Visitation
August, 2016
This Monday, August 8th, Nadia and Caspian’s case will be heard at a trial (rettsak) in Alesund, Norway. Margaret Hennum, the pediatric nurse who has been instrumental in providing real help to Nadia, and Doctor Ingvild Setså, the Barnevernet approved doctor who has given a positive report on Caspian’s health will be testifying. There will be a witness, via phone, representing those who observed the visitations in Bergen. There is also a character witness who will speak, via phone, on Nadia’s behalf.
Ms. Brynhild Solvang, the head of the Volda Barnevernet responsible for taking Caspian from the Hennum residence, and a psychologist from Vilde’s Mothers’ Home, where Nadia and Caspian were observed for four months, will be there.
This trial will determine who will have custody of Caspian until the major hearing on August 25th. Either Nadia will regain custody of her son until then or the Barnevernet will retain custody.
Mr. Harald Grape, Nadia’s lawyer, has informed Nadia that the results of Monday’s trial may not be known for a few days.
Nadia traveled to Bergen on Thursday for another visitation with Caspian. An hour before the visit, she was told that Caspian had a cold. Nadia asked for Caspian to be seen by a doctor and asked Mr. Grape to contact the appropriate authorities before her scheduled visitation on Friday. On Friday (yesterday), Nadia saw Caspian and he appeared to be healthy.
“This was a very important visit for me,” Nadia stated.
“…on Friday it went very well, I got very good report from the visit.. But I have not got them in the mail yet,” Nadia continued.
Nadia also asked her lawyer to request a two hour “make-up” visitation for the time that was lost on Thursday. Her request was denied so she has returned to Brandal to await Monday’s trial.
As information about the trial results are made, a report will be published here.
August 5th, 2016
Visitation
Bergen, Norway
——————————————-
Nadia’s thoughts…
Nadia wishes to thank all who have been following her story. She particularly wants to thank all of those who have thought and prayed for her during this experience. She is very appreciative.
My thoughts…
Nadia waits….again. Because of the great connection she has with her son, Caspian, her visitations have come with mixed emotions. She has been so happy to see him. Then, Nadia has been sad to have to leave him and travel so far away.
Over half of Nadia’s 27 years of life have been influenced by a “family” she has not chosen. Most of her teen years, she has lived in an environment with a “family” that has been arbitrary. If given the choice herself, there would have been no dispute. She would have chosen her biological family. Nadia says that her mother was a good mother.
Whatever imperfections her mother had were no good reason to remove this young lady from a family where she felt loved.
“I was the only girl in that institution and the boy’s were much older than me. That’s where I started using drugs. When I lived under Barnevernet I lived in so many places that I don’t know how long or when I was in these places. You can do what you want without anyone caring.”
Nadia was forcefully removed from her real family as a young teenager.
“I spent most of my life from 13 to 18 at a Torungen Institution. During that time I was moved around at least 7 times.”
In spite of this unhappy recent past, Nadia has proven herself to be a very good mother. All reports about her efforts to be a good mom have been positive as far as I know. Caspian has been found to be well cared for by more than one health professional. Nadia has not missed one visitation date and every one of her visitation reports have been positive.
Anyone who has been following these updates knows what I think about this entire situation. A state-run institution has controlled much of Nadia’s life and almost all of her son’s life. This behavior is not the way a free society treats its citizens.
The same questions about Norwegian society keep surfacing:
“What kind of society treats its own citizens the way families like Nadia’s are being treated?”
“Why is the biological family treated worse, in many cases, than foster families?”
“How can any psychologist tell the future about a mother’s care of her child given so little information?”
“How is it that a procedural process making very important decisions can treat families in such a callous and inhumane way?”
“How can a system of ‘help’ have negative outcomes so consistently?”
These are only a few of so many other questions that have been asked and haven’t been answered well.
So, once again we wait. Now we wait until Monday or however many days it takes for someone to make a decision about Nadia’s ability to care for her own son. Whatever decision is made will only last about two weeks until the 25th of this month. After that, we don’t know what will happen.
Please pray for Nadia and Caspian. Wisdom and courage will be needed by those who will be making this decision. Please pray for him/her/them, too.
Chris Reimers
August 2016
Wings of the Wind 
Another informative update, Chris. It is good that you follow Nadia and Caspian in this thoughtful, caring way.
Once again qwite a typical piece of sadism on the part of the CPS: When THEY call off a visitation, they refuse to let Nadia and Caspian make it up by being together for another day.
There are many such cases. In one, two girls had been placed in an institution in a “Cove” on the west coast and the mother, who was going to visit, had to take a boat south from Bergen. She was due on Saturday, but it turned out that the boat did not make a stop at that particular place on Saturdays, so she had to go along with the boat to a major stop further south. She rang the institution where her children had been placed, and said she would be coming up again the next day instead. They said no, the permission to visit was only for the Saturday! She said “What nonsense”, I am coming anyway. When she went ashore on Sunday, the people at the institution saw her through the window, and so did her children. The children wanted to run out to greet her, the personnel put them down flat on the floor and held them there in the way the police hold unruly criminals being arrested. They had also sent for security guards who prevented her from entering the grounds.
The callousness of these people is aimed at keeping children and parents apart as well as they can. They want the children to “attach” to new people and have been taught this weird idea that biological parents do not matter to children.
Thank you for your comment and your kind words, Marianne.
The account that you have shared here is another example of how unforgiving the system seems to be. When any system (even religious ones) becomes so legalistic that humanity is lost in the fog of strict, ungodly necessity, then the system needs an overhaul.
“Weird” is a prefect adjective to describe a philosophy that tries to brush away the importance of biological ties.
I was having a friendly chat with someone down at the local watering hole (we actually have one in my town) where anyone can come a fill up on natural hot spring water for free. I was there long enough to find out that the woman I was talking to had her 12 year old son taken from her here in the U.S. FORTY YEARS AGO. I was aware of how unique her story was and, while filling my water jugs, found that the child did end up with the other parent. The case had nothing to do with some unfounded psychological theory as it was never mentioned in the discussion. The problem was one of politics in its worse form as far as I could tell. One always has to take into account that a story is being heard from one side.
At the same time, the emotional impact of losing a biological child, even 40 years after the fact, seemed apparent.
All countries have some issues in their Child Welfare Systems as certainly as this is a fallen world. At the same time, when a philosophy like the one you are familiar with in your country becomes widespread and generally accepted, I think it is time to discard the philosophy in favor of a better one.
This is horrible. I have seen it in America too.
A Mom with cancer had her kids taken away because she had beenin foster homes and children’s authorities used some nonsense about studies done on other families show she is likely to abuse her kids because she had been in foster care. Their solution was to put her kids in fostet care and make her fight to see them when she only had a year left to live. That was after the 3rd one turned 2.
I pray this baby is returned home to his mother soon! This is so unnatural.
I agree that it is very unnatural, songsalieri.
You probably have a link to a story about this case in the U.S. A story like this would get a great deal of press here in most cases, I think. Will you share a link to a media source with me if you have one ? Even an article on social media would do.
[…] Chris Reimers Visitation August 2016 https://chrisreimersblog.com/2016/08/06/baby-caspian-kidnapped-in-norwayupdate-10/ […]
I’m praying for the hearing tommorow
Thank you so much for your prayers, Pastor Jim.
I am joining you in prayer. I might know something about this in the morning, U.S.Central time. We may not know the decision on this for a few days. I will put up another article as I find out what happens.
The case looks less mysterious to me after your account of Nadia’s upbringing. The main reason for barnevernet’s concern is probably that she had been using drugs. The second reason is that she was under barnevernet’s custody herself, moved a lot around, and thus had an unstable life. Barnevernet is concerned that, if they leave the family alone, they may not notice that the mother begins to use drugs again (I don’t know what chances they assign to this).
I have seen these arguments before. They may decide a case.
The only way to counteract them is to prove that she has not used drugs a long time, that she has plans for the future (education, job), and that she has a network that supports and sees the young family, and that she will cooperate with barnevernet as long as they deem it necessary.
Thank you for your assessment, Mechthild. For the most part, if I understand it correctly, I hope that it is wrong.
“The case looks less mysterious to me after your account of Nadia’s upbringing. The main reason for barnevernet’s concern is probably that she had been using drugs.”
I disagree that the case is less mysterious. I know you may be very aware of many cases like this and, in context, it makes mores sense to you because you are familiar with such cases.
For me the case has lost none of its mystery. Since so many children taken by the BV wind up being introduced to drugs while in BV custody, it is no surprise that Nadia took drugs. If there is a mystery here, it is how so many young people being “helped” in BV care end up taking drugs that are unnecessary.
Again, I understand that you may be trying to tell the facts as you know them, Mechthild and I appreciate it. The question to me is: “Are former drug users, who had never been exposed to such drugs before they were taken into BV custody and who are now off such drugs, ever considered to have the possibility of being a good parent?”
You continue:
“The second reason is that she was under barnevernet’s custody herself, moved a lot around, and thus had an unstable life. Barnevernet is concerned that, if they leave the family alone, they may not notice that the mother begins to use drugs again (I don’t know w chances they assign to this).”
So, the BV itself is responsible for the conditions that led to these concerns. The mother is not on drugs and has no reason to return to them but the BV has concerns. If they are so concerned, why not let mother and child live together in peace and do occasional drug tests. This is no reason to separate a child from its biological mother. It is unnecessary, expensive, and unethical. If “they may not notice” it means they are not doing a simple thing. Instead, they control the entire lives of the mother and child in this case.
“I have seen these arguments before. They may decide a case.”
If these arguments decide a case for the parent(s) and child(ren), it is clear, common sense.
If these arguments decide a case against the parent(s) and child(ren), it is tragic and the human rights of many are trampled like an elephant tramples through a forest carelessly.
“The only way to counteract them is to prove that she has not used drugs a long time, that she has plans for the future (education, job), and that she has a network that supports and sees the young family, and that she will cooperate with barnevernet as long as they deem it necessary.”
What is the definition of “a long time” here when it comes to drug usage? The BV has controlled life to such an extent that she may have plans for the future but when has she had time to really consider them? If BV upbringing conditions are so good, wouldn’t Nadia have a good plan? Her plans to this point have been day to day survival, since she was taken from her mother as a young child.
Since biological ties are not important to the BV it seems, Nadia has “a network that support” that is better than most. Although it is a somewhat recently developed support, it is very good support indeed.
I don’t understand how any of these points could be used against Nadia in a trial.
I can see how this information would cause any entity to encourage the mother/child relationship.
“…and that she will cooperate with barnevernet as long as they deem it necessary.”
If the BV were an organization that had good intentions for all parents, cooperation is understandable.
However, the BV were is an organization whose tactics are continually questioned by many people around the world. There must be good reason for such concern. Therefore, cooperation is difficult.
Thank you again, Mechthild, for your comment.
You ask:
“Are former drug users, who had never been exposed to such drugs before they were taken into BV custody and who are now off such drugs, ever considered to have the possibility of being a good parent?”
Yes and no. A recent round of interviews of near 100 long-time clients of barnevernet, found that parents having nothing more serious than a drug-related history in their youth, generally were somewhat happier with barnevernet’s treatment than other long-time clients (especially those with psychological or relational problems) Maybe the outcome depends on municipality.
You say: “If they are so concerned, why not let mother and child live together in peace and do occasional drug tests.”
I agree. But there is a time limit to barnevernet’s engagement in the family. There is no such thing as drug tests once a year. You have to do them continually over a stretch of half a year or so, and then leave the family alone, or find some other observational activity. Maybe barnevernet ran out of ideas for activities, but still were concerned.
I don’t know for how long a drug user must have been clean to be considered safe as a parent.
Barnevernet is extremely concerned with future risks for the child, much more than society would be (society isn’t asked and doesn’t know). That explains some of their observations and actions.
I agree that under the given circumstances (day-long travels twice each week to see the child), Nadia can’t realise any plans for the future. But just having some concrete plans, will tell positive at the meeting in fylkesnemnda. I also agree that it was probably barnevernet’s own fault that she does not have a network (until now quite recently). This does not stop barnevernet from using the argument.
But – if she DOES have a network now, the character witness gives a positive and reliable report at the major hearing, and she makes a good impression on the judges, and she agrees to having some kind of observational measures at home, she may get the child back. The positive and thorough reports from the visitations will play a role. At these hearings, psychology tells more than legal arguments.
Much of your reply is thoughtful, Mechthild, and how did you get your statistics of “near 100 long-time clients of barnevernet?” It is more than I can do.
“I agree. But there is a time limit to barnevernet’s engagement in the family. There is no such thing as drug tests once a year. You have to do them continually over a stretch of half a year or so, and then leave the family alone, or find some other observational activity. Maybe barnevernet ran out of ideas for activities, but still were concerned.”
This was your reply to this question, Mechthild:
“If they are so concerned, why not let mother and child live together in peace and do occasional drug tests.”
I have not heard of any time limit with the Barnevernet. Is there documentation you can refer me to?
Drug tests are very simple as you probably well know. It would be very easy to check Nadia for illegal substances, not required by her doctor, often.
“Barnevernet is extremely concerned with future risks for the child, much more than society would be (society isn’t asked and doesn’t know). That explains some of their observations and actions.”
You write with more authority than I can on the issue here, I think, Mechthild. If no one in society can see a future risk, how can the Barnevernet?
“I also agree that it was probably barnevernet’s own fault that she does not have a network (until now quite recently). This does not stop barnevernet from using the argument.”
Sadly, I know this is true, Mechthild.
“…having some concrete plans, will tell positive at the meeting in fylkesnemnda.”
I don’t know if this would help or not, Mechthild. If Nadia had concrete plans (and she may have), maybe they will be held against her for “being too hasty in planning for the future.” This may sound sarcastic but I am being serious. Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for a separation of mother and child. It is bewildering.
“But – if she DOES have a network now, the character witness gives a positive and reliable report at the major hearing, and she makes a good impression on the judges, and she agrees to having some kind of observational measures at home, she may get the child back. The positive and thorough reports from the visitations will play a role.”
It sounds like the bar is set so high. I think that Nadia should be given a chance to be a mother. It is all I am asking and it is all any loving mother would ask. Will she be perfect? No parent is. If she abuses her child, should the child be taken. Yes, of course, but only in correspondence to the offence. There should be a path to reunification in most cases if some abuse occurs. Again, the severity of the offense should determine the length and possibility of reunification.
I’m sure Nadia would agree to have reasonable observations at home. Some have begun to wonder if Norway is some sort of police state the way it observes parents and children. I hope they are wrong.
“At these hearings, psychology tells more than legal arguments.”
This is perhaps your most concerning statement, Mechthild. I have learned enough about certain types of psychology to wonder how it could ever be put ahead of legal arguments.
Thank you for your comments.
The study with nearly 100 interviews is this:
G. Clifford, H. Fauske, W. Lichtwarck, E. Martinsen, “Minst hjelp til dem som trenger det mest?” (“Least help to those who need it most?”) Final report from the project “Det nye barnevernet”” (The New Barnevernet) Nordlandsforskningen, NF-rapport 6/2015
http://nordlandsforskning.no/getfile.php/Dokumenter/Rapporter/2015/Rapport_06_2015.pdf for those that read Norwegian.
(Although – follow the names, they publish in English, too).
On page 161 they classified the interviewed families into five types, where one of them (nr.3) are those parents that had used drugs in their youth, but stopped later. It says that these parents in general have less contact with barnevernet (although they are long-time clients) and that there is little conflict between parents and barnevernet.
You ask “I have not heard of any time limit with the Barnevernet. Is there documentation you can refer me to?”
Not in terms of weeks and months. you have to know that a “case” starts with a notice of concern. Then usually barnevernet examines the family. The examination may end with a “measure”, a court case for a forced measure (usually taking away the children, but also forced monitoring, courses, etc), or the case is closed. So a family either is under examination or has a “measure” (forced or not). Now a “measure” needs a plan, with a goal and an evaluation date. One can’t have indeterminate measures without stop date (the government said this explicitly the last years, but some barnevern don’t follow this). There is a kind of “observational measure” at home (in Norwegian called “tilsyn”), which Nadia may plead for. I don’t know the maximum amount of time span for this. Anyway, she already has gotten the harshest observational measure of all, namely the stay at the mother’s home. I don’t know whether barnevernet will agree to a less harsh measure (observation at home) after that.
You say, “If Nadia had concrete plans (and she may have), maybe they will be held against her for “being too hasty in planning for the future.” This may sound sarcastic but I am being serious. Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for a separation of mother and child. It is bewildering.”
I haven’t heard barnevernet use that kind of argument. (too hasty in planning) Don’t take all hope from Nadia by painting the bleakest outcome. The only way out is to be hopeful, calm,, and acquiesce the concerns of barnevernet in some way. Some kind of dialogue is usually the best way of winning one’s case.
Don’t mistake these words as a defence of barnevernet. I am describing possible situations and their possible intentions. My own view, is that in many cases they should rather wait and see, and think less about the risks of “wait and see”.
Thank you for the link to this study, Mechthild.
Up front I will admit to a bias. I think it is an understandable bias. Whenever a report or study is done by a group funded by itself, there is always the question of conflict of interests. I will look at the page you mention as I am interested in the classifications used in the study. I don’t think I’ll get to all 270 pages but I will try to look at the main parts.
Could you give me the English link, Mechthild? I looked for about a minute and didn’t see it. It would be easier for me if you could just publish it here.
Earlier in our conversation you stated:
“But there is a time limit to barnevernet’s engagement in the family.”
I asked about this and you gave a good answer, I think, that included this:
“One can’t have indeterminate measures without stop date (the government said this explicitly the last years, but some barnevern don’t follow this).”
In my mind the question no longer is: “Is there a time limit?”
The question now becomes: “What percentage of the Barnevernet follows its own rules regarding any time limits?”
Then you write this, Mechthild:
“You say, ‘If Nadia had concrete plans (and she may have), maybe they will be held against her for ‘being too hasty in planning for the future.’ This may sound sarcastic but I am being serious. Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for a separation of mother and child. It is bewildering.”
I haven’t heard barnevernet use that kind of argument. (too hasty in planning) Don’t take all hope from Nadia by painting the bleakest outcome. The only way out is to be hopeful, calm,, and acquiesce the concerns of barnevernet in some way. Some kind of dialogue is usually the best way of winning one’s case.”
I have never attempted to take any hope from Nadia. My intention has always been to give hope. You must not be familiar with all I have written, Mechthild, and you know nothing of my personal discussions with Nadia. I have been hopeful and calm for most of the conversation surrounding this case, I think.
I simply made this simple comment which I have found to be true in cases that I am aware of:
“Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for a separation of mother and child. It is bewildering.”
Many Barnevernet decisions are a mystery to me. I will admit to being angry at times because of the inhumanity of it all. This doesn’t mean I don’t “step away” from the anger to think clearly about the facts of the case.
I think in Nadia’s case and in most similar cases victims have “acquiesce(d) the concerns of barnevernet in some way” as you have put it. Most do “accept something reluctantly but without protest” because they fear the sentence given by the Barnevernet. I completely understand, however, why people are protesting. I think it is necessary to protest in cases like Nadia’s. How else can the Barnevernet be corrected for obvious gross injustices that have been meted out in many cases?
If I seem to have assumed a “bleak outcome,” then you have gravely mistaken my intent. I am only stating that other cases have had decisions based on “crazy” reasons and that it is possible that Nadia could have such an outcome. At the same time, I think I have been very clear about what I think should happen in this case. I think that Nadia should get a chance at being a mother, something she has never really had except for 5 weeks or so that she spent with a friend trying to give her real help. I can’t imagine that any judge would see it otherwise after all of the facts I have become aware of in this case.
Don’t mistake these words as a defence of barnevernet. I am describing possible situations and their possible intentions. My own view, is that in many cases they should rather wait and see, and think less about the risks of “wait and see”.
Ok, I will take your word for it that you are not defending the BV. In this case, a “wait and see” attitude is keeping a child from its mother. There is no good reason for doing this and it is risky. A child is being kept from a loving biological mother, a person who loves Caspian more than anyone else in the world does. No one else would have better intent on helping this child. This is my view.
You seem to know a bit about these types of cases, Mechthild. Do you mind if I ask how? How is it that you are familiar with the study you have cited? Why are you interested in cases like Nadia’s?
Unfortunately, the report is not available in English. Page 8 containes an English summary. But sometimes research groups publish subresults from longer project in English journals. You may ask one of them, e.g. Graham Clifford, whether they plan some English publications: http://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/graham.clifford
This research was very clear about avoiding bias, and finding out in which way they could be biased. That’s a good sign. The interviews were done by people from another community than the interviewed parent. There were very few questions, which were meant to lead to free talk. The results were not shared with the local barnevern. Few parents denied participation.
The only objection I have to this study, is that the interviews were conducted in 2010-11 on long-term clients, that is, cases that had started in 2008 or before. I strongly suspect that the barnevernet of 2008 is different from that of 2013. In between (that is, in 2012) the government issued an influential report that advocated a new principle called “development-promoting attachment”. That means, that in some cases they said it is better to get the child attached to some fosterparent that may help it develop into a healthy being, rather than keeping the child attached to a biological parent that harms the child’s development. Now, the science behind this is deplorable, both diagnostic methods of attachment and risk assessment of future developments, but “development-promoting attachment” quickly became the new fad. It just had to be tried. And Norway has a lot of money to try out things on a broad scale.
You ask how often barnevernet keeps its own time limits? Actually, the keeping of diverse time limits is one of the best monitored areas, probably because it is very easy to measure. It varies a lot between communities. Actually, I’m not sure whether the most effective barnevern offices are the best. Some cases need time. Support for families in crisis needs time. The strong focus on time limits puts an unnecessary pressure on offices to deliver results,, reach “goals” inside families, try stronger and stronger measures.
Sorry,, I did not want to offend you. Margaret Hennum knows barnevernet and Nadia’s case better, so I leave advices to her….
I am living in Norway, and have no stakes on either side. I became interested in the topic when an acquaintance lost their children. I am also active in a Facebook-group giving advice. Sometimes we get some feedback on what worked and what not. Knowing one’s rights, knowing possible measures, some self-insight and keeping a kind of dialogue with bv seems to work best.
Thank you for the information, Mechthild.
I will read page 8 and I can easily translate page 161. If I think I need more information from the report I will do what you suggest and ask about an English translation.
Bias or no bias, you sound like you have done your homework, Mechthild. That is always a good sign.
“I strongly suspect that the barnevernet of 2008 is different from that of 2013.”
I have the same suspicions, Mechthild. I’ve heard the the number of CPS cases have increased during those years but I would like to have more information about this from any unbiased source that you might think of.
“In between (that is, in 2012) the government issued an influential report that advocated a new principle called ‘development-promoting attachment’. That means, that in some cases they said it is better to get the child attached to some fosterparent that may help it develop into a healthy being, rather than keeping the child attached to a biological parent that harms the child’s development.”
It seems like Norway has had some strange psychological views for some time.
“Now, the science behind this is deplorable, both diagnostic methods of attachment and risk assessment of future developments, but “development-promoting attachment” quickly became the new fad. It just had to be tried. And Norway has a lot of money to try out things on a broad scale.”
This is a very sad comment, Mechthild. How many families have been affected by this careless principle? I think “careless” is a kind word here. Hasn’t it been similar principles that have put Norwegian society in (at least) its second generation (in a row) of BV raised children? It seems that this influential government report made thing worse than they already were. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I have been told by more than one good source that Norway spends a great deal of money on the Barnevernet. I can’t understand why any country would spend money on a broken system. My country does this all of the time and it is very frustrating, but our CPS system (in America in general) seems nowhere near as blatant as yours when it comes to removing children from homes for very strange reasons.
“The strong focus on time limits puts an unnecessary pressure on offices to deliver results,, reach ‘goals’ inside families, try stronger and stronger measures.”
Thank you for your view of “time limits” in the BV. I am only trying to follow a few family accounts in as much depth as time allows. I have tried to sort out the “bigger picture” by “listening” to all sides. The entire subject of “time” is one where there are so many questions I hardly know where to start. I know that large, inefficient government entities can make the average person seem unimportant. If the story of Nadia is a normal case when it comes to time, a verdict is not in completely until we know more. At this point, however, the way time has been a factor in a number of facets is troubling. An example would be the amount of time and how time was used when Nadia was in the Mother’s Home (Parenting Center).
“Sorry,, I did not want to offend you. Margaret Hennum knows barnevernet and Nadia’s case better, so I leave advices to her….”
Please know that you have not offended me in any way, Mechthild. This is an subject that brings a great deal of emotion with it on every side. I think we just had a misunderstanding. Words can be funny things. Please feel free to come here anytime and comment. I’m sure I can learn a lot from you as you live in Norway and I am looking from the outside. Margaret Hennum is a much better source than I am on Nadia’s story. On that there is no question.
I’m glad that you are trying to help others. It is the same reason I’m involved. Keeping a dialogue with the BV is a must, I agree. Those who have psychological and philosophic views like those of the BV have to be difficult to dialogue with at times. One must communicate how one views the actions of others particularly when they cause great harm. It is partly a lack of dialogue on both sides that has brought Norway to this point in history in my opinion.
[…] August 6, 2016: BABY CASPIAN KIDNAPPED IN NORWAY…UPDATE #10 […]