Caspian
Nadia’s lawyer thought that a decision would be made in his client’s case today. He and Nadia waited for a phone call or a text message.
None came.
Nadia received a text message from her lawyer at approximately 4:50 pm this afternoon. It read:
“I have not heard anything and they are closed. This means that they will not decide until Monday.”
Nadia, Caspian’s mother, has been told that her son is in Bergen, a 7-8 hour trip away by car. Nadia has been informed that Caspian is at an undisclosed address because the Barnevernet doesn’t want her to know of his location. This is because they think that Nadia might try to kidnap Caspian. It is the reason they will not let Nadia know where Caspian is.
The Wings of the Wind has been told by a good source that yesterday’s hearing was held in Molde, about a 1 and 1/2 hour drive from where Nadia now lives. Nadia and Caspian’s new temporary residence is in Brandal, Norway at the residence of Margaret Hennum.
This publication has also learned more about the hearing in Molde, yesterday.
First, only one person presided over the hearing.
Second, Brynhild Solvang, the head of the CPS office in Volda, the office where the decision to take Caspian from his mother was made, was present with a Barnevernet lawyer.
Third, Nadia and her Lawyer were also present to answer questions and give testimony.
Fourth, Margaret Hennum was allowed to give witness testimony.
Fifth, Nadia’s lawyer expected a decision today.
Nadia’s lawyer waited today for an answer and was not contacted by the Molde office.
Nadia received the text message from her lawyer noted above.
—————
Editor’s notes: The events of this case in the past two days bring up many more questions than they answer.
Why was Nadia’s lawyer not notified that there would be no ruling until next week?
Why is Caspian so far away from his mother in Bergen?
Why would the Barnevernet think that Nadia would kidnap her child? She has never attempted anything like it in the past that has been noted.
Why was only one person presiding over the hearing at The County Council for Child Welfare and Social Affairs (Fylkesnemnda)? As noted in yesterday’s update: “The Tribunal consists of the case of a manager who is a lawyer, two experts members and two members of a normal range.” this information was mentioned in the link from the Fylkesnemnda, posted here yesterday in Update #3.
Why was Margaret Hennum allowed to give witness testimony? The Wings of the Wind has been informed that this is very unusual in a case like this.
I also have a new question based on new information which I have been given from a reliable source.
I have been told that the decision of this County Council for Child Welfare and Social Affairs is only a temporary decision.
Nadia has been informed that there will be another hearing in late August to further determine the welfare of Caspian.
My question: Even if Nadia is given custody of Caspian on Monday, why does she have to go to another hearing to determine Caspian’s future?
All of these question come to one big one: Is this how all child welfare cases are handled in Norway? If so, I can’t imagine a loving parent having to go through this experience.
On top of all of this there is Nadia’s background. She was taken from a mother whom she considered “loving” when she was only 13. Her, four siblings, including twins, were split up into five different places and raised in five different environments. Thus, she has experienced something similar to this once in her life already and now it is happening again with her own child. If the CPS of Norway (Barnevernet) was very concerned for Caspian or his mother, the case wouldn’t be handled in such a cold and heartless manner.
The term “kidnap” usually means that someone is taken against his/her will. The kidnappers here work for Norway’s Barnevernet. The kidnapper is not Nadia, the loving mother of Caspian.
Chris Reimers
Wings of the Wind 
This is so very tragic!
It is, Barbara. This type of account seems to be “just another situation” to the people in Norway’s CPS system. How can it be “just another day” in Norway when things like this happen?
God’s blessings my friend…
I am saddened for the mother, all this waiting and worrying cannot be healthy and for the child who does not know what is happening but must feel there is an issue and that his mother is missing…
But I do not lose hope. For a Christian, what it says to me is God has given us more time to pray. We need to call a time of fasting and praying with our churches this weekend and battle this war on our knees.
Jesus is our intercessor, He already knows what will happen and why there is a delay. It could be either a positive or negative result, the fact is, we need to pray for Nadia and Caspian so they can feel the loving warmth of prayers and support. Because regardless of the ‘power’ of the systems we live in, prayer with faith and praise is far more powerful. ❤
I am too, Cristina.
A Christian never loses hope as he/she knows God’s Word and the things in it.
Fasting and prayer are good things. There is a time for everything under the sun. Is your church fasting and praying this weekend? I know mine is praying for sure.
God is the only one who truly knows the future and I think we should pray for Nadia and Caspian and others for sure. Yes, prayer with faith and praise are evidences that one is a child of God. They are very powerful. 🙂
Hi. This was a hearing about the acutecase. In acute cases there are only ONE judge, and the hearing are limited to three hours.
This single judge rules the outcome.
There is very strict limits to present evidence in acute cases.
Its basically the barnevernets words against the words of the parents.
Very often, in 80% of cases, acute measure is how a case of permanent removal starts out.
Barnevernet removes a child, for whatever obscure reason, on the KEEP the child in their care UNTIL the permanent removal case is set, some months later.
In this way, the “snatch” kids in a easy way, that are NOT in danger, and place them in fosterhomes long before the trial of permanent removal is solved in court.
When the case is finally set, they use the childs attachment to the fosterparents as a reason for tje permanent removal….
Its a time game. Who get the hold of the child first, barnevernet or the parents….
When first snatched by barnevernet, game is over…
Hi. This was a hearing about the acutecase. In acute cases there are only ONE judge, and the hearing are limited to three hours.
This single judge rules the outcome.
There is very strict limits to present evidence in acute cases.
Its basically the barnevernets words against the words of the parents.
Very often, in 80% of cases, acute measure is how a case of permanent removal starts out.
Barnevernet removes a child, for whatever obscure reason, on the KEEP the child in their care UNTIL the permanent removal case is set, some months later.
In this way, the “snatch” kids in a easy way, that are NOT in danger, and place them in fosterhomes long before the trial of permanent removal is solved in court.
When the case is finally set, they use the childs attachment to the fosterparents as a reason for tje permanent removal….
Its a time game. Who get the hold of the child first, barnevernet or the parents….
When first snatched by barnevernet, game is over…
Hi Hilda.
Thank you for this information. You seem to understand a lot about this process. At the same time, I hope you are wrong.
In summary, what you have written here “says” that the judge in Molde will make a very important decision. One man gets to make a determination on Caspian’s future.
This often happens in America as well, but the proceedings are not nearly as “strict” as you have defined. In fact, I have had to travel to my State’s Capital, Little Rock, to testify in one similar case. At the time, I was a volunteer client advocate. The lawyer for the parent thought that I was a good witness as he wanted it affirmed that the father had taken his parenting classes as required by the local court system. I had been the one teaching the parenting courses to this client. As a teacher by profession, no one questioned my testimony.
If what you have written is true, I have a question:
“How can one person make such an important family decision?”
I am hoping that you have overstated things but, at this point, we’ll have to wait and see what happens on Monday or thereafter.
[…] Source: https://chrisreimersblog.com/2016/06/24/baby-caspian-kidnapped-in-norwayupdate-4/ […]
Chris (Wings –) has several good questions, some of them can be answered fairly easily (saying “this is how it is” does not mean that I think this is how it ought to be, it is just a clarification of the procedure and situation):
“I have been told that the decision of this County Council for Child Welfare and Social Affairs is only a temporary decision.”
Yes, such a decision only concerns whether the CC confirms the “emergency decision” made by Barnevernet to take Caspian right away without any prior legal procedure and keep him on an interim basis.
Barnevernet has to have the possibility in certain situations to take a child right away, say if the parents are trying to kill the child or the parents are killed in an accident. What Barnevernet does, then has to be examined afterwards. – So far so good. The question is whether Barnevernet restricts its power of immediate interference to such cases where a child has to be saved. (My answer is: No, they do not.)
*
“Nadia has been informed that there will be another hearing in late August to further determine the welfare of Caspian.”
That will be a CC procedure to determine who should have the care of Caspian on a permanent basis. (Such a decision, whichever way it goes, can be brought to the regular court system, i.e. to a District Court.)
*
“My question: Even if Nadia is given custody of Caspian on Monday, why does she have to go to another hearing to determine Caspian’s future?”
Because, as I wrote above, one question is whether there was an immediate need, another is whether Nadia is considered “good enough” to have Caspian in the long run. In some CPS cases, Barnevernet does not take the child on emergency, but they prepare a case for the CC to have the child transferred to them.
Whether Barnevernet takes the child on “emergency” first, SHOULD depend on whether an emergency exists. In practice, it is very often like in Nadia-Caspian’s case: Barnevernet is not afraid that Nadia does not take care of Caspian now. They are afraid that she has the resources / help to flee with him, out of the country, before there is any legal decision making such a move criminal.
*
“All of these question come to one big one: Is this how all child welfare cases are handled in Norway? If so, I can’t imagine a loving parent having to go through this experience.”
Yes, that is regular procedure. And there are thousands of parents who go through it.
*
“On top of all of this there is Nadia’s background. She was taken from a mother whom she considered “loving” when she was only 13. Her, four siblings, including twins, were split up into five different places and raised in five different environments. Thus, she has experienced something similar to this once in her life already and now it is happening again with her own child. If the CPS of Norway (Barnevernet) was very concerned for Caspian or his mother, the case wouldn’t be handled in such a cold and heartless manner.”
Barnevernet follows the ideology of “behaviour being learned deterministically, through “social inheritance”. In other words: They claim that Nadia’s mother was unable to take care of her children, and that Nadia will therefore automatically repeat her mother’s bad behaviour. One of Barnevernet’s slogans (invented by Kari Killén) is “Childhood lasts for generations”. But, evidently, they do not REALLY believe it, because they take the newborn babies of people whom they themselves took from THEIR parents as newborn babies. So maybe an upbringing by Barnevernet did not have such good results after all?
It is a vicious twist, if you like, of Biblical thinking, ignoring the effect of the GOOD of parents’ love having for far more generations, and taking no account of people’s own independent thinking and reasoning. Barnevernet just sees people as mechanical dolls copying what they believed “bad parents” have programmed them to do.
Thank you for the comprehensive answer, Marianne. It is very helpful.
As you have been studying this “system” for years, per various internet sources other than what anyone has written about you on blogs, you understand it well.
“Barnevernet has to have the possibility in certain situations to take a child right away, say if the parents are trying to kill the child or the parents are killed in an accident. What Barnevernet does, then has to be examined afterwards. – So far so good. The question is whether Barnevernet restricts its power of immediate interference to such cases where a child has to be saved. (My answer is: No, they do not.)”
I agree with your words, “No, they do not.” My agreement is based on several cases where I am aware of the facts. The Barnevernet has made “immediately interference” in these cases when there is little or no evidence of this type of danger, as is the case with Baby Caspian. I am aware of similar cases.
I will come back to respond further as time allows.
[…] June 24, 2016: BABY CASPIAN KIDNAPPED IN NORWAY…UPDATE #4 […]