NADIA AND CASPIAN…UPDATE #18

Caspian and Nadia

Caspian and Nadia

Today, a lengthy article about Nadia and Caspian appeared in a Norwegian media source named the Dagbladet. I have translated the article from Norwegian to English and a good amount of the information in the article can be found in updates here. It is a good article about Nadia’s case and it appears that most of my Norwegian friends agree. It contains information that I find very concerning, however. My understanding is that articles that appear “neutral” are very outnumbered by pro-Barnevernet articles in Norwegian news sources. Here are few quotes from today’s article and my take:

“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.

Chris Reimers

Advertisements

16 Responses to NADIA AND CASPIAN…UPDATE #18

  1. Reblogged this on Pastor Ciprian Barsan and commented:
    Domnuleste bun!

  2. Margaret and I discussed the concepts of “network” and “secrecy” once. Margaret’s opinion is quite tenable: She said something like this:

    A ‘network’ means simply people who more or less know each other and want to contribute to the work for the same good. If the network is kept confidential, that is not the same thing as being illegal or carrying out illegal acts. In this instance it just protects people who are persecuted by Barnevernet and helpers who have insight and understanding of this. That the state tries to criminalise us all shows THEM up – they are simply so frantic that nobody should escape from the harmful Barnevernet and that people should be unsuspicious of Barnevernet (= have ‘confidence’ in Barnevernet) that they try to stop both information and action without information. – We should NOT let the state have the power to DEFINE what a confidential network is.

    • Chris says:

      I appreciate your comment, Marianne.

      I am at the point where I think that, in Norway in many cases, the criminals are running the show. To let the criminals define what a confidential network is would be like giving your car keys to a car thief. The term network can mean many things and I like Margaret’s thoughts on the subject. After all, since she was involved in the “network,” as the BV calls it, she should be the one to define it. I think she gives honest and true answers. The Barnevernet certainly can’t be trusted to do the same.

  3. Zou says:

    I am writing this because one of my friend’s 9years old boy was taken away by CPS Norway ,they think their Child has ADHD ,in the past 4years ,the CPS already noticed them And they act as helping everytime,my friend is Chinese And husband is from Norway .They dont understand What is happinng in Norway ,CPS lied every time ,all What they do is trying to remove the Child away from their parents!NAZI Norway should stop kidnaping kids from good parents !i am an activist against nordic countries Children protection ,i came from a communist country ,but nordic countries are doing 10times worse things than Communist China !human rights need be renamed ,family united human rights is more important than free speech or voting .

  4. Chris says:

    Hi Zou.

    I never thought I would write something like this but have you alerted the Chinese government about human rights abuses towards one of their citizens? Someone is currently putting together a list of all of the children who are now being treated like your friend’s 9 year old. Honestly, I don’t know how such a list will help particularly as it is without last names. Maybe it will wake some people up about the extent of the problem.
    You should inform your friend to keep records of everything; every meeting, every phone call that relates to this problem, every contact with a BV representative, etc. I have been informed that video taping of BV conduct is legal. The reason for this is because of something you have written. The BV has been caught in lies in cases I am aware of. Although lying is becoming a problem everywhere, there is still a general feeling that it is wrong. The Bible calls it a sin. I think that God must think it a great sin to use lies to separate good parents from children. Jesus talked about how special children are. There is a Biblical warning about causing children to stumble.
    I am a school teacher and taking a child from his/her parents because of ADHD is irresponsible and inexcusable. Is a foster parent supposed to do better in this situation that the biological parent?

    I have two questions:

    1. Has the child been tested by a professional and been diagnosed with ADHD?

    and

    2. BEFORE the child was taken, what kind of “help” was given the parents and child to assist with any learning problems the child may have?

  5. Jasper says:

    Thanks for this post, Chris!

    Actually I am thinking about whom at Council of Europe to send my concerns about the new Norwegian law — I would argue that this new Norwegian law on care evasion after the Supreme Court judgement is obviously on the contrary of European Convention for Human Rights, and demands investigations from the international community.

  6. Chris says:

    You’re welcome, Jasper.

    Because, unlike you, I can only speak one language, sometimes I feel that I am behind on the situation in Norway. I was aware of the new Norwegian law but would you please remind me of its ramifications?

    What do you think will be its results? Has it even been passed? I have heard that it will make it even more difficult for BV victims but lately I’m not seeing much about it on Facebook.

    In any case, I think your communication with the ECHR would be a good effort. I would have no idea who to address concerns to.

    God’s blessings…

    • Jasper says:

      Unfortunately I do not speak Norwegian either and also use machine translations.

      But as far as I understood, the Norwegian Supreme Court acquitted someone from care evasion when the emergency care process was just about to begin — and then the lawmaker decided to change the law due to the judgement.

      For me it is obvious that it is possible to commit the crime of care eviction after an officially communicated decision — until then freedom of movement applies.
      As far as I understand child welfare services in Norway want parents who are going away when they have filed the request for emergency care but not communicated yet to the parents to be prosecuted also for care eviction.
      That would be clearly against fundamental human rights.

      • Chris says:

        Thanks Jasper. I guess any Supreme Court decision would set a precedent. The fundamental human rights of so many Norwegians are being ignored by their own leaders. It is very sad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: