Child Protection Services Norway – the fear of losing his child through the Barnevernet
By meeting with a small Norwegian family we learn today for the first time about the Child Protection Services Norway, the Barnevernet. The fact that we report on our meeting with the utmost caution to protect the identity of the family from the Norwegian state shows the explosiveness of a topic that we would not have associated in wildest dreams with Norway.
That’s why we do not reveal any details about the family that would allow a conclusion. If these people believe in their land, they are now considering leaving their homeland to protect their families from government arbitrariness through Barnevernet.
And no, this is not a bad dream and not a novel, it is frightening reality of the Norwegian child and youth institution Barnevernet.
If we have long considered whether the family told us a wild story or is rightly affected, we have found in research that the fate of this family by Barnevernet is not an isolated case. I would like to start by saying that I myself worked with abused and abused children and adolescents for two years and that my wife as a doctor herself is a socio-medical expert and was in conversation with this family.
Meeting with victims of Child Protection Service Norway (Barnevernet)
We are on a lake somewhere in Scandinavia. The father plays with his preschool child, according to our perception very lovingly and harmoniously. The child is open and facing his father. The mother uses the bathing spot on this lake for refreshment.
After some time, we come into conversation and somehow burst out of her soon, what she has experienced. Fear, great fear resonates that the same thing could happen to them again.
Both are Norwegian citizens. The two have bought property, the real estate is all paid. In addition, they also saved, maybe even for further education, or for their children. But the savings were soon used up, because although the allegations against them were groundless, they have restrictions on telephone and credit cards and could only pay with prepaid systems.
Likewise it is difficult for her husband as a freelancer to get orders, everywhere they are avoided as far as possible.
It all started with the two having a baby. Shortly afterwards, the police were standing in front of your door with representatives of Barnevernet and took the child with them. The father was accused of being violent and endangering the child. The mother was forced to move into a mother-and-child facility if she wanted the child back. For about four years they fought for their family. Now they are reunited. But not yet rehabilitated.
Your child would like to have her at home until school age, but such a thing is seen in Norway, in which the children are given as early as possible in the care, very suspicious and already provides for observation by Barnevernet.
They would like to have another child and give birth at home. They had already agreed with a midwife about this. But suddenly the midwife, without explanation, declared that she was no longer ready for this family. Homebirths do not actually exist in Norway.
The two also say that it is risky to openly criticize the system Norway. That, too, could lead to child abduction by Child Protection Services Norway (Barnevernet). Defamation is open door and gate. A suspicion is enough to bring children from the family and bring them to unknown places.
In Norway, it is risky to criticize the Norway system that other countries like to adopt. Criticism can already lead to parents being taken away the child.
In the meantime, the family is thinking about emigrating to neighboring Sweden or Finland, because they are scared of any dark vehicle or bell at the door, their child can be fetched again, or, if offspring arrive, it could be taken away by Child Protection Servicse Norway, the Barnevernet. Maybe just a few hours after birth.
We would not have to believe them and they would understand if we considered them schizophrenic. But if we were to research about Barnevernet, then we realized that the topic was present in Norway.
It sounds like the structure of a dictatorship, or a dangerous sect, but the vast majority of the population is quite uncritical with the Norwegian system, as long as economic success is right, and so Barnevernet is trusted,
Just as this family opens itself up to us as victims through Barnevernet, more and more affected people are becoming public. And it is hard for Norwegian citizens to believe that something terrible is going wrong in their country and that in their country, state structures with punishable activities in the form of Barnevernet are destroying families.
Intransparent in an open state, only the citizen is transparent
We the Child Protection Services Norway (Barnevernet) by various media with criticism of certain cases faced, the procedure is questioned and asked for an opinion, then comes the standard answer that one can not say anything about individual cases and to do so generally not.
So it remains the statement of those affected. So parents like children. And so it remains to believe them or not. An insight into the process, in the reasoning, in the hints does not get. That goes to the transmitter Arte, the BBC as well as the well-known Norwegian media houses.
Child Protection Services employees (Barnevernet) do not require special training
There are no access requirements for educational workers who work in the field of child well-being. The majority are educators and social economists, each with a three-year training, but training is generally not needed to work in the best interests of the child.
Each case officer has enormous power, in the years 2014 to 2016 alone 5,268 were forcibly taken into custody without their own and without parental consent.
At the North University in Bodø there should now be a special study course with the goal of a longer and practice-oriented education. In cooperation with the University of Agder, a five-year training model is to be designed.
Immigrant families are four times more likely to be affected by child abduction by Child Protection Services Norway (Barnevernet)
A Norwegian journalist has calculated that Child Protection Services Norway (Barnevernet) takes children from immigrant families four times as often as emergency help from the family than from Norwegian families. This, in turn, is contested by Child Protection Services.
But a Polish immigrant describes how her children were picked up and she spent a long time fighting for her reputation. Inez is the mother of eight children. Four are already adults when the Barnevernet picks up the four younger children in September 2013, arrests the mother Inez and imprisons her.
Inez was not sure what she should have done. She was suddenly afraid to have gone mad, unnoticed and to have beaten the children in them without wanting to. Only, she could not remember it. Physical abuse is punishable in Norway. And it involves immediate intervention by the Barnevernet.
But it came to a conflict among the children in one case in which one of the children bit the other and did not leave. The mother no longer knew what to do in this situation and beat the child to make it stand out from the others. She regrets that she had beaten.
The investigators questioned the children illegally suggestive and repeatedly. If a child denied ever being beaten by the mother, it was asked again and again how many times the mother would have beaten it.
Inez was acquitted in 2016 of allegations of ill-treatment. The judges reprimanded the investigators for putting words in the children’s mouth and completely disregarding exonerating remarks.
After the first-class acquittal, two children returned immediately to their families, but two more children had to spend two more years in foster care. And this despite the fact that an independent psychological report explicitly praised the mother’s educational competence and concluded with an urgent recommendation on family reunification. It said: “It is impossible for experts to believe that so carefree, positive and well-developed children can come out of the house as described in the reports that form the basis for the child protection and police measures”.
This report was written by two highly respected experts, one of them Reidar Hjermann, former Ombudsman for Children and Independent Officer for the Rights of Children.
However, this opinion was disregarded because a psychiatrist appointed by Barnevernet, who was later convicted of possession of child pornography, rated the report as clearly biased in favor of the family and ignored it.
In five years, parents were only allowed to visit their children four times a year and only talk to them for 15 minutes a month.
Cultural differences are often the trigger:
Especially families from Eastern Europe are targets of Barnevernet. This is mainly due to the different interpretations of child protection. While violence of any kind or nocturnal celebration with children in Norway is a very sensitive topic, in Eastern Europe a rougher behavior compared to wards is quite necessary.
The same applies to immigrants from Asia and the Arab world.
Basically, the author of the article is of the opinion that guests or new citizens of a country have to deal with their culture and accept this for themselves. Similarly, there must be no reason to play his power over a child. It may also be necessary here to provide targeted information on immigration on the views of the Norwegian state on education with indications of possible sanctions.
Kidnapped by Barnevernet in 2013 because she nursed her child too long
In July 2013, the Barnevernet of American Amy Jakobsen-Bjørnevåg and her husband Kevin took their son Tyler, just 19 months old. Tyler was still breastfed at this time and weighed only 10 kilograms only 9.6 kilograms. Thus, he was malnourished in the opinion of Barnevernet. Similarly, breastfeeding of children at this age is abnormal.
That this applies flat-rate and also 9.6 kilograms is still in the standard weight of a year and a half, all let, except Norway’s Child Protection Services, the child welfare service Barnevernet.
In the early stages of Barnevernet child abduction, the mother and Norwegian father still had limited visiting rights, but in the eyes of the Norwegian authorities there was a high risk of kidnapping the baby being taken into custody because of her mother’s US citizenship. And so visits were completely banned.
The parents went through all the courts, but unsuccessfully. According to court documents, Barnevernet’s reasons were nowhere near the child’s best interests but the control of little Tyler.
And so in the negotiations it was always about the kidnapping risk of their own parents due to American citizenship.
In September 2014, the parents saw their child for the last time. Five years later, there was another trial against Barnevernet, this time it was about the compulsory adoption of Tyler. And again with the cynical justification that the boy is now so used to his foster parents that a repatriation could harm the boy. The court followed this formulation and the parents lost again.
Likewise, the parents were accused by representatives of Barnevernet that they were still seeking custody and again the kidnapping risk was presented.
It was Amy who responsibly did with her child for any check-ups, and it was also Amy who questioned the doctors when Kevin’s weight curve flattened a bit. There were never any concerns or objections. She also repeatedly asked for support, as Tyler would not eat solid food.
But on July 23, 2013 began the horror that a responsible mother may not imagine. Barnevernet employees came with policemen to the house of Tyler’s family. They asked the parents to give the child out and took it to a hospital for examination. During the examination, the parents were not allowed to be present. In the investigation result a lack of vitamin B12 was called and by 400 grams too low weight. In every official weight scale, however, 9.6 kilograms are also called normal.
That she would still breastfeed her son and that he would not accept solid food was her fault.
Meanwhile, her son visits the elementary school somewhere in Norway in a secret place. His name has been changed several times.
In September 2018, the European Court of Justice had clearly stated that child abduction may only take place within a very narrow framework and only temporarily.
However, according to Norwegian legal expert and human rights activist Marius Reikeras, Norway generally ignores the European Court of Justice’s instructions.
Only four hours of happiness because of alleged mental retardation
On Australian television, a report was made to a family who had fled to Poland, whose child was taken into custody by the Barnevernet four hours after the birth. The reason: The mother is due to mental limitations unable to raise the child adequately.
The mother Natasha was adopted as a child. At the age of 13, the parents of Kinderhilfe informed her that her daughter had remained mentally retarded. Under this pretext additional social benefits were granted.
Exactly the unchecked statement used now the Barnevernet as authorization, to withdraw the just born twins.
Parents Natasha and Erik intervened with attorney Astrid Gjoystdal, who researched that mental maturity was never checked, much less diagnosed. After seven months, the young parents got their twins back, not without first successfully doing IQ tests. These prove that Natasha is intelligent.
But Barnevernet keeps watching this family. One does not trust them education. Natasha and Erik notice an imminent child abduction and fled to Poland. There they received asylum. They were initially provided with a donation account while they were on the wanted list in Norway and their accounts were frozen.
The glass citizen is omnipresent in Norway
- This case raises questions in particular:
- How is it possible that Barnevernet can access within four hours of a birth?
- What happens in the people who work for Barnevernet? Can not they lose or sell children to potential adoptive parents?
- How can it be that one does not trust mentally disabled or impaired people to lovingly raise their child? In a Hitler-like racial delusion, does Norway strive for the perfect human and give people with disabilities fewer opportunities for equal participation?
- How can it be that such a simple verification of the facts takes seven months? Is the deliberate delay to say later, after all the possible instances, that the child has become too used to his foster parents and therefore no longer responsible for a repatriation is?
The standardized human being: From what deviation from the norm in relation to mental and physical condition in Norway loses the right to be parents?
Tags on reports on the justification of child abduction, after work consumption of child pornography
For over 20 years he worked for the Barnevernet, as a psychiatrist and appraiser. Now he was sentenced to 22 months in prison. He has consumed 12,000 images with child pornography content and corresponding films with a playing time of 4,000 hours on his computer. He was instrumental in making decisions to remove children from their families on behalf of Barnevernet. He was also a member of Norway’s highest child protection commission.
He is the single parent of twins he has acquired from an Indian surrogate mother. The ruling of only 22 months was canceled on the grounds that one wanted to take consideration of his two children and their well-being had priority over punishment.
The perpetrator was not deprived of custody of his children on the grounds that consumers of child pornography would not themselves become active perpetrators.
The perpetrator himself saw no consumption of child pornography in the consumption of child pornography.
The authorities, such as Barnevernet, have since refused to review the cases that this convicted offender has largely dealt with.
The suspicion of the foster parents industry
Former human rights lawyer Hillestad Thune openly points out that the thousands of child abductions and foster care have created a veritable foster care industry that has become matted with Barnevernet. For foster parents, the state subsidies could mean a stable second income.
In one specific case, Barnevernet assured long-term care of a foster family even before the custody case had been decided.
It is also striking that the official average age of children taken care of by Barnevernet is unimaginable 3.5 months. This raises the isolated suspicion that it could also be trafficking in favor of couples who wish to have a child but can not get it themselves.
Open letter against Child Protection Services Norway (Barnevernet) from over 170 experts
In 2015, more than 170 experts, psychologists, lawyers and social workers sign an open letter to the government. In it, they express that a long list of children in an unknown number faces serious misunderstandings and infringements of Barnevernet’s rights.
In the open letter, they note that Barnevernet’s experts’ observations on court testimony are often very weak.
The narrow-mindedness and obvious ignorance of the former Family Minister on Child Protection Services Norway, Barnevernet
The responsible former minister said after a BBC report that the Norwegian child protection system Barnevernet critically questioned that she would move a millimeter from the previous course of Barnevernet and consider this the best system in the world, which would copy other countries soon. She was proud of the Barnevernet.
As a result Norwegian lawyer Nathalie H. Brinkmann published in the Afton post: “It is legitimate to question the world in which the minister lives. Do you know how many families have been separated without addiction, violence or severe mental illness? ”
Even more striking is the highly respected Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who is also the president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights. So reads her Facebook comment on the statement of the Minister:
If Norwegian Children’s Minister Linda Hofstad Helleland really claims that Norway’s ‘Barnevernet’ is the best child protection in the world, and that other countries will copy the Norwegian system, then she must be completely blinded and mentally disturbed by her high position, and she has more than be crazy. It seems obvious that she did not read or even heard of the Council of Europe resolution of 29 June 2018. In the resolution on Norwegian childcare, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe calls for Norway to respect the fundamental rights of children.
International pressure puts Norway in explanation
Foreign nationals living in Norway are particularly affected by the arbitrariness of the Norwegian Child Protection Service, the Barnevernet. Due to the risk that parents take their removed child out of the country, the contact between parents and children is increasingly completely suppressed. Forced adoption, as known from the Third Reich or the GDR and currently also in Russia, is quite common in Norway.
The international criticism against Barnevernet is increasingly unmistakable and this circumstance prompted Norway, in January 2016 on the pages of their embassies to long explanations. The aim of this statement was apparently to put the unlawful and child-harming system of Barnevernet in a rosy light and glorify.
But meanwhile, thousands of Norwegians themselves, but also people around the globe, the Barnevernet system is dangerous and harmful, and even in demonstrational weary Norway, people are taking to the streets against the Child Protection Act
Norway wrote in its statement:
In 2014, 53,000 children received action through the child protection service. In eight of 10 cases, these measures were voluntary for children and families.
It is irrelevant how many children and families received measures. It was not mentioned that in 2014 about 11,200 children lived in nursing homes and that within a year alone 1,665 children were forcibly snatched from their parents by Barnevernet. Every day, three to five children are snatched from their parents in Norway, sometimes with inappropriate police violence.
According to the message, the order to transfer the care is issued by a Norwegian special court or a court of law, and only if it is subject to serious negligence, mistreatment or abuse. To place a child outside the family without the consent of the parents is always a measure of the last resort.
Norway was thus trying to relativize the allegations internationally. But in truth, mere suspicions of barnevernet are enough. In addition, the Special Court is an institution of Barnevernet, so not at all independent. People hardly have a chance in court, moreover, the Barnevernet does not have to prove the parents’ guilt, but the parents have to prove their innocence.
It can even be negative to the point of complaint when parents turn to the public and fight for their children with all means. In one case, the father said he was threatened with two years imprisonment if he spoke to the public.
Biologist and scientist Åge Simonsen, who has studied several hundred cases, confirms that the statement of the message regarding the justification of child abduction can be considered a lie. Only to a small extent would child abduction be due to serious problems. Most cases were done by Barnevernet bureaucrats on the blanket grounds that parents lacked the ability to adequately care for the children.
This statement coincides with the statistics of the department head for children, youth and family, which is officially accused of parenting lacking parenting skills as the most common reason. Again and again, lawyers of those affected confirm this fact. According to the lawyer Thea Totland, this is often based on opinions and requirements of the Barnevernet with regard to parents who would be set up in such a way that they could not be fulfilled at all. This assessment is shared by many of her colleagues.
But what are such demands?
If you can not make an omelet, you can not feed a child
Professor Marianne Skånland has meticulously examined the procedures leading to child abduction through the Barnevernet and listed five articles out of 69 in one article.
- The psychologist discovered that the mother could not prepare an omelet to his satisfaction and cuts the bread into slices too thick.
- The child eagerly looks at strangers and smiles at them. This means that it is not tied to his mother.
- The baby turns his face in the wrong direction when his father washes it.
- The mother wants the children’s grandmother to bring her to and from the physiotherapy and other medical treatments she needs, rather than taking her own. The mother puts her own interests before the children.
- When visiting the children, the grandmother wanted to hug her. But the Child Protection Service stopped this in fear to make the Barnevernet unwanted binding visible
The Norwegian embassies point out in their publications that the parents are entitled to legal aid and that they have all the judicial authorities at their disposal. But in reality, the cynicism of this statement shows, because the parents have in court across the bank no chance against Barnevernet. This is confirmed by all lawyers throughout.
Even if the parents win the process eventually, according to Barnevernet, the children are so used to their new foster parents that they would be traumatized if they were removed from the new environment and brought back to their parents. All that the Barnevernet practices in thousands of cases, he does not want to make the kids feel like they are.
This argument is increasingly used by the Barnevernet and in almost every case the court follows this view.
Overall, the chain of reasoning and credible reasoning of Barnevernet is weak and thin and is usually based on subjective feeling rather than facts. The basis for the power of Barnevernet, Child Protection Service Norway, is that the primary responsibility for education lies with the state and not with the parents. And so all parents across all strata, and especially parents with an unadapted, individual lifestyle, are at great risk of becoming the victims of arbitrariness in Norway on a daily basis.
And so it happens that children of asylum seekers through the Barnevernet come permanently into foster care and their parents are expelled.
High death rate for foster children and their biological parents in Norway
A study of Norwegian urban and regional research has shown that foster children taken or taken out by Barnevernet die eight times more frequently in Norway than other Norwegian children. In some cases, parents have taken their own lives or fled into alcohol and drug addiction as a result of the state-torn families.
How the own health department sees the work of Barnevernet critically
The Norwegian health authorities looked at 106 cases from 60 municipalities in Norway from the years 2016 and 2017 and in addition to agreeing to the way of working in general, also expressed clear criticisms. The most serious criticisms are the following:
Mistakes in the participation of children: Many cases have arisen through superficial and inadequate analysis. Particularly grave is the consideration of the rights of children to participate in the selection, planning, implementation and evaluation of assistance.
It is often unclear whether the children are involved and their views and desires had any influence on the measures. There is also no parental involvement in the selection of assistance measures. The Barnevernet child welfare service is hardly on site and barely talks to the affected children.
- Lack of competence: Several of the cases examined indicate lack of competence of child-care services. This is particularly evident in the selection of support measures. The relief measures are often too far-reaching, too intensive and not adapted to the individual circumstances.
In addition, the Barnevernet hardly seems to respond to the traumatic experiences of immigrant families.
The threshold, for families who do not want to cooperate, to deprive the children, is too low.
The assessment of relief measures often takes place without a system. As a result, the link between useless on-the-spot assistance and the abduction initiated by the child is not established.
- Errors in the treatment of emergencies: Norway was criticized for the high number of emergencies. It is all the more serious that the report concludes that many emergency decisions are the result of an emergency that can be seen as a consequence of a failure of Barnevernet in families.
The failure is whether it can not be assessed whether the emergency situation could have been managed with fewer interventions for the child.
In addition, the report calls for better cooperation with the children and their parents to ensure that a necessary move for the child can be as gentle as possible.
- No cooperation with other aid providers: in fact, there is no or only a lack of cooperation between the helpers working in a family. Everyone does their part without being in agreement. The support is too little adapted to the individual needs of children and families.
- Failure of the child protection services: Lack of competence, leadership weakness, frequent personnel changes and comprehensive compulsion towards children are the biggest deficits. The Norwegian health authority describes the state of child protection as a systemic crisis, which is neither taken seriously by the experts nor by the political authorities.
In addition, crimes were detected in 36 out of 60 child protection institutions.
Not only unfounded child abduction in many cases
Norway is a leader when it comes to child protection. And in Norway even mental violence against children is forbidden, as well as a slap on the butt.
Often, however, especially with immigrants from Eastern Europe, from Asia or Arabia, physically punished. Strictly religious groups refer to the Bible and try to justify it with quotations that have been torn out, without considering the appropriate context.
And so it is sometimes sect-like institutions that are committed against child abduction, without presenting the facts correctly. Thus, in some media, especially in Christian terms, only the views of the affected parents are described, without taking into account obvious facts that are known. So, not all in all, Barnevernet acts inappropriately.
It is not without reason that the European Court has in some cases upheld Barnevernet’s abduction of children.
Despite criticizing Barnevernet, the state agency Child Protection Services, it is also true that Norway has on average not noticeably more cases than other western countries.
Changes to the child welfare act
In the spring of 2018, the Norwegian parliament responded to growing international and increasingly internal criticism of the state of child welfare and the practices of the state-owned agency Barnevernet. On the law on the welfare of the child, a number of amendments were passed, but these are vague declarations of intent rather than clear legal requirements.
But it should make sure that children have the right to active involvement in all phases of care and that Barnevernet should work as far as possible with parents and children.
In addition, all agencies, including Barnevernet, who are entrusted with a child protection case, should coordinate their work in the future and improve their cooperation.
The child welfare law becomes the children’s rights law. However, it may be doubted that in principle something in the structure of the Barnevernet changes. Because, as the common assumption: If it hooked in a resort in Norway, there is simply more money and the policy is that the problem is resolved. And so the budget of Barnevernet is raised.
Criticism of the UN on the procedures of the Barnevernet
In a comprehensive report on the human rights situation of the Committee on the Rights of the Children, the UN report praises many efforts Norway is making. But referring to the thousandfold abduction of children by Barnevernet, the UN is clearly and unmistakably critical.
Under the heading Children without a family environment, the UN report on the human rights situation in Norway raises serious criticisms.
- First of all, the Committee notes Norway’s efforts to provide children in orphanages with a safe, supportive and healthy environment.
- Expressly concerned, the report shows Reported separation of children and their families, which may not always have been in the best interest of the child.
Use of coercion in some cases in the separation of children and their families
- The significant differences between the counties in terms of population.
- The separation of siblings when receiving alternative care
- Inadequate surveillance of children receiving alternative care
- The risk of loss of native language and relation to one’s own culture when minority children receive alternative care
- Insufficient communication and information exchange between Barnevernet (Child Protection Services) and affected families, especially among migrant families
- Inadequate support of children of imprisoned parents
from the United Nations report of 4 July 2018
26 cases are pending at the European Court of Human Rights
Since 2015, the EU has also been interested in the uncontrolled action of the Norwegian child protection agency Barnevernet. Awakened by eight complaints from affected parents within 15 months by 2015, she sent a delegation to Oslo to investigate the cases.
In spite of Norwegian court decisions, Barnevernet did not release the child in a known case and refused to let the parents interact with their children. In another case, Barnevernet deprived five children of a Romanian family without a court order, only after seven months and international protests did the children return to their parents.
In another case, the European Court of Justice granted the injured mother € 25,000 in compensation for pain and condemned Barnevernet’s abduction of the child as unlawful.
In autumn 2019, 26 lawsuits are now pending before the European Court of Justice against the country of Norway.
However, it is also true that the European Court of Justice has in some cases confirmed the correctness of Barnevernet’s abduction of children.
However, it is also true that Norway has recently presented a donation of the equivalent of 600,000 EUR to the European Court of Justice. And here one may well question the intention. Either this is a very crude bribe in favor of Barnevernet. Or, more likely, the message to all concerned: “Do not try it with a lawsuit at the European Court of Justice, we have bought.”
In Kongsberg the child abduction by Barnevernet was reduced by 90 percent
The Barnevernet in Kongsberg has subjected itself to internal self-criticism and worked on a new strategy. With this, the child withdrawals, which should always be the last step, were reduced by 90 percent, without endangering the safety of the children.
The Barnevernet Kongsberg is now more on dialogue with parents and receives consistently positive response. They have completely abandoned the traditional way of working in Kongsberg because they recognized how harmful and cruel the procedure was.
So children are now housed within the family udn one has recognized that the grandmother is probably better than a foreign foster family. In addition, the children can stay in the familiar environment.
This rethink has meanwhile spread all the way to the ministry and is now actively working on a legislative initiative to force Barnevernet’s community child welfare services to take precautions instead of taking immediate children from families.
Problem known but not banned
Meanwhile, the Norwegian Ministry of Family Affairs is in need of justification via the Child Protection Service (Barnevernet). On their homepage, they try to smooth the waves with the following speech to the heads of department (translation of the original text), but it shows that the situation around Barnevernet is becoming an increasing problem for Norway.
Teaching about Norwegian child protection and child welfare services Barnevernet (Child Protection Service and Child Welfare)
Dear ladies and gentlemen, good day!
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address you on something as important as the Norwegian child protection system.
I believe that information and dialogue are the key to understanding between cultures and that we can avoid misunderstandings through communication.
The child protection law emphasizes that children should grow up with their parents. The law attaches great importance to family ties and continuity in parenting. As a representative of the Christian Democratic Party in Norway, I consider the family as one of the most important institutions in our society and will work to strengthen families. Parents and families in Norway can provide their children with the cultural and religious education they choose violated the rights of the child.
Protecting children from harm is one of my main goals and the primary responsibility of the government. Norwegian legislation provides protection for children in need. Our system is child-centered and sees children as individuals who deserve the greatest respect. The system is both protective and supportive in dealing with vulnerable children. It offers a wide range of services and takes action if necessary.
The overwhelming majority of family support measures offered are home-based voluntary assistance. To send a child into alternative care without parental consent is always a last resort. A child can only be admitted to alternative care if it suffers neglect, violence or abuse. In addition, relief efforts should not be considered good enough to protect the child. After all, a care instruction must be in the best interests of the child.
It is important to emphasize that only the district administrations are entitled to issue nursing orders. These bodies are impartial and independent governmental bodies led by a lawyer with the same competence as a judge. Parents have important legal rights in nursing orders cases. They are entitled to free legal aid and may appeal the decision of the Chamber to the District Court. The child has the right to be heard in all decisions that affect it.
With increasing globalization and migration, more and more children and families with a foreign background are in contact with the Norwegian child welfare service. This assumes that the services understand cultural differences. I know that there have been cases where communication between families and child care services could have been better. My aim is that the children’s ministry is as diverse as the society in which it operates and has greater competence and a greater understanding of cultural differences.
The Child Protection Act applies to all children in Norway, regardless of their status, nationality or nationality. In Norway there is no tolerance for corporal punishment. Violence can never be justified or explained with cultural or religious differences.
For children housed in alternative care facilities, the service is required to seek care homes within the extended family and close relationships, or at least to find care homes that reflect the child’s culture, religion and language. However, it is not always possible to achieve these goals as it is difficult to find nursing homes for ethnic minorities. We will work hard to recruit more nursing homes with different cultural backgrounds and look for potential partners in civil society to recruit families who can help children in need.
An independent panel recently published a report examining more than 100 cases in which a child was admitted to an alternative care facility. It turned out that the situations that led to a child being taken to an alternative care facility, all were serious and that removal of the child from his family was necessary to protect the child. The report also shows that there is room for improvement and more efficient relief measures to prevent children from being placed in alternative care.
Although the legal framework is good, there is always room for improvement, especially with regard to the enforcement of legislation and the relationship of child protection workers to different positions, cultures and practices. Increasing childcare expertise is therefore very important to our efforts to improve our services.
Child benefit cases must be treated in accordance with Norwegian law. The Norwegian position is therefore that child benefit cases can not be resolved by bilateral agreements between states. We inform the public, including the embassies in general, and have found that the child care service can not be directed by the ministry, and that we as a politician or government can not intervene in a particular case. A message can not be involved in the case in question. However, the embassies can offer consular assistance in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
Since the ratification of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children by Norway in 2016, we have a powerful tool for preventing and resolving disputes between parents and complex cross-border cases.This topic will be elaborated later in the seminar.
I can only mention the current cases being handled by the European Court of Human Rights. We take this approach very seriously. Whenever the European Court of Human Rights considers Norwegian practice, it is in many ways an assessment of the child welfare system by an international court. It highlights and makes possible the strengths and weaknesses of the Norwegian child welfare system us to develop and improve it.
Child protection cases contain many difficult dilemmas. Protecting children from neglect, abuse, violence and abuse, as well as safeguarding their well-being, is one of the most important tasks of my government.
I hope that we can continue to strengthen dialogue and understanding on this topic in the future. Thank you for your attention!
Children and Family Minister Kjell Ingolf Ropstad, on February 27, 2019
Final word of the author
This story about Barnevernet’s actions has shaken me and us and has damaged our dream of Norway for a while. Again and again we ask ourselves the question of emigrating to Norway. But the question now comes to fear of being able to lose our children through the arbitrariness of the Norwegian state, Barnevernet. This article may well be the trigger for Barnevernet’s intervention.
I am adopted myself and came already with three months into a new family. And that was a good thing. My parents have expressly agreed to the adoption. But for life I carry traces on my soul, which originate from the beginning after the birth. Early childhood hospitalism, mental damage, loss of confidence, attachment and fear of loss can haunt a child when it is taken out of a family whenever it is torn out. The child is also torn from the social structure and from his home, a home that he may long for as an adult and can not categorize this longing. The child will be uprooted and will have a hard time rooting anywhere. And, as a later parent, it will have little faith in Barnevernet.
A whore is often a better mother than an upscale woman
Quote from my conservative Christian mother, who recorded in her life about 400 foster children
Whether the child comes as a baby or as a larger child into a strange family, it will be as a teenager or adult always looking for his home, his mother, consciously or unconsciously. It will ask who gave it the name and does not understand if it has been changed.
As long as politicians, social workers, judges, foster parents or adoptive parents have no idea, they should not be involved in child protection.
Child abduction is always one of the most dramatic experiences for a child’s soul, worse than losing one or both parents to death.
Child abduction is always one of the most dramatic experiences for a child’s soul, worse than losing one or both parents to death. The fate of the family must be much worse, so that this step is to be answered.
Norway has earned the children’s rights at an early age and, according to the UN, is one of the best countries where children can grow up. Norway is one of the leading countries when it comes to children’s rights. But this is not a license for Norway with its institution Barnevernet, to decide on the welfare of a child at will, without it to participate.
It is also not a license to suppress diversity and diversity in education by the state Barnevernet and create a climate of fear and insecurity – both in all (not only in the affected) parents and children.
Children and parents are equal and the responsibility for the education, for the welfare of the children, must lie with the parents. Only if equal rights are disturbed, that is, if they are fundamentally disturbed, can action be taken.
I find it frightening how quickly the Child Protection Services Barnevernet is switched on, be it by doctors or teachers. On the contrary, it would be necessary to give these people room to even seek a conversation with their parents without making a file case. I get the impression that people who work with children are under massive pressure not to make mistakes. This results in anxiety. Out of fear, mistakes arise. And the unwillingness to cooperate with the Barnevernet.
Wherever there are people, mistakes happen. Also in education. That’s human. Making mistakes is inhumane. The Barnevernet system in its current form prevents a basis of trust, and many cases show the fear of this Norwegian system.
To punish parents who give their child a pat or shout at it is in my opinion not effective, rather counterproductive. In many cases, it is short-term overburden or result of overstimulation. The smartphone with the associated dependence is likely to play a major role on this issue.
A choleric father is not a violent father at all and a parent who slips his hand or who holds their child is far from being violent. Rather, constructive education tips would be helpful here without the opening of a file and constructive help to relieve the situation. A certain distance would have to be created before Barnevernet even learns about a child. Barnevernet is in the institutions right from the beginning and actively asks children about their homes. This is similar to interrogating offenses that do not exist, purely on the assumption of Barnevernet that these could exist.
However, with the rigid and uncontrollable attitude of many branches of Barnevernet, Child Protection Services has destroyed much trust and, as noted earlier, scared to create an insurmountable chasm for Barnevernet to cooperate, especially since Barnevernet does not even have sufficient competence Staff.
Norway is sometimes far from the honest processing of their own mistakes, be it in dealing with the German children, be it in dealing with illegally taken out children through the Barnevernet.
As long as politicians, judges, experts do not understand the soul of a child, do not even look at it and are unwilling to decide instead of the child, Norway, with its child care, puts Barnevernet with totalitarian systems on a par. Adoption can and must only be with the consent of the parents and, depending on the age, only with the child’s consent.
Every child has a right to integrity, both through the family and through society and the state, here in the form of Barnevernet. And yes, immigrants have to follow the customs of the host country and not vice versa. Anyone who sees Norwegian culture as the reason for egg migration must also accept it for themselves. But child abduction must be the last resort and must not be ordered on suspicion, but only on demonstrable allegations. For this purpose, however, family judges would have to show a completely new way of working and competence, because they have so far followed the Barnevernet almost blindly. In addition, the burden of proof must be reversed, Barnevernet must be able to prove to the court that child abduction is absolutely necessary. In addition, the deadlines for a re-examination by legal experts vis-à-vis Barnevernet must be significantly reduced.
In many cases child abduction by Barnevernet is important and correct. But every fallacious case, every vanity that precedes it, is a fundamental damage both to the child and consequently to society as a whole.
The lack of transparency displayed by the Norwegian system through the Child Protection Service, the Barnevernet, is frighteningly dangerous for a modern democracy with its legal system. This creates uncertainty even for parents who conscientiously strive for the best interests of the child, especially if they are not in the mainstream. Only when the country Norway honestly deals with itself again and emphatically aligns its actions for the benefit of the child, completely free of ideologies and vanities, only then it has again earned the trust, what people bring this country daily on. This will probably only be possible with the closure of the Barnevernet and the enlightenment by the International Criminal Court in Den Hag, as demanded by Norwegian experts on the issue of dealing with Barnevernet,
In a further point, Norway loses a lot of trust, namely in its own police. If even children and adolescents are confronted with physical violence by being pressed down, by hunting, by arrest, by night-time interrogation by the police and Barnevernet, how should these children and adolescents of this institution be able to treat them respectfully later on?
But the critical conflict in the community Kongsberg with the system Barnevernet leaves hope. Here the focus is not on the system but on the well-being of the child and the family, looking for constructive elements that ultimately represent the only real benefit to the child.
At some point, probably only in the next generation, Norway is facing the difficult and long phase of dealing with state organized child abduction
What Norway will eventually remain is the bitter reclamation of this chapter Barnevernet, in which loyal and perhaps corrupt people have in some cases ruthlessly destroyed the happiness of children and parents. And it remains the work-up of Norwegian citizens who looked away and blindly believed. Likewise, adoptive parents, who are indifferent to the fate of their biological parents, must eventually account to their adopted children.