NORWAY VIOLATES PARENTAL RIGHTS…AGAIN!

March 24, 2020

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, France
Photo by Guilhem Vellut

On March 10th, two important child welfare case decisions were made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Unanimous convictions were made in both cases, clearly and strongly denouncing Norwegian authorities.

In each case, Norway was found in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention describes the right to respect for private and family life. It states:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
(Guide on Article 8)

EHtCR judges found that Norwegian officials were guilty of unexcused and unbridled intrusion into normal family life in the March 10th decisions. These same officials/authorities were found guilty of being “responsible for a situation of family breakdown.”

In the case of HERNEHULT v. NORWAY, the Court noted a recent case where precedent had been clearly declared:

“61. The general principles applicable to cases involving child welfare measures, including measures such as those at issue in the present case, are well-established in the Court’s case-law, and were recently extensively set out in the case of Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway.”

Back in September (10 September 2019), in the case of STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY, the ECtHR judges in Strasbourg found Norway in violation of Article 8 by a vote of thirteen to four.

In the second case decided on March 10th, PEDERSEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY, the Court also referred to the Strand Lobben case:

“39. Other relevant material relating to domestic and international law is referred to in the Court’s recent judgment in the case of Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway.”

The citation of previous litigation in both HERNEHULT v. NORWAY and PEDERSEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY explains how the Court came to its united condemnation.

The two cases have several similarities. One is that the wives in each case were not born in Norway. Hernehult’s wife is a Romanian national, and Pedersen’s wife comes from the Philippines.

Each case originated in an application against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the ECtHR under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Hernehult applied in March of 2016 and the Pedersens applied in August of 2015. The Hernehult settlement was 26,893 U.S. dollars for non-pecuniary damage, and the Pedersen settlement was 37,637 U.S. dollars for non-pecuniary damage and 10,216 U.S. dollars for costs and expenses.

Over 20 similar cases are slated to be decided by the EHtCR in the coming months. No one knows how many more applications against the Kingdom of Norway are forthcoming.

Editorial

How many more decisions like this will have to be made before the Norwegian Child Welfare Services, otherwise known as the Barnevernet, will begin to see that the world is waking up to its crimes? I am pleased by these wise decisions of the ECtHR. It is obvious that they can now see through all of the miasma belched into our habitat by the Barnevernet and Norwegian officials. I’m not aware of anyone who is satisfied with the settlements made, but these recent decisions are steps in the right direction certainly. The ECtHR’s references to the Lobben case in the March 10 decisions reveal recent, positive movement. The court is clear…it is using “well-established” “case law” for its decisions. I am very thankful and yet…

How can any reparations repay someone for a child stolen?

In the Pedersen case, paragraph 68 of the ECtHR judgment speaks for itself:

68. The Court emphasizes that to the extent that these decisions implied that the authorities had given up reunification of the child and the natural parents as the ultimate goal, the conclusion that placement must be considered to be long-term should only have been drawn after careful consideration and also taking account of the authorities’ positive duty to take measures to facilitate family reunion. However, in this case the decision to impose a very strict visiting regime cemented the situation at the very outset, making it highly probably that the child would become attached to the foster parents and alienated from the natural parents, thus precluding any realistic possibility of eventual reunification. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in the present case. In this respect, the Court recalls that where the authorities are responsible for a situation of family breakdown because they have failed in their obligation to take measures to facilitate family reunification, they may not base a decision to authorize adoption on the grounds of the absence of bonds between the parents and the child (see Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, § 208).
You can read the details of the case and the court’s decision HERE.

In, 2013, Mr. Dan Mikael Hernehult moved to Norway with his wife and three boys and before the year was out (November 4th) the child welfare service issued emergency care orders for all three children in accordance with section 4-6 of the Child Welfare Act. (You can download a PDF copy of the Child Welfare act here.) They were placed in emergency foster homes the same day. The sad account does not stop there. You can read the details of the case and the court’s decision HERE.

Many in Norway have been hoping and praying for the type of decision made in the Hernehult case. In it, the Norwegian authorities were convicted of wrongfully taking two of the boys into care in the first place. This is an opening salvo of, hopefully, many more decisions like it.

Professor Marianne Haslev Skånland is the one who referred me to Paragraph 68 in the Pedersen case and she was particularly pleased with the decision in the Hernehult case. She writes:

“The judgments have made things increasingly clear, up to now, when they write so clearly that they (the ECtHR judges) both condemn the taking into care of two of the children, AND the failure to return them.”

She also states:

“I am really most of all glad of the judgments from February 2020 which I found against Russia and Romania. Not because I am glad to see that in those countries, too, they have social services which more or less frequently make enemies of parents and seem to delight in disrupting family bonds. But because I see a trend in what the ECtHR is doing: They now seem wide awake to the fact that they have a duty to carry out here: help combat a very destructive trend – the trend of believing that biological parents are of no importance to their children and that the social services can provide children with better conditions and satisfactory ’stimulation’! That is pure, speculative psychobabble – quackery, and all experience disproves it.”

Marianne’s description of Barnevernet philosophies as “speculative psychobabble” fits my understanding perfectly. She has broad knowledge of child welfare services inside and outside of her home country of Norway. HERE, on her homepage, you can see links to the Norwegian cases leading up to and including those mentioned in this post.

With all of the challenges families face in our time, the last concern should be about government entities separating loving families. Many countries are having similar problems. It is important that we become aware of the philosophies of child welfare in all countries.

I appreciate those who have worked so hard to create awareness about this important issue and I congratulate those who have spent years fighting to see that these cases made their way to court.

Chris Reimers


The Norwegian state’s interpretation of the ECtHR judgments about our child protection Barnevernet

March 12, 2020

By Marianne Haslev Skånland
professor emeritus

(This article was published just days before two new decisions condemning the same Norwegian authorities. The new decisions will be the subject of the next post on this blog. – cr)

• • • •
The Norwegian original of this article was published in the newspaper Norge IDAG on 5 March 2020.
This English version is very slightly longer, incorporating some details which are not equally well known or so easily obvious to foreign readers as to Norwegians in the middle of the present debate.
• • • •

It is hard to believe that Norway’s authorities, and Norwegian jurists otherwise prominent in society, can have read the judgments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg that they express opinions on. What we are served up especially by experts on human rights law in media interviews, articles and statements seems heavily infested with misinterpretation, trivializing, stubbornness, denial, blaming victims, and attempts to explain away unpleasantness. Actually there are more variants and on several counts. Obviously the judgments have not made official Norway open eyes and ears to any extent. Yet.

Probably the most important issues are: the question of reparation, the question of the child’s best interest and existing evidence in research of what this is, and the question of truth in the description of facts. I hope to return to these issues at another time; in this article I want to go into the question of what the content of the judgments actually says.

A sporty game of win and lose?

When asked a couple of years ago why Norway has met with strong protest against Barnevernet, our authorities were at first used to answer: “We have actually won two cases in the ECtHR.” Then another was added. Then there was one case in which Norway was found guilty of violation of human rights. Then an appeal of one of the first three was admitted to the Court’s Grand Chamber, leading to a conviction instead of acquittal (the Strand Lobben case, cf below). Then the state was convicted in three further cases. Every time the question of number of cases comes up now, defenders of official practice hurry to say “We have lost 5 but have won 2”.

Expressions like ‘win’ may not be the wisest when spokesmen of the authorities use it about serious issues of abuse carried out against individuals by the authorities. I seem to remember that it was commented on by Gro Hillestad Thune, former Norwegian judge in Strasbourg. She said that the authorities present it like a football game. “5 against 2” sounds as if the decisions could go either way. Perhaps in order to suggest that Norwegian child protection is foremost in the world, therefore the result was rather accidental – the ECtHR might in those five cases almost just as soon have exonerated Norway, which was anyway just convicted of trifling offenses of a formal nature?

Norway’s attorney general was the first man out with such an interpretation after the Lobben judgment: He expressed that what Norway had been found guilty of, was that our courts had not explained carefully enough how necessary and correct Barnevernet’s actions had been.

Is it possible, then, to read the judgments in this manner?

A chronology and a report which are circumvented

Something the authorities do not speak of is the existence of a chronology here, one which is highly relevant.

In the three cases in which the applicants to the Court in Strasbourg did not win through with their complaints, judgments were passed in 2017 and in April 2018.

For the last 6-7 years, and especially after the internationally well-known Bodnariu case, several nations have found that European child protection is problematic, especially in the Western countries, and especially visibly in Norwegian practice. The Council of Europe therefore ordered an investigation, which led to a very critical report about European child protection with examples particularly taken from Norway. It was presented and passed with a large majority on 28 June 2018.

In the debate in the Council of Europe, the speech of one of the Norwegian parliamentarians, Morten Wold, was honest and quite courageous, supporting the criticism of Norway. Two other Norwegian MPs tried to undermine the content of the report with many proposals for amendment. They did not succeed in Strasbourg, but back home afterwards one could read a curious article published by the Norwegian parliament Stortinget, claiming the opposite: that Norway’s delegation had turned ‘the balance in the resolution’ into a victory for Norwegian Barnevern.

The European Court of Human Rights is the court of the Council of Europe, passing judgments which are in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In September 2018 the Court published their unanimous judgment convicting Norway in the Jansen case. The Lobben case appeal came up before the Grand Chamber on 17 October the same autumn and led to conviction of Norway with 13 votes against 4. The judgment was ready in the spring of 2019, but was announced in September. Then followed judgments in three more cases in November and December 2019. In all three Norway was convicted unanimously.

(Blondina) Jansen v. Norway
European Court of Human Rights, 6 September 2018

Grand Chamber judgment (key case):
(Trude) Strand Lobben and others v. Norway
European Court of Human Rights, 10 September 2019

Grand Chamber hearing:
Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway (no. 37283/13)
European Court of Human Rights, 17 October 2018

KO and VM v. Norway (Ken Olsen and Vibeke Morrissey)
European Court of Human Rights, 19 November 2019

A.S. v. Norway
European Court of Human Rights, 17 December 2019

(Mariya) Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway
European Court of Human Rights, 17 December 2019

The 5 judgments coming after the report of the Council of Europe have, therefore, all gone against the Norwegian state. And notably, they are all about issues such as Norway having broken off children’s bonds to their parents, having cut off meaningful communication and the enjoyment of being together of parents and children, having prevented return of the children to their parents, having proceeded to forcibly adopting away the children. These are among actions which the ECHR’s Article 8 is meant to guard people against.

The report of the Council of Europe seems to have inaugurated increased understanding and concern in the ECtHR. The new Norwegian judge in the ECtHR, too, appears to have taken note of the alarm expressed in the report, and is said to have been active in the spring of 2019 in the ECtHR having taken up child protection cases from applicants against Norway – they ended up being over 30 – for so-called ‘communication’, i.e the Court asking Norway for an explanation. This is a step in the direction of a case being taken up for pleading and judgment in the Chamber, if Norway continues to defend the decisions made in the Norwegian judicial system.

More cases in the wake of the Council of Europe’s report

Some more recent cases seem to lend support to the supposition of alarm having been sounded in the Council of Europe and the ECtHR:

Pavlova v. Russia and Kungurov v. Russia 18 February 2020, Y.I. v. Russia 25 February 2020.

In the first two, Russia was convicted of violation of Article 8 because the authorities had, without going into the question of whether it was necessary, refused visit in prison by the jailed person’s wife, respectively the jailed person’s wife and children.

In the third case, the authorities had taken the mother’s three children into care and then deprived her of her parental authority, this also depriving her of e.g her right to visit the children. One child was placed with its father, the other two in a children’s home. The mother had been involved in drug abuse, but is living with her mother, who has also been willing to take care of the children while her daughter is in treatment. The children’s mother has taken active steps to get away from her drug abuse.

The judgment emphasizes that the state’s actions have hurt the children; they have strong feelings for their mother and grandmother. Russia has not tried to give positive help in order to keep the family unit together, such as letting the grandmother help, and has removed the mother’s parental authority from her despite the fact that she has all the time shown great interest in the lives of the children and has actively tried to contact them. The ECtHR also sees it as wrong towards the children to have split the three children up. In the ECtHR, a state has a wider latitude of assessment of the necessity, in particular situations, of taking children into care – a wider so-called ‘margin of appreciation’ – than it has in its further treatment of a case. But under the circumstances that prevailed in this case, Russia is convicted of a violation including that of taking into care the two who were placed in a children’s home – in other words, the state is found guilty not only of its subsequent actions but of the taking into care itself. The state’s action was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

In Cinta v. Romania, this judgment too from 18 February 2020, Romania is convicted of having, through court judgments, not assisted a separated father in maintaining and developing his relationship to his daughter. The father is schizophrenic but under dependable medication. Romania is also found guilty of discrimination, in this instance of a person suffering from a mental illness. The judgment refers, as one would expect, to the case K. and T. v. Finland from 2001, a case where the children’s mother was schizophrenic. That, too, was an important case, a Grand Chamber judgment, Finland being convicted even of the taking into care of the new-born baby in hospital. As far as I know, this was the first judgment from the ECtHR in which a state was convicted even of the taking into care itself.

In these four new cases, the ECtHR repeatedly emphasises that the right to family life is to be placed much higher than the states have done. The fact that helping the family is problematic, that visits are difficult or onerous to manage, that a parent has problems of drug abuse or illness – none of this is enough to relieve the state of its duty of actively helping to keep the family together, nor does it give the authorities the right to force the family apart. The judgments repeat that the authorities have a margin of appreciation in considering whether taking into care is necessary in concrete situations, but that a taking into care is always a temporary measure. In such cases, the state is obliged to work energetically to help in such a way that children and parents can be reunited as soon as possible.

A revealing past – and the future

In addition to the five cases for which Norway has now been convicted, a sixth case against Norway exists which is extremely revealing. In 1996 Norway was found guilty of a violation of Article 8 in the case of Adele Johansen’s daughter:

(Adele) Johansen v. Norway
European Court of Human Rights, 27 June 1996

There, too, Norway was convicted of having cut off visits so that reunion was at last claimed to be impossible. In the further development, it led to forced adoption away of the daughter, in spite of the judgment in the ECtHR. Since the judgmentdates from 1996, it becomes the most important of all, giving, as it does, a perspective to Norway’s child protection policies and the child protection legislation of today. Norway as not, in the 23 years since 1996, done anything at all to repair the offenses against mother and daughter Johansen and to change legislation and practice. On the contrary, even a superficial examination will show our authorities to have continued in the same manner, with increased energy. Very many families have experienced the same blindness from judicial authorities and legislators, the same resistance against acquiring proper knowledge and understanding of the basis of the reigning ideology, and therefore the same tragedies.

It remains to be seen whether the remaining more than 20 cases against Norway pending in the ECtHR will lead to more convictions of the state. It is of course possible that Barnevernet and our courts have in some of them made better motivated decisions than in the 6 cases for which Norway has been convicted, all of which show a total lack of ignorance of the depth of children’s emotional bonds to their biological parents.

In the meantime, the ECtHR in Strasbourg has notified Norway that it taken up yet another case for communication, and also that it does not accept the answer which Norway has given to their question, after the judgment in the Jansen case in 2019, of what Norway will do to put right the violations in the Jansen case. (Norway does not intend to do anything to give Blondina Jansen back any of her human rights.)

Our state’s preferred interpretation of the judgments against it is that we can continue carrying out child protection in the same manner, just as long as we explain more thoroughly how good it is. Our attorney general has probably fixed on some formulations of the following type:

from the Lobben judgment:
“the City Court’s judgment contained no information on how that vulnerability could have continued despite the fact that he had lived in foster care since the age of three weeks”;

from Y.I. against Russia:
“The domestic authorities failed to demonstrate convincingly that ….”;

or, from a press release about a case:
“the Government had not demonstrated that the use of lethal force had been absolutely necessary”.

My guess is, however, that this way of expressing itself is the ECtHR’s polite way of saying that they do not think the states have proven their allegations and that the ECtHR therefore concludes that such proofs do not exist. It seems doubtful to interpret e.g the last example to mean that the ECtHR grants that lethal violence on the part of the authorities had been necessary, and that Russia just had to be more thorough in explaining that it was. We furthermore know that while the Norwegian government, in the Grand Chamber hearing in Strasbourg in the Lobben case, claimed that Trude Lobben’s son had been in mortal danger in his mother’s care, this claim had been proven to be untrue, among other things on the basis of evidence from the hospital.

To return to the official Norwegian explanation of the judgments: Claiming that all will be well when Norwegian courts write longer judgments based on Barnevernet’s allegations, is hot air. It is the content of what Barnevernet does that is criticised by the Strasbourg judges. One can just read the judgments for oneself. Their contents are no so difficult to understand.

**

See also

Marianne Haslev Skånland:
The Council of Europe with a critical report on European child protection systems
MHS’s home page, 4 July 2018

– : Human rights in Norway – as low as they can go
MHS’s home page, July 2004

Lennart Sjöberg:
Adele Johansen vs. Norway: A mother fighting for her childnkmr, 30 November 2001

Erik Rolfsen:
Child protection and the emperor’s new clothes
MHS’s hjemmeside, 15 September 2015

Johannes Idsø:
Child welfare and the abuse of power
MHS’s home page, 19 March 2019

Jan Simonsen:
A little more humility, please!
MHS’s home page, 20 March 2016

Marianne Haslev Skånland:
The child protection case in Norway about the Czech children of Eva MIchaláková
MHS’s home page, 19 October 2015

– : Professional support for the Bodnariu family and other victims of Barnevernet
MHS’s home page, 29 February 2016

– : Separating children from their parents – is Norway better than the USA?
MHS’s home page, 16 July 2018

– : Dr Mengele & Co in action in Norwegian homes?
MHS’s home page, August 2011

Arne Jarl Hatlem:
Barnevernet – the CPS – equals merciless Norwegians
MHS’s home page, 29 July 2018

*


Set loose by earthly things

March 10, 2020

Photo by Chris Combe
“Reach”

“Man … is of few days, and full of trouble.”
Job 14:1

It may be of great service to us, before we fall asleep, to remember this mournful fact, for it may lead us to set loose by earthly things. There is nothing very pleasant in the recollection that we are not above the shafts of adversity, but it may humble us and prevent our boasting like the Psalmist in our morning’s portion. “My mountain standeth firm: I shall never be moved.” (Psalm 30:6) It may stay us from taking too deep root in this soil from which we are so soon to be transplanted into the heavenly garden. Let us recollect the frail tenure upon which we hold our temporal mercies. If we would remember that all the trees of earth are marked for the woodman’s axe, we should not be so ready to build our nests in them. We should love, but we should love with the love which expects death, and which reckons upon separations. Our dear relations are but loaned to us, and the hour when we must return them to the lender’s hand may be even at the door. The like is certainly true of our worldly goods. Do not riches take to themselves wings and fly away? Our health is equally precarious. Frail flowers of the field, we must not reckon upon blooming forever. There is a time appointed for weakness and sickness, when we shall have to glorify God by suffering, and not by earnest activity. There is no single point in which we can hope to escape from the sharp arrows of affliction; out of our few days there is not one secure from sorrow. Man’s life is a cask full of bitter wine; he who looks for joy in it had better seek for honey in an ocean of brine. Beloved reader, set not your affections upon things of earth: but seek those things which are above, for here the moth devoureth, and the thief breaketh through, but there all joys are perpetual and eternal. The path of trouble is the way home. Lord, make this thought a pillow for many a weary head!

Charles H. Spurgeon
Morning and Evening Devotional


In Norway, if one of your children tells one lie there is a chance the police will arrive with a “Child Protection” agent, the children will be taken, and the entire family will be broken up indefinitely

January 15, 2020

American children Nikita (10), Elizabeth (7) and Brigita (11) were forcefully removed from their loving parents Natalya Shutakova and Zygys Aleksandavicius on May, 20th 2019. The evil will of the Barnevernet (Norway’s “Child Welfare Service”) has been accomplished. The children are now split between three different foster parents.

My understanding is that Brigita complained about her parents at school. She was unhappy about a disagreement she had with her parents. The authorities were contacted and the children were removed from their parents. Since the incident, Brigita has stated that she lied because she was upset with her parents. Her admission is not good enough to make a difference in Norway. She and her siblings are indefinitely separated from their parents and each other except for a few visits of a few hours each year.

“There was no court proceeding, no investigation, no due process, or assistance given to the family prior to the taking of the children. The children desperately want to come home but the Norwegian authorities won’t release them. Their main concern is the family is perceived to have not a good enough routine. No violence, no abuse, no drugs, just a subjective assessment that the family didn’t reach the standard expected of them.”

This is all standard procedure in Norway.

A fairly recent article asks: “Should your kid be taken away if they don’t like fish-balls? Norway says so” (Click on this title to see the article.)
The article starts with this family’s story and provides additional details of the horrific problem in Norway.
The article also references Marianne Skanland’s (a linguistics professor who has appeared in a few cases as a child language expert) compiled list of 71 reasons that child welfare services have used to make its case. (Click here to see it.)
I believe Marianne to be one of the best educated Norwegians on this subject. I’ve been fortunate to have her comment here from time to time. Here is one grouping of Marianne’s comments which have been translated into English on her website. (Click Here)

Nothing has changed in Norway. Worldwide protests against such behavior have made a difference in only one case that I’m aware of. Foreign government complaints have gone unheeded and some foreign governments haven’t done enough to address the problem. (The U.S. is one of these.) Reprimands of human rights violations at the European Court of Human Rights have been hopeful but have caused no real positive change within the country. The hope is that the number of cases being presented to the ECHR will eventually cause Norwegian officials to see the tragic error of their ways and force them to create an entirely new system built on common sense child rearing instead of “psycho-babble” (as Marianne would call it.)

I have hope for Norway because I know that prayer is powerful. I have hope for Norway because of some of the wonderful people I’ve met through my advocacy.

Chris Reimers


The Strasbourg Offensive…December 7th, 2019

December 3, 2019


Tor Åge Berglid is a man on a mission with a team of other like-minded people making protests all over the world. He is a Norwegian who has been very active in the attempt to publicize the horrible actions of his country’s “Child Protection Service.” Called the Barnevernet, the Norwegian CPS is government funded (like those of most countries), and it can be very cruel. It is not unusual for the Barnevernet to steal children from their parents in Norway.

Tor’s main goal is to unite people and he believes that “the focus is to lift other people up and tell them that their voices are important, to join into this question about what constitutes family life. Is God’s idea of family life better than the state’s attempt to do a better job?”

Recently, Tor and others represented those who are sick and tired of families being destroyed by the Barnevernet. In a national T.V. debate, he went head to head with the Norwegian Minister for Children and two other “important” Norwegian officials. Many, including me, were pleased with his effort.
Here is a short clip in Norwegian where one can get a sense of Tor’s passion:

Unfortunately, too many people in Norway are afraid to speak out. The percentage of those unaware of the problem is hard to figure since the government propaganda machine constantly spews out words of wonder about its child care system among other things. Advertisements encouraging people to become foster parents make the job look easy and lucrative. The propaganda drowns out the voices attempting to share the reality of the situation.

After having the recent privilege of speaking to and messaging Tor, I informed him that I would do my best to share my views on these developments as a Christian. John 1:5 states: “The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” In this verse, the light is referring to Jesus Christ. According to the Bible (the book of Acts) “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Knowing these truths, and that Christianity once held great influence in Norway, it is sad to “hear” mostly silence from “Christian” leaders and pastors in response to such tragic human rights offences.

God is a righteous entity who loves his creation. He is an advocate for the helpless and hurting. One day, all the cruelty that man has dished out will be exposed. Those who have asked for forgiveness will have been forgiven. Those who “did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind..” (Romans 1:28)

Tor’s statement is evidence that there are people in Norway who know what is happening and still care. They want transparency. I am in contact with others like him. They are still in the fight. They have not given up in spite of the fact that the current against them is strong.

Norway’s recent record at the The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR) is not good. They have been spanked more than once for human rights violations. More cases are currently pending at the court in Strasbourg, France.

What is Norway’s response? It appears that a new batch of laws dealing with “the Welfare of Children” is being worked on. My current understanding (from what I believe to be very good sources) is that the new laws will only make things worse.

I have come to the same conclusion as Steven Bennett, the British writer who published “Stolen Childhood: The truth about Norway’s child welfare system.” Steven, a Christian, believes that the system needs to be completely dismantled and restarted with new founding principles that really stand for the rights of every child.

See book description HERE.

It can be argued that the first institution created by God was the family. Norway, though a recent focus for very good reason, is a reflection of what is happening to the family in much of the world. It appears that evil forces are out to destroy that which God has created. One need look no further than recent laws passed by the Supreme Court of the country where this blog originates, America. The family has been redefined to mean just about whatever someone wants it to be. Sadly, this problem is increasing throughout Europe and the current beachhead there is now in Strasbourg, France at the EHRC, where the cases brought forward will test humanity in the consideration of how much power the state should have in family life.

I agree with Tor and Gro Hillestad Thune (who wrote the forward to Steven Bennett’s book) that the state should let the parents do the parenting unless intervention is absolutely necessary, and even then with caution.

I admire people who are willing to stand up for those suffering at the hands of those with unbridled power. May God bless Tor and those like him who have invested in the lives of families.

Please pray for those who are involved in organizing and raising awareness that the family is in crisis in much of the world. You may not be able to make it to an event but your prayers can be very powerful. We saw evidence of that in the Worldwide protests that took place in 2016.

“…let justice roll down like waters And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:24)

Chris Reimers

This video is only the tip of the iceberg:


“Drag Queen” in Maryland Library Exposed by MassResistance

July 25, 2019

“Drag Queen” in Maryland library runs lurid sex-oriented businesses

This reality was posted by Laura Tucker today on Facebook. The post stated that “Parents explode as Republicans refuse to defend kids from library drag queens.” The title of the article at Life Site News included information mostly taken from an article at MassResistance Pro-Family Activism.

After reading the article, I can see every reason that parents would “explode” about this issue. After watching the video, I was actually surprised at how calmly most of the parents expressed their opinions. I agreed with every single one of them and I can see myself “losing it” much worse than the parents here did.
I can’t believe this is actually going on in the United States of America. This library should have its funding removed until sanity returns.

YOU CAN READ THE LIFE SITE NEWS ARTICLE HERE.

YOU CAN READ THE MASSRESISTANCE PRO-FAMILY ARTICLE (COMPLETE WITH VIDEO) HERE.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

Chris Reimers


Abortionists Sue the State of Arkansas

July 7, 2019

I am very thankful for Jerry Cox and the Arkansas Family Council. Jerry and his team have been on the front lines at our state capital for years fighting for Godly values. Arkansas has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country partly due to the diligence of The Arkansas Family Council. May God continue to bless Jerry and the rest of those working so hard to uphold righteousness in our wonderful state.

Chris Reimers


%d bloggers like this: