Wings of the Wind

JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO (at approximately 10:30 am Norway time, July 6th), NADIA INFORMED ME THAT: “They called me from Barnevernet, and I can see him next week. They also want a meeting..”

The following update was almost complete when the news came in! This experience becomes more like a serious roller-coaster ride as time passes. Is this the way all Barnevernet “clients” are treated??? Most of the cases that I’m aware of have had similarities to this case, particularly in an apparent lack of communication by the Barnevernet. Each case is unique and should be treated as such.

Just a few minutes ago, Nadia had no idea when she would next see Caspian.

*******Update*******

Caspian is no longer with those who love him the most. Nadia, his mother, continues to be devastated.

The picture above is one of the last taken of mother and child together before Monday, June 13th, 24 days ago. Nadia describes in her own words what happened on that day:

“Suddenly came the day I had feared. Police and child welfare stood at the door and forced their way in to get my little prince lying in his bed.”

Nadia also wrote this recently:

“I carried him for 9 months in my stomach, I loved him from the first moment I heard his heart”

Although the Wings of the Wind is still not aware of any public statement made by any source responsible for the separation of this child from this mother, statements of the defense lawyer have been made public.

Nadia’s lawyer, Harald Grape, writes about the hearing:

“It is recalled that child welfare leader, who met in committee, substantiated his opinion of the Caspian, he will dwell with mother at Hennum would not suffer as required by law. It was pointed journal dated 14th June where it appears that “Whether she should get the child back there is no reason to believe that the baby will suffer any direct overload…”

“How Tribunal has reached this is quite incomprehensible although one assumes reports to Vilde. Vilde was worried about Caspian had a “nascent lopsided development” based on reports that the tribunal had not will be accessible under the committee meeting.” (Google Translate)

“After our stay at Hennum it is quite obvious that Caspian has not got lopsided development. Firstly refer to a medical certificate dated 14 June 2016 from the doctor Ingvild Setså. It appears here that the Caspian provide very good contact, smiles and is very active, good general condition. He was a healthy and active boy who provide very good contact. This is a clear indicator that the Caspian in the five weeks he was with his mother after staying at Vilde developed well.” (Google Translate)

As noted in the last update the doctor, Ingvild Setså, was approved by the Barnevernet.

Mr. Grape continues:

“The Tribunal writes: ‘if the child is going back to his mother, he will again experience instability and fracture, which will be an additional burden for him'” (Google Translate)

“..it is quite obvious that the biological principle (is) no longer employed by the county boards in Norway. This violates the ECHR.” (The European Convention on Human Rights). (Google Translate)

This hearing took place on at The County Council for Child Welfare and Social Affairs (Fylkesnemnda) in Molde, Norway on Thursday, June 23rd.

Nadia was informed on Monday, June 27th that Caspian was to be kept by Norway’s Barnevernet (Child Protection Services).

Apparently, an appeal by Mr. Grape will not be heard.

Nadia will have to wait until August 25th for the next hearing in the case.

A protest will be held this Friday, July 8th, in Warsaw, Poland, for parents like Nadia. The protest is being held in conjunction with the NATO Summit Warsaw 2016 which will be attended by leaders from all over the world.
_________________________________

My thoughts:

As this account continues to unfold, I am continually amazed at the circumstances under which this has happened.

If the translation is correct, Mr. Grape (Nadia’s lawyer) has made several important points:

First, he notes that a “child welfare leader, who met in committee, substantiated his opinion of …Caspian…It was dated 14th June (the day after Caspian was taken from his crib) where it appears that ‘Whether she should get the child back there is no reason to believe that the baby will suffer any direct overload…'”

So, it seems that in the hearing on the 14th a “child welfare leader” thought there was “no reason to believe that the baby will suffer any direct overload” if “she (Nadia) should get the child back.”

Second, Mr. Grape noted “How Tribunal has reached this is quite incomprehensible.”

Mr. Grape didn’t understand why the judge made such a decision and the only thing that was evident as the cause was the decision made at Vilde, the day after Nadia and Caspian left the Vilde “Mother’s Home.”

It is important to remember that the “Tribunal” consisted of one man.

Third, the term “nascent lopsided development” seems to be the term that The Vilde Mothers’ Home (Parent and Childcare center) used in the police report when Nadia was found missing. It appears that the judge in Molde made his decision on this report alone.

I looked up the word “nascent” in a dictionary. It means “just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential.”

So, if I’m reading this correctly, Caspian was taken from his mother because some “lopsided development” was just beginning to show.

Every baby has its own personality. To take a child from his biological mother for such a reason is inhumane.

Fourth, Ingvild Setså (A doctor approved by the Barnevernet) checked Caspian’s health the day after he was kidnapped (kidnapped is the only term that fits well) from the Hennum home and his mother, Nadia. The doctor found Caspian to be in good health after being away from Vilde, enough to write some type of “medical certificate.”

Fifth, Mr. Grape writes that: “The Tribunal writes: ‘if the child is going back to his mother, he will again experience instability and fracture, which will be an additional burden for him…'”

So, one man called “The Tribunal” found a statement by a “Child Welfare leader;” the report of a doctor; and the eyewitness account (that is normally not taken) of the professional nurse, Margaret Hennum (it is also mentioned by Mr. Grape) to be inadmissible evidence in this case.

Also, as has already been noted, Caspian received a good health report on the day after he was taken from his crib. It appears obvious that the baby Caspian must have been getting very good care as noted by the doctor. How does this explain, “he will again experience instability?” This statement is made by the judge in spite of the fact that Caspian was receiving the best care of his young life at the home of Maraget Hennum.

Instead, “The Tribunal” used a report from the Vilde Center about some type of “”nascent lopsided development” to make his decision.

Also note that the phrase “he will AGAIN experience instability and fracture” is used.

After multiple reports that I’ve become aware of regarding the “Centers” where parents are observed (cameras are used), if anything caused instability it was the environment that Nadia and Caspian were in for the first important months of Caspian’s life.

Sixth, these “Centers” are supposed to be voluntary. This is stated on the Barnevernet’s own website.

It doesn’t sound like Nadia wanted to be there.

Seventh, Mr. Grape writes his opinion: “This violates the ECHR,” The European Convention on Human Rights.

Norway has been admonished more than one time about human rights abuses similar to the ones in Nadia’s and Caspian’s case. The words of the ECHR have fallen on deaf ears.

And last, Nadia has to wait until August 25th, as far as we know, to get another “hearing” in some type of court.

Where is Caspian? His own mother doesn’t know because the Barnevernet seems to think she is going to attempt to “kidnap” him. I have already used the term “kidnapped” here and it wasn’t in reference to Nadia.

Has Caspian been placed with potential foster care workers and is he now forming some kind of bond with them?

How do we know Caspian is receiving good care. Has there been another doctor’s report?

Is the Barnevernet watching Caspian as intently as it did at Vilde? It they are, it is unhealthy. Constant surveillance for the purpose of observation is intrusive at best. A loving parent is best suited to watching the child to insure its safety and welfare.

Will the Barnevernet ever take the The European Convention on Human Rights violation reports regarding Norway seriously?

There are other questions, but enough have been asked for now.
————————–

I JUST HEARD FROM NADIA AGAIN. (It is now almost 8 pm in Norway.) THERE WAS SOME SORT OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND NADIA’S MEETING WITH CASPIAN IS TOMORROW, THURSDAY, JULY 7.

I asked Nadia where the meeting was and how far she had to travel. Here was her reply:

“I will have to travel to Bergen. It’s far away.. I have to drive 40 minutes, then take a airplane, then a bus for maybe 1 hour. They say they want a meeting on Friday.”

Nadia was in a hurry as she needed to prepare for the trip and said good-bye with a smiley face. She has had such a good attitude, as far as I can tell, after all she has been through.

So, she has to hurry to make a long trip so that she can see Caspian tomorrow in Bergen and then she will go to some kind of meeting with Barnevernet officials on Friday.

What if Nadia couldn’t make the meeting for one reason or another, maybe because of time or financial constraints? Would this be held against her to add to the non-existent evidence for taking Caspian in the first place. One can only wonder…and pray.

Chris Reimers