procedures are not enough. There need to be transparency into how they are carried out, what the affected children and parents say in ALL cases (not only in those that praise the CPS), realistic and critical statistical investigations of real results.
I would say I can accept Knut’s testimony about his own work and also about the local office where he works.
It would not be that surprising that there are some places where the local office really did a great job.
However, with Council of Europe investigating high number of forced foster cares, I can only think that there are some other places working not so well.
After reading many news in Norwegian media on child welfare in the past months, I think it was also possible that there is a fostercare panic going on in Norway. There are politicians talking about decades ago, wishing if Barnevernet had been working like today…
All these suggest for me that even politicians and not only Barnevernet staff might over-compensating the past and panicking on the slightest signs, which could easily lead to taking children into emergency care / forced foster care too early.
And about statistics, for me looking at the numbers provided by Bufdir — in Norwegian — was sufficient so far:
https://www.bufdir.no/Statistikk_og_analyse/Barnevern/
I am especially concerned about the gray line still climbing up (placement outside of home). I would be far less concerned if the gray line was falling and the orange line (help measures at home) was climbing…
If you click on “Tall pr. fylke” it becomes clear that the ratio of placements outside home have a big geographical variation. In some counties, only about 1/3 of measures are outside home, while in some others about 1/2 of the measures.
I would be in particular interested in out of home placements per capita and help measures per capita and comparison of counties based on those KPIs.
http://puregrace-news.blogspot.no/2016/07/no-wonder-that-norwegian-government-see.html
One more comment on the statistics.
There are striking geographical differences. Not only among municipalities but among counties. There were counties where number of placements outside of home per year went up very sharply in the past 12 years.
Numbers of children placed outside home per 1000 children per year varied among counties between 6.5 (Akershus) and 18.8 (Finnland) in 2014 which difference seems to be beyond rational. Even the average/median has increased sharply, only Oslo seems to produce stable numbers.
Marianne, may I remind you that I asked for your response July 16; shortened quote:
“..Marianne and Chris (Chris replied the same day), what response do you have on the subject “door intervention”.
My “claim”: (Bufdir: In 2014 in total 52996 informations of worry/ worry messages (bekymringsmeldinger) were given to Cps/ barnevernet in Norway). So, if as Knut tells us maximum 3 % of these ends with door as intervention/ cps storming in with police, that means 1589.88 families experiences this every year.
Let’s say there are one mother and one father and two children in the homes as average, which means that 6359.52 inhabitants in Norway are having quite negative door interventions a year, and that’s a lot!
In 10 years that would make 63595.2 individuals being put through this kind of police-state intervention iby Cps in order to investigate if they are able to remove children from it’s parents, and that is really a huge number of traumatized inhabitants barnevernet creates.
I wonder in how many of these cases and interventions the ending is good for the children barnevernet says they “saves”, and their life changes for the better, perhaps 10 children a year (?) , I would guess.
And how much money did the state/ tax payers spend on barnevernets actions for ten years (traumatizing more than 60 000 inhabitant to save 100 children).. guessing 2000 000 000 norwegian krones/ $ 236000000 USD
If nobody in here wants to discuss the point I’m trying to make here, I would like to know why not..”
https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/barneverng/aar?fane=arkiv#content
I just realized i posted the link to a fresh documentary to the wrong post.
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-PzrwliUk4
An interesting article (in Norwegian, but pretty understandable by Google translation): http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/refser-barnevernet-for-lovbrudd-men-vil-ikke-ta-i-konflikten-som-forte-til-at-gutt-15-med-downs-og-autisme-er-skilt-fra-fostermor/60365889
The County Governor in Oslo and Akerhus does real supervision and has common sense, confronting Barnevernet with the rule of law.
It is likely an important reason for Oslo and Akerhus having completely different statistics than other counties…
(see https://www.bufdir.no/Statistikk_og_analyse/Barnevern/ and click “Tabell” below “Barn og unge med barneverntiltak i eller utenfor hjemmet”)
I have just found recommendations by John Alvheims (1930-2005) in Norwegian in an interesting blog post. They seem to be just even more actual.
Google translate to English is understandable enough.
https://torpblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/john-alvheims-10-bud-til-dem-som-kommer-i-sokelyset-til-barnevernet/
The recommendations translated to English on a PDF: https://torpblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/john-alvheims-10-commandments-barnevernet.pdf
Ah, I didn’t notice this one – never mind, there doesn’t have to be a competition.
Nice that you found this one!
Alvheim’s “10 commandments” were published back in the 1990s. Here they are in a more original posting:
http://www.barnasrett.no/Nyttig/alvheims_ti_bud.htm
Actually, the person who wrote them was Åge Simonsen. Åge’s brother Jan Simonsen was a member of FrP (The Progress Party) then, and John Alvheim was really the person in FrP who was seriously interested in working against Barnevern abuse. So when Åge got very concerned about Barnevernet, Alvheim was a natural ally. He was a very courageous and clear-thinking man, a strong, positive influence in the party.
To Åge’s list of advice he immediately said, “I’ll confiscate that!”, so Åge generously donated it to him. The list went quite viral!
Funnily enough we don’t seem to have any English version, so I think it is worth while making a translation instead of relying entirely on automatic translation. Here is one:
*************************
Alvheim’s ten commandments
Ten commandments to those hit by Barnevernet’s searchlight:
1. Shut up, everything you say will be used against you.
2. Immediately contact a lawyer.
3. Get hold of a psychologist even if you are well – you may need one.
4. Say no to help, or it will be interpreted as a sign that you cannot cope.
5. Say no to offers of placement in a mothers’ home. It is not a helpful institution, but a monitoring central.
6. Demand justification in writing for every decision imposed on you.
7. Appeal against all decisions.
8. Say no to an offer of placement [for the child] in a foster home. You will not get the child back.
9. Remember that when Barnevernet speaks of help, they generally mean taking the child into care, or monitoring.
10. If you need help make use of friends and relations – or make do without.
We have discussed point 3 – I disagree with it, but it is quite good anyway interpreted ironically. Point 8 concerns “offers” made by Barnevernet if parents need temporary assistance, e.g. in cases of illness. The parents think such placement will be temporary, but of course Barnevernet intend to keep the child permanently and will argue that the parents are not well again yet, or that their “sending” the child away meant that they had no ability to care, were not “attached”, etc etc.
Has anybody posted a reference to this? It seems important. The information that there is an ongoing investigation is especially valuable:
Bob Ortega , The Republic:
A horrifying journey through Arizona foster care, and why we don’t know how many more children may be abused
The Arizona Republic, 6 April 2017
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/06/04/arizona-foster-care-child-abuse/362836001/
Marianne, there are multiple reports of abuse out of Arizona. This one made the rounds in social media. Most feel that Arizona is one of the most aggressive states in the Union with respect to CPS confiscating children.