“In early May this year, the 27-year-old mother told of mothers home, where she lived along with her son, that she would be deprived of her baby. In fear and panic she contacted a child critical network she came across on social media.”
Horne: – “I was not aware that such networks exists. The danger is that innocent children suffer.”
“The network uses a first chauffeur who drove the mother and son ‘from A to B’. They were then handled of the couple in western Norway as the kk live with indefinitely.”
“Horne” is Solveig Horne, Norwegian Minister of Children and Equality. I WROTE THIS LETTER TO HER BACK ON JUNE 3RD.
For some reason, I have ended up in a position where certain people trust me to keep information private. It is a great compliment. Because of this trust, I have learned things. If I have been left in the dark about some secret “network,” so be it. As far as I’m aware, there is no “network” as the word is used here. This “talk” of a “network” makes it sound like there is an underground railroad of sorts. If there were this type of “network,” the people I know are clever enough to make it work. Norwegian children identified as those in danger of being stolen by the Barnevernet of Norway would be ushered out of the country just like Harriet Tubman helped the slaves find freedom during the American Civil War. The only “network” I am aware of is a group of people who know human rights abuses when they see them and wish to help in some legal way. The obvious paranoia of Norwegian officials with the terminology of a “network” where “innocent children suffer” has a reason: GUILT! The only network I have seen in Norway that comes close to this definition is the Barnevernet itself.
No “network,” as used in the context in the article, worth its salt would keep a child inside of Norway. That’s a given. Nadia and Caspian were helped by friends and strangers who did the right thing. To say that Margaret Hennum is part of this kind of “network” is fanatical. Margaret Hennum is a kind person who saw someone in trouble and helped her. Let’s use the correct term for Margaret’s family. They are not “networkers” in the sense that Ms. Horne used the term; they are Good Samaritans.
Margaret has commented about today’s publication: “…the article in Dagbladet shows that CPS and police have broken laws.”
Margaret also made this comment to me: “I am extremely happy for the Dagbladet report…! It was really a good one, and the journalist will write more!”
If Margaret is satisfied, it must be a good article. It will be interesting to see what the journalist writes next.
Back to the article:
“Neither child mother, the driver or the couple who helped her are prosecuted for their actions because none of them have committed a criminal offense in this case. When mother and baby left the maternal home on 5 May, she stood free to go there with their children. She was there on a voluntary stay, and CPS had no decision was issued about her children. Therefore, suffer not the mother of the Criminal Code provisions on care evasion. The driver and couple in western Norway cannot be punished for their participation.”
Nadia’s lawyer Harold Grape is noted and quoted at length.
“Grape believes police comprehensive action, with house searches with driver and telephone tracking of mother and supporters, is contrary to law.”
“The lawyer claims that the child welfare service must have submitted false reporting to police. – In this case, the child welfare crossed the line, and the government has acted as a guardianship State.”
Then there is this:
“After the new Penal Code came into force on 1 October 2015, risking parents increasingly becoming prosecuted if they escape from child welfare with their children.”
This is how the article ends.
“A Supreme Court ruling on 22 January 2013 stated that a mother who had run from an emergency decision with their two children could not be kept in prison, when an urgent decision does not mean that CPS has taken over the care of the child.
“Under the new Penal Code, it is a criminal offense to escape from an emergency decisions.”
I have only shared a small portion of the article. You can use Google Translate to see the rest yourself. THE ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE.
It seems that the Barnevernet made a mistake in Nadia’s case and Nadia’s lawyer was able to use that to help Nadia get her own child back. Mr. Grape noted that the child welfare service must have submitted false reporting to the police.
Thus, here is my understanding and I would like anyone to correct me if I am wrong:
As long as the Barnevernet finds a reason to declare an emergency decision in a case, it is a criminal offense to escape from it. In other words, the child welfare services of Norway need only do as it sees fit and as long as they make no “mistakes” there will not be another case like Nadia’s.
My hope is that litigation over what constitutes an “emergency decision” becomes the norm if nothing has changed as I fear. It seems that there continues to be little question from politicians and media sources about individual BV cases in Norway. This is why the Barnevernet has gotten away with “stealing” for years until they have became so brazen that they tried to steal five children from Ruth and Marius Bodnariu. Not only did they try to steal them, they wanted to split them from one another as they have done with so many other families. Most are of the opinion that if it hadn’t been for worldwide outrage the Barnevernet would have been successful in destroying another wonderful family.
There are those who feel the Barnevernet has gotten in trouble over its mishandling of Nadia’s case. I hope this is so. At the same time, I see no admittance of any wrong doing. Everyone is relieved, as they should be, that a mother has her beloved child back. My concern is that there will be even fewer articles about people like Nadia written in the Norwegian media. I think the Barnevernet will only be more careful that it follows its own protocols, protocols that are unquestioned by those who have the power to do something about human rights offences.
Please convince me that I am very wrong.