Cuvânt și iubire

Solveig Horne, the politician in charge of Barnevernet put out a press release today in response to the demonstrations held against her CPS on April 16th, 2016

In a Facebook post she wrote: “We take criticism towards child welfare seriously and give the Board of Health now the mission to go through a selection of issues in child welfare”

In the press release (here) she wrote that they will take a look at emergency care orders (like the action against the Bodnariu family) and will also review single cases.

I consider this a positive response, but not nearly positive enough. Until the culture within Barnevernet is changed, the culture of “shoot first-aim later,” no real change will occur.

This is also a positive development because it shows that the April 16th effort caused turmoil inside the Norwegian CPS. They are scrambling. They are stressed. They are in damage-control mode. They are under pressure to spread propaganda in the media.

Newspapers like Dagen are in full propaganda mode to criticize Bodnariu spokesman Cristian Ionescu, but in the process they look silly. Instead of addressing the concerns of the protesters, they attack the protesters.

Getting defensive is usually a sign of weakness and many times a sign of guilt. The Barnevern machine is showing signs of both.

The Bodnariu drama continues for now, and it will continue to damage the image of Norway abroad.

I hope Norway’s politicians and citizens realize this before it is too late.

It may already be too late.

Sursa: https://delightintruth.com/2016/04/19/press-release-from-barnevernet-boss-will-review-cases/

A Norwegian mother’s thoughts about Norway’s CPS, Barnevernet.

Like many Norwegians, I am naturally afraid to criticize CPS. But now, I feel that this silence has become unbearable! There are stories in the media and social media that makes me shiver!

Families tell horror story after horror story of children being taken out of the home without warning and about children who will visit/meet their families and are then not allowed. Many of these stories give a picture of everyday situations that are frowned upon and it is twisted so that other people outside of the situation suspect neglect or future neglect and then the children are relocated by force because of it.

As the CPS currently works in Norway, no one can feel safe. Not the most appropriate mother or father will have a chance if CPS comes into play. Many people I have talked to in the past say that fear of the CPS is a normal part of every parent’s life. But what on earth is normal about that?

Norway’s Politicians and Government

We live in a safe country, we feel lucky to live here and we believe that the people we have chosen to make the important decisions for us do so from the same ethical platform as us. But do they?

Shouldn’t we know if we are considered to be good parents or not? This current horror for so many in Norway is debilitating. How can one be assured that an inquiry to the school nurse or kindergarten for help if one needs it, will not lead to the removal of our children? I want my family and my children to be safe, but how do I keep them safe from the child protection services in Norway?

Most foreigners in Norway are tired of their children not living up to the ‘Norwegian Standard,’ and being confiscated as a result of this, for trivial reasons by the Norwegian Government.

Lithuanian television reported that the likelihood of Norwegian parents giving birth to well functional and healthy new citizens was placed well under 50%. When the rest of the world hears the words, Norwegian CPS, Barnevernet, they think of a Totalitarian/Draconian society, harking back to the days of Nazi Germany.

They try to understand what is happening here in Norway. Why do we steal their children? There must be some kind of a reason?

Norway’s State Funded Media

It’s not often that Norwegian media covers issues concerning child protection. Little has been said about these demonstrations, and even less has been heard of the demonstration in Oslo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WihpeR5KPA  Oslo Protests

Thousands of people are enrolled or support the protest parade that will walk towards Parliament to show their distrust in this system. There are parents and grandparents who want their little ones home or would like more time with them. There are teachers and kindergarten teachers who see mistakes being done by Norway’s CPS system. Big mistakes!! Why do the media keep silent about these stories? Is it because of fear, patriotism or the financial support it receives from the government?

Schools and Kindergartens

In schools and kindergartens there is a rule that says you must notify CPS if there is something peculiar about a child or the home situation of a child. If a child appears to have been exposed to something, it is better to report once too much than once too little. If what they see actually is a sign that something really is wrong, the educators have not done their job if they have not reported it to the CPS.

If it later turns out that the child lives under neglect or abuse at home, one little incident reported could have saved the child from a terrible childhood. And of course, no one wants children to live under serious neglect and abuse.

We all remember the Christoffer case, where the little boy was abused to death by his stepfather. Children should have and are entitled to a safe and a good upbringing where they receive love and affection and the opportunities they need to become independent adults without major scars in their souls!

All adults with a normally functioning empathy will endeavour to ensure children have this. I am one of those who could not let injustice against children happen.

It’s possible that in schools and kindergartens, that children are neglected. As long as society carries on as it is, children spend more time in state institutions than in their own homes. Therefore, it is likely that what children experience in school or in kindergarten will have equal potential to build them up and tear them down psychologically as their family situation. This angle is never considered. Could it be that what a child needs is to change schools to be protected as CPS originally was meant to protect them?
What happens all too often in Norway these days, is that a concern is mistakenly turned into a lot of action behind closed doors. Behind families and the educator’s backs, decisions are made into what we all find so unbelievable, the transfer of children into foster care or institutions – and this has increased tremendously over the last few years.

The families are not offered help in any form. They get a sudden and ice cold inquiry that the child will be removed or has already been moved away from their home without parental knowledge.

How has this become the norm in how child welfare “helps” the families they approach? How can so many parents be unfit to take care of their own children? Is maternal instinct about to perish? Has there been a genetic change during the past decade that makes average parents into poorer caregivers than their predecessors?

What are the requirements that say you are a well-functioning caregiver/parent? What is the criterion on the CPS list? How can a normally functioning person with children feel safe from sudden confiscations in Norway? Are the parents considered at all to be responsible in the first place?

One hears of many distortions in the Norwegian CPS. There are cases where something should have clearly been done to protect a child. There are rough examples of neglect in our little Norway. But it isn’t normal!

Could it be that the people who are involved in child abuse and outright torture of children can easily carry this out because Barnevernet are so busy with their power struggles and legal fights with trivial cases, of taking innocent children from healthy families? 

Video of Norway’s CPS Agents at Work

Does CPS use their time and resources in so many wrong places that those who should have been seen can’t get their attention?

Why throw away time and resources to take parents into courtrooms and forcibly relocate their children where they could have corrected the errors by helping parents back on track so they can take care of their children themselves?

As a normally functioning parent everybody would wish to protect their children from everything that is bad, dangerous and wrong. They love their children and would have sacrificed their lives for them. All their money and resources go to ensure their children have a good future.

But, how do you know that you have done enough so that the State will not be able to point its finger at you? Has Norway become so rich, that the state creates problems to have something to do? Keeping people in pain and torment certainly creates an ongoing need for business.

Does the number of toys in a room count more than the love of biological parents and family? Are leisure activities that cost money a demand? Are expensive branded clothes in the closet a requirement to be safe from child protection services? Does everyone have to have an au pair and a maid / housekeeper so that not a second of the day is free from enabling documentation and not a speck of dust to be found?

For there is another bias one hears about and sees: these factors are considered by the CPS. Any deficiencies in such category are recorded as negative traits in a family that is considered for neglect, while those same flaws are considered normal with the foster parents or emergency homes where children are placed.

Foster parents are met with understanding when they explain that the house is a little upside down when CPS makes a sudden pitstop, while a parent of a relocated child is criticised and considered unfit to look after their child. Therefore, a written list, a kind of ‘what’s the norm’, would have been helpful. How can anyone know that they are within proper standards through the trivialities of life if CPS should emerge out of the blue?

As the requirements in the Norwegian society grows, one parent should earn the amount for two people. At least one should have a career, the kids should have designer clothes and expensive status symbols, they should have activities every afternoon and they should attend socially in all contexts.

In addition, families must be harmonious at all times, stress levels will not make its mark and pedagogy should always be the basis for every decision in every moment. The slightest miss is a sign that one is not good enough. The pressure on Norwegian parents is huge! There is not much needed to not keep up with the “crowd”, and small deviations can supposedly turn into someone reporting you to the Norwegian CPS, Barnevernet. Is that how Norway should be?

Should families live in constant fear of not standing out as super parents and the fear of losing custody of our children? Is there room for speaking out against injustice without CPS attacking you and destroying you in the process? Is it allowed to question the impartiality of CPS? Is it true that a post like this will mean that I will also get the status of a possible future neglect in the lives of my children?

I call for more transparency. I request access to cases where parents talk about their experiences, but where the CPS need not defend itself. Why are there so many complaints of Norwegian child welfare without the CPS being forced to answer? What is their agenda?

Can they be kind enough to help the Norwegians outside the CPS system understand so that viseos that can be viewed online about Norway’s CPS are not so scary? Many videos about Norwegian CPS have circulated on the web and it’s not without reason that lines have been drawn, comparing Norway to Nazi Germany. Give us faith back in Barnevernet as a functioning organ, paid for with our tax money, with the sole purpose of serving the best interest of the child. Currently, it’s in the best interest of Barnevernet, the parents and children’s voices are not respected or very rarely heard.

Sursa: https://zeitgeistcontext.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/norways-evil-barnevernet/

An undated photo of the Bodnariu family. (Photo via Flickr)

Norwegian officials have kicked up an international controversy by taking custody of the children of an evangelical Christian family, whose defenders say they are being targeted for their religion.

The scandal involving Ruth and Marius Bodnariu and their five kids isn’t the first to hit Norway’s child protection system, the Barnevernet. Others have also charged Barnevernet bureaucrats with wrongly seizing children and discriminating against foreigners.

But the Bodnarius’ case, which involves five children, is especially striking.

Last November, Barnevernet officials came to their house in Naustdal, a remote Norwegian valley, twice without notice, according to the BBC. First, the officials took the couple’s eight and ten-year-old daughters and two sons, aged two and five, and ordered the mother to come to their office for interrogation. The next day, they returned and took the couple’s then-three-month old baby boy.

While Ruth is a native Norwegian, Marius is Romanian. The two met when Ruth was on a religious mission to Romania, said Cristian Ionescu, a family friend who is a reverend at the Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church in Chicago.

“You can imagine how tragic this is for them,” Ionescu told VICE News. “They are crying all the time. They have lost weight. They have been desperate at times. God and family and friends all over the world give them prayers and encouragement.”

Ionescu and others have planned demonstrations in front of the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, DC and other locations around the world on Saturday. In the US alone, they’ve garnered more than 60,000 signatures for a petition calling on Norway to return to the kids to their parents.

Norwegian officials said that they couldn’t discuss the details of the case because of privacy rules. But reports said that a school principal first raised concerns about the family, and Ruth admitted to the Barnevernet officials that that she would spank the children, which is illegal under Norwegian law.

“Not every time when they do something bad, more occasionally,” she told the BBC, referring to how often she resorted to spanking. Officials, she added, “didn’t find any physical marks or anything like that when they had medical examination on them, they were, are, all fine.”

Though he was unaware of the details of the case because of confidentiality rules, Jon-Åge Øyslebø, the minister counselor for culture, communication, and education at the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, said that it’s not a trifling matter to remove children from parental custody in his country.

“Children rights are very strong in Norway,” Øyslebø told VICE News. “It’s forbidden by law to apply any kind of corporal punishment.”

The family was allowed to meet together in February for the first time since the children were taken. Last week, after the family took the Barnevernet to court, a Norwegian judge gave the Bodnarius custody of their baby and allowed them to see the two boys twice a week for two hours at a time, according to the family’s website. It’s not clear what the court determined regarding the two girls.

Related: Boko Haram Is Using More Children to Carry Out Suicide Bombings

The court verdict is private, said Øyslebø. But he speculated that the court must have agreed with the Barnevernet officials if the judge didn’t let all the kids go home.

“The verdict indicates that there were reasons to intervene in this family,” he said. “The decision to place them in temporary energy shelter homes was based on circumstances in the home and related to the children’s upbringing.”

The children are now in emergency custody. A county panel in Norway is now scheduled next month to decide whether the children should be placed in foster care or returned to their parents.

A protest supporting the Bodnariu family against the Barnevernet took place in February in Oslo.

Ionescu suggested that Barnevernet officials didn’t approve of the role of religion in the Bodnariu’s home. The couple complained that investigators asked them extensively about their faith, whether it affects how they raise their children and other questions that Americans would find offensive, he said.

“It’s a pretty secular country,” said the reverend. “They have a new translation of the Bible that erased all the verses that talk about disciplining your children.”

Øyslebø disputed that thought. The Leader Council of the Pentecostal Movement of Norway also issued a statement saying that it doesn’t believe Barnevernet officials were discriminating against the faithful.

“We have no reason to suspect that we are being treated differently than others in our country, due to our faith,” the statement said.

But Norwegian childcare experts have raised red flags about the Barnevernet. Last year, before officials took the Bodnarius’ children, 170 psychologists, social workers, and other professionals signed a public letter to officials saying the system needs reform.

“Children are removed from the home on very weak evidence characterized by speculative interpretations,” the letter said. “Too often we see that biological parents, who do not have all the world’s resources behind them, stand no chance against a big and powerful public apparatus. We see a tendency for decisions based on incomplete observation basis and tendentious interpretations.”

Related: Warzones Risk Creating a Lost Generation of Children in the Middle East and North Africa

A “lack of parenting skills” is the reason most often cited by Barnevernet officials who are taking children, according to the BBC, which reported that foreign mothers in Norway are four times more likely to lose their children to the system.

Accordingly, examples abound of angry foreigners damning the Barnevernet.

Last year, Czech President Miloš Zeman compared the Norwegian child protection service to the Lebensborn program in Nazi Germany, which aimed to give the children of unmarried women to Aryan parents.

Zeman was discussing a 2011 case where Barnevernet officials took two boys into custody because they told their nursery school teacher their father groped inside their pajamas. Police never brought charges against the father, but the parents still don’t have custody of their children and the Barnevernet put one up for adoption last year. Norway has since agreed to notify Prague when it investigates parents who are Czech citizens.

Lithuanian talk radio has also mocked the Barnevernet, saying officials seize foreign children to reduce inbreeding in Norway. Brazilian Vitoria Alves Jesumary fled for sanctuary in her country’s embassy in Oslo three years ago after Barnevernet official raised questions about her daughter’s eating habits. And Polish private investigator Krysztof Rutkowski has twice abducted children in the Barnevernet’s care and spirited them out of Norway to their parents in Poland and Russia.

Julie Gilbert Rosicky, executive director of the American branch of the International Social Service, a global child protection organization, said it was peculiar for officials to take children away from their parents unless the home was truly dangerous to their welfare. Norwegian officials might have otherwise explained what the Bodnarius were doing wrong before they simply grabbed their kids, she suggested.

“The bent of child protection is: do everything you can to keep the kid with their family,” Rosicky said. “I hope and pray Norway has some legitimate safety concerns.”

Follow John Dyer on Twitter: @johnjdyerjr
Photo via Flickr

Sursa: https://news.vice.com/article/norway-is-taking-children-from-their-parents-and-sparking-an-outcry

Norwegian authorities have put four young children at high risk of sexual assault just because the parents have occasionally spanked the kids and are Christians.

Scandinavia is in vogue on the American Left. Throughout this campaign season, Bernie Sanders and his disciples have pointed to the region as a shining example of their vision for “democratic socialism.” (After all, images of quaint Nordic streets are far more appealing than disaster zones like Venezuela.) While opinions vary on just how economically socialist Scandinavia really is, its nations undoubtedly offer a far more comprehensive social safety net than the United States.

But a recent child welfare controversy in Norway shows the dark side of this utopia. When government assumes a “nanny state” responsibility for its citizens, it also tends to assume a frightening degree of control over their daily lives. The results can be devastating—and decidedly undemocratic.

The Trouble BeginsAt the center of the uproar are Marius and Ruth Bodnariu, a Romanian-Norwegian couple, and their five young children: Eliana (10), Naomi (7), Matthew (5), John (2), and Ezekiel (8 months).* Until recently, the family lived quietly on a small farm in southwest Norway. Marius, a Romanian citizen, works for the municipality of Naustdal as an IT specialist. His wife, Ruth, a Norwegian by birth, is a pediatric nurse employed by the local hospital.

Marius and Ruth are Pentecostal Christians who met in Romania and speak Romanian at home. Before November 2015, their daughters attended the local public school.

That’s where the trouble first began. Last October, Eliana and Naomi got into an argument on the school bus with another child. While investigating the squabble, the school principal interviewed the girls, questioning them extensively about their home and family environment. Following this interview, she made a legally required phone call to the local child protection office (called Barnevernet in Norway).

The principal’s report has been a source of controversy, with Christian media claiming the investigation centered on the family’s religion, while others contend child abuse was the government’s sole concern. After reviewing summaries of the official record from the family’s lawyers, I’m convinced that both spanking and religion were significant areas of concern. The principal told child services that the Bodnariu family “has a very strong faith and view that God punishes sin,” and that the parents occasionally spank the girls—a disciplinary method outlawed in Norway.

The principal added the girls were quite talkative, and that teachers sometimes doubted their credibility when they were trying to get out of trouble (a contention that becomes interesting in light of later events). However, she also stated the parents were very resourceful and did a good job providing for the children’s needs. She told CPS the children did not fear going home, and she did not believe they were being abused.

On the contrary, the principal—who lives in the family’s neighborhood—told CPS that they are united, “a true family,” and that she had observed them doing many activities together. She simply recommended that Barnevernet provide counseling services to the family.

Barnevernet swung into action, first interviewing the children’s doctors (who reported good medical care and no signs of abuse), later contacting police about the spanking allegations. An internal Barnevernet document reveals the family’s religion was indeed an extensive matter for discussion.

“The children are talking about forgiveness and how hard it is to do what the Bible says,” the document states. While most practicing Christians would recognize human sinfulness and the need for forgiveness as core doctrines, CPS concluded that this teaching may have caused the children stress. It was decided that Barnevernet should go to the girls’ school and interview them without their parents’ knowledge.

Horrors and Heartbreak Ensue

Eliana and Naomi left for school as usual on Monday, November 16. They never came home. Later that day, Barnevernet social workers came to the school to interview the girls. When questioned, they confirmed they were sometimes spanked—saying their father spanked them “lightly.” Asked if they were afraid to go home, they said they were not. The family’s religion also came up in discussion, including the subject of God answering prayer.

It’s impossible to determine whether many of the girls’ statements were volunteered or obtained through leading questions, but it’s hard to imagine why God answering prayer would be considered an appropriate topic for a child welfare investigation.

After this interview, Barnevernet seized Eliana and Naomi from school and took them into custody—an emergency measure without a judge’s order. The same afternoon, Marius was arrested, while Ruth was notified of the girls’ seizure and told to bring her three small boys to the police station. Marius and Ruth spent the next three hours being interrogated separately, without being notified of the charges against them, without lawyers, and without a translator for Marius. They both admitted to spanking the children but denied more serious charges of abuse.

Following the interrogation, the three-month-old baby was returned, but Marius and Ruth were informed that their boys, then 4 and 2, had also been forcibly taken into state care. Marius was charged with physical abuse of his children (charges which were later dropped due to lack of evidence). Both he and Ruth stated they were willing to undergo counseling to help them adapt to Norwegian standards for child discipline. Social workers assured them such a plan would be developed, and they allowed the shaken couple to return home with their infant son.

The next evening, after dark, Barnevernet unexpectedly descended on the family farm and seized the baby. In a chilling exchange, social workers advised a distraught Ruth to sign statements that Marius had been beating her, so she could be reunited with her children at a shelter. She refused to commit perjury against her husband, even at the cost of separation from her children. The heartache of this moment can only be imagined.

Two weeks later, Barnevernet met with Marius and Ruth. By any reasonable standard, the family should have been reunited at this point, with whatever supervision and counseling the state deemed necessary. Medical examinations on the children had revealed no signs of injury—including an x-ray exonerating the parents from charges of shaking the baby. In fact, Barnevernet had obtained no new evidence of any kind against the parents. There were no affidavits from doctors, neighbors, or family members—nothing more than the girls’ original statements, given in easily manipulated, closed-door interviews.

The school principal, who had contacted CPS in the first place, strongly argued against family separation. “The headmaster . . . doesn’t think the parents are doing something to physically harm children,” the official record notes. She was “opposed to taking the children away when she felt this was not in their best interest.”

The county and municipality also went to bat for the Bodnariu family. The county noted Norway’s Child Welfare Act only allows children to be removed if they are being “significantly harmed,” a high threshold Barnevernet had failed to prove. “The parents are fully capable to properly exercise their care for the children,” the county stated, reasonably adding that “the situation can be correct[ed] by adopting measures at home.”

Despite all this, Marius and Ruth could tell the meeting wasn’t going well. They promised they would never again use physical discipline, stating clearly, “It will not happen again.” Barnevernet was unmoved. The children would not be returned to a home of “systematic violence,” they said, but would instead be placed in three separate foster homes scattered across Norway.

Marius was denied any visitation; Ruth would be allowed to nurse her baby twice a week and see her small boys once a week for two hours. The two girls would have absolutely no contact with either parent outside 10-minute phone calls. The Bodnariu family had been dismembered, and not a single judge had been involved in the process.

Tyranny of the Bureaucrats

Sadly, the Bodnarius’ story is far from an isolated incident. Barnevernet has become notorious around the world for its intrusions on family autonomy and unwarranted removals of children, particularly children born to foreign nationals. But the Bodnarius’ story has galvanized the anti-Barnevernet movement, sparking dozens of protests at Norwegian embassies and consulates. A Facebook page supporting the family has more than 27,000 likes, and an online petition has gathered over 60,000 signatures. Just last week, the BBC published a story shedding light on the Bodnarius’ case, as well as similar incidents across Norway.

Among Americans, though, reactions to the Bodnarius’ plight have been mixed. Allegations of child abuse are a serious matter, and we tend to approach these cases with the belief that the legal system will operate fairly and seek the truth. This was my own assumption at first. Surely, I thought, an advanced country like Norway has a fair, above-board legal process, with checks and balances, designed to remove children in only the worst-case scenarios.

That’s where I, like many Americans, would have been wrong. Barnevernet is structured to operate as a law unto itself. Its decisions are not subject to meaningful judicial review. Instead of coming before a court of law, Barnevernet, an administrative agency, conducts its hearings before an unaccountable board made up of three to five people, called a “county social welfare board.”

Norwegian psychologist Einar Salvesen, a former Barnevernet expert who is now calling for reforms, describes the process this way: “In 99% of the cases, I think, the county board follows the CPS decision and parents have little opportunity to bring in witnesses and disprove the claims of CPS. So [the parents] are at a disadvantage. . . . I’ve seen myself in some of these cases, that this was wrong. The children should not have been taken out of the home.”

The initial county board proceedings do not involve a presiding judge, and participants do not give sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. The rules of evidence do not apply, and the accused has no right to cross-examine his or her accuser. Barnevernet can prevent expert witnesses from testifying on the parents’ behalf.

“Even the most elementary aspects of due process are lacking,” says Peter Costea, a Texas civil rights attorney working to help the Bodnariu family. This is the system under which Norwegian parents may be stripped of one of their most fundamental human rights: the right to raise their own children.

After the Bodnarius’ children were seized in November, they had to wait until mid-March—four months later—just to get a hearing before the county board. Although the law requires that the hearing take place within six weeks, Barnevernet waited 16 weeks to comply. This stands in stark contrast to emergency child removals in the United States.

“In Texas, for instance,” Costea explains, “children may be taken away from their parents against their will, but only for ten days and pursuant to court order. Once alerted to the possibility of child abuse, social workers must investigate and produce affidavits, attesting under penalty of perjury that the facts are true. The affidavits are then given to a judge, who determines, in light of clear legal standards and definitions, whether abuse has occurred warranting the return of the children. Within ten days the court will hold evidentiary hearings and determine the fate of the children. None of this happens in Norway.”

Although the law requires that the hearing take place within six weeks, Barnevernet waited 16 weeks to comply.

­­While Norway is certainly entitled to make its own laws, Costea argues that its system violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which it has signed. Besides its cavalier treatment of a child’s right “to know and be cared for by his or her parents” (Article 7) and “to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations” (Article 8), Norway’s clearest violation is found in Article 9.

“State Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will,” the treaty states, “except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child” (emphasis added). Norway’s practice of separating families via administrative hearings without real judicial review is a clear violation of this international treaty—and of the fundamental rights of children and families.

How Barnevernet Harms Children

Indeed, it’s important to emphasize that Barnevernet is not just trampling the rights of parents. It is doing real harm to vulnerable, voiceless children.

No serious-minded person would deny that, tragically, some families are unwilling or unfit to care for children. This is why foster care and adoption exist, and they are important remedies for children who truly need them. In fact, I’m president of a charity that has worked in Romania for 18 years doing just that: finding adoptive and foster families for abandoned, neglected, and abused children. For these children, foster care and especially adoption can bring redemption and healing.

I use the words “redemption” and “healing” to emphasize a crucial truth: separation from one’s birth family is a very real trauma. Studies have repeatedly shown the importance of bonding and attachment in childhood development, demonstrating that biological bonds between mother and child begin developing even before birth. One researcher specifically studied the effects of childhood instability on children, concluding: “Kids who had secure attachment histories but suffer losses will become less secure.”

Americans hardly need a scholarly article to tell them that growing up in foster care creates a whole slew of statistically adverse outcomes: physical, educational, behavioral, and especially emotional. But I must highlight one area of risk, because it’s a risk to which Barnevernet has wantonly exposed Eliana and Naomi Bodnariu.

In the hearing of March 14-15, Marius and Ruth were finally able to learn a few details about where their children were living. One fact that emerged: Eliana and Naomi had been placed with a foster mother who has a live-in boyfriend. What’s more, this home also houses three additional foster children, including a 17-year-old male.

It has been documented in the United States that children living with two married, biological parents are at the absolute lowest risk for sexual abuse. Children in foster care are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused, while children living with a single mother who has a live-in partner are a whopping 20 times more likely. To this we must add the well-documented risk of child-on-child sexual abuse prevalent in group foster care. Since Barnevernet intervened to save Eliana and Naomi from spankings and Bible lessons, their risk of being sexually molested has skyrocketed.

Contrary to what Barnevernet may believe, children are not chips on a game board who can be moved from family to family without consequence. By refusing even to attempt family reunification and counseling, they have shown breathtaking disregard for the proven ideal situation for children: growing up with their own, married mother and father.

In the words of Peter Costea, “The harshness of Barnevernet’s ruling evidences that the decision was intended to be punitive, not curative.” The Naustdal CPS office has become a bigger abuser in the lives of these five children than their parents ever were.

Americans may disagree on the wisdom of spanking as a method of discipline. But the fact remains that it has been a commonly accepted parenting practice throughout the developed world and is legal in all 50 states and most Western nations. It is not banned or even mentioned in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Is spanking therefore such a heinous practice that it outweighs the risk of sexual abuse? Of mental, physical, and psychological damage caused by growing up in foster care? Of losing natural relationships with parents, siblings, and extended family? Of losing religious, linguistic, and cultural heritage?

For abandoned children, these benefits have been lost already. But for children whose parents desperately want to raise them, civilized societies should do their best to facilitate and support family integrity. To needlessly destroy the family unit is to harm children.

Why Americans Should Care

“Fine,” you might be thinking, “but why should this far-off case matter to me?” For several reasons.

First, it should remind Americans that socialist systems will always compete with the family. This is clearly reflected in Norway’s child welfare law, which ominously declares: “The municipality shall closely monitor the conditions in which children live.” Once a collectivist mindset takes hold, it’s only a matter of time before it begins to trickle down into parenting and family policies. Most Americans who advocate socialism don’t foresee or understand its disastrous natural ends—both economic and cultural.

Second, this case highlights a divide between Eastern and Western Europe we shouldn’t overlook. A Romanian-American friend put it this way: “A staple of Russian propaganda is to reinforce the notion that the West’s emphasis on individual freedom is, in fact, a ruse used to justify the state’s insidious assault on the traditional notion of the family.” Norway’s persecution of a Romanian Christian family, a case well-publicized in the Russian media, feeds this narrative. Romania remains a pro-Western (or at least anti-Russian) nation, but its neighbors are on the edge. America would do well to send a clear signal that Norway’s heavy-handedness is, in fact, the very antithesis of freedom.

Finally, this case should matter simply because it’s an injustice—and unlike so many of those in the world, it’s not hard to solve. Barnevernet has the power to bring the Bodnariu children home tomorrow. In fact, its March hearing resulted in baby Ezekiel, now eight months old, being returned to his parents. Barnevernet has also backed off its original plan to put the children up for adoption. It’s now “merely” seeking permanent foster placement for Eliana, Naomi, Matthew, and John until adulthood.

That hearing will take place May 31, but attorneys worry that the longer the family is kept apart, the smaller their chance of reunification becomes. Incredibly, while Norway’s child welfare law contains no mention of a child’s natural bond with his parents, it does acknowledge a potential bond with foster parents. After two years in foster care, the law becomes biased against returning the child home.

Norway is feeling the international pressure, but family advocates say America’s opinion is the one that really counts. They hope Americans and U.S. politicians will take note and speak out. Just as we would not look kindly upon countries who punish crimes by stoning or amputation, neither should we accept excessive, inhumane punishments levied by “civilized” nations.

Norway should immediately restructure its child welfare system to restore humanity and accountability, in compliance with international law. But first, it should reunite the Bodnariu family and end this nightmare.

* Although some media have declined to mention the children’s names for privacy, I am following the family’s lead in publicly referring to the children by name.

Photo Brian A Jackson / Shutterstock

Jayme Metzgar is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist.

Sursa: http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/18/read-about-norway-stealing-these-kids-then-tout-democratic-socialism/

În original, povestirea noastră se intitulează  “L’ours the coagar scene“. Este un filmuleț primit de la un amic, durează cîteva minute, dar impresia este de neuitat. Scena este absolut reală, nu ştiu cum a reuşit fotograful s-o surprindă şi să o redea cu atâta veridicitate.

Cadrul este undeva intr-un pustiu. E o zi sumbră, norii plutesc aproape de pămînt, un şuvoi de apă tulbure acoperă cu zgomotul lui ţinutul acela sălbatic. De după o stîncă pleşuvă, se iveşte capul unei jivine. E o leoaică. Flămîndă, după toate semnele.  In vale zărim un pui de urs. Zglobiu, jucăuş, simpatic. Vînătoarea începe în chip dramatic. Leoaica porneşte într-o goană nebună spre micul animal. Acesta, speriat de moarte, găseşte un refugiu provizoriu pe spinarea unui copac aplecat deasupra  şuvoiului de apă. Se retrage pînă aproape de capăt. Leoaica e pe urmele lui. Cînd distanţa este doar de un metru, coroana copacului se înclină şi ursuleţul cade-n apă. Se zbate voiniceşte, ţinîndu-se de o creangă apropiată. Şuvoaiele sînt furibunde, urmărirea te obligă să-ţi opreşti respiraţia. Ursuleţul vrea să se salveze cu orice chip, dar pe de o parte valurile sînt gata să-l înghită, pe de alta, leoaica hămesiotă îl pîndeşte de pe mal. Dumnezeu nu ţine cu ursuleţul, nu ştim de ce. Apa îl aduce drept în gura leoaicei. Atunci auzim nişte ţipete de-a dreptul înspăimîntătoare.  Puiul de urs ştie că aceasta este  unica lui şansă: să ţipe după ajutor sau să-l sperie pe duşmanul său. De undeva, apare mama ursuleţului, ţipînd şi ea ca din gură de şarpe. Ţipetele ajung să se unească într-un glas care fac să  cutremure pămîntul. Leoaica se simte învinsă, se îndepărtează iar urşii – mama şi puiul, se aruncă unul în braţele celuilalt într-o efuziune şi o salbă de sărutări care exprimă desigur o victorie aproape umană asupra sălbăticiunii ameninţătoare.

***

Nu se poate să nu te duci cu gîndul la jungla în care trăim noi, oamenii. Cîte ameninţări ne pîndesc, de la terorişti,  gangsteri, brute, pînă la mitomani, şmecheri de duzină sau şleahta de indivizi care umblă după taxă de protecţie. Mai mult, ţările noastre, mai ales Israeleul, este ţinta unor atacuri nesfîrşite cu rachete, bombe, acte de teroism, pînă la ameninţări cu distrugerea ca cele proferate de conducătorul Iranului. Sîntem, vrem-nu vrem, puiul de urs care ţipă cu disperare după ajutor, aşa cum nu am putut face asta în urmă cu decenii cînd milioane dintre evrei erau aruncaţi în cuptoarele de la Auschwitz.

Leii şi leoaicele, indiferent de unde provin, se adună în haite şi vor să ne înghită. Noi ne apărăm , nu doar cu ţipete, dar şi cu arme. Pericolul contnuă să planeze asupra noastră, pentru că haitele de sălbăticiuni se măresc, pofta lor  este tot mai mare, iar cei care ar trebui să ni se alăture, să se solidarizeze cu noi, se tem şi ei de haitele de lei.

Cum se va termina toată această goană pentru supravieţuire? Nimeni nu ştie. Din păcate, ursuleţul cu toate strigătele lui disperate rămîne un pui al pustiului, aşa cum noi sîntem prizonierii  junglei umane. El a fost salvat de o mamă grijulie şi puternică, noi, trebuie să credem în forţa noastră proprie şi protecţia cerului că ne vom salva de haitele de sălbăticiuni.  Nu este pentru prima oară că ne aflămîn pericol. De multe ori ne-am găsit în pustiu faţă de haite ucigaşe, de multe ori am urlat fără ca nimeni să ne audă. Şi totuşi în cele din urmă ne-am salvat.  De mii de ani,  ne apărăm pielea de lupi, hiene şi lei. Avem o istorie plină de lupte, ne-am aflat de multe ori aproape de a fi pierduţi, dar o minune totdeauna ne-a vemit în ajutor. Astăzi avem un stat al nostru, un cuib naţional, o ţară puternică, o armată echipată cu cele mai moderne aparate de luptă şi, dincolo de toate, avem un detaşament de luptători de elită, pregătit  să învingă cu orice sacrificiu.

Aşadar, dacă nu ne vor ajuta ţipetele, ne vor salva tunurile şi avioanele, curajul şi voinţa de a supravieţui, fie şi în jungla în care sîntem obligaţi să trăim.

Harry Ross

Israel

Libertatea religioasă e un drept fundamental la creştini. La musulmanii fideli sau forţaţi să trăiesc după valorile şi normele Coranului, Sharia, drepturile omului formulate de creştini, sunt călcate în picioare în văzul lumii. Vezi crucificarea, uciderea creştinilor şi distrugerea bisericilor, mânăstirilor din Orientul Apropiat şi Africa musulmană.

În era globalizării, toleranţa europeană fără graniţe face ca batjocorirea creştinismului să fie tolerată pe când cea a musulmanilor şi mozaicilor să fie sancţiontă de legile aceleiaşi ţări. Un fenomen social-politic sado-masochist greu de înţeles sau justificat. Michel Houellebecq a încercat în romanul „Supunere” (Editura Humanitas, Bucureşti, 2015).

Discrepanţă dintre felul cum sunt privilegiaţi arabii, evreii şi înjosiţi creştinii generează un sentiment de dispreţ şi superioritate faţă de o majoritate parcă paralizată. Pe de altă parte creştinii, europenii legitimează şi se supun astfel indirect unui mod de viaţă străin lor.

Aroganţa din trecutul imperialist al rasei albe faţă de aşa zisele rase inferioare asiatice şi africane s-a metamorfozat în zilele noastre într-o pseudo superioritate umanitară, dar din aceiaşi sursa? Teroriştii islamici se arunca în aer la Bruxelles, Paris, Madrid, Londra, New York, etc. Pentru a protesta împotriva noii superiorităţi arogante?

Din 1415, de la ocuparea Ţării Româneşti, o moschee la Bucureşti n-a fost impusă de nici un Sultan. În atmosfera tulbure de azi, o elită politică cu o legitimitate şi motivaţie îndoielnică vrea construirea unei moschei. Moldo-valahii ortodocşi sunt de un mileniu în lanţurile grele ale duhovniciei şi soborniciei moscovite şi constantinopolitane, de aceea să vedem mai jos sine ira et studio şi viziunea celei de a treia Romă, Moscova.

Vladimir Putin, preşedintele Federaţiei Ruse, urmaşul împăraţilor Romei creştine şi protectorul tuturor ortodocşilor, s-a adresat la 4 august 2013 Parlamentului: „În Rusia se trăieşte ca ruşii! Oricare minoritate, de oriunde, care vrea să trăiască în Rusia, să lucreze şi să mănânce în Rusia, trebuie să vorbească rusa şi trebuie să respecte legile ruseşti. Dacă ei preferă Legea Sharia şi să trăiască viaţa musulmanilor, îi sfătuim să plece în acele locuri unde aceasta să fie Legea Statului…

Rusia nu are nevoie de minorităţile musulmane, aceste minorităţi au nevoie de Rusia şi nu le garantăm privilegii speciale, nici nu încercăm să schimbăm legile noastre adaptându-le cerinţelor lor. Nu contează cât de tare strigă “discriminare”, nu tolerăm lipsa de respect faţă de cultura noastră rusă. Trebuie să învăţăm mult din sinuciderea Americii, Angliei, Olandei, Franţei, etc. Dacă vrem să supravieţuim ca naţiune.

Musulmanii au învins în aceste ţări dar nu vor reuşi şi în Rusia. Tradiţiile şi obiceiurile ruseşti nu sunt compatibile cu lipsa de cultură şi formele primitive ale Legii Sharia şi ale musulmanilor. Când acest onorabil corp legislativ gândeşte să creeze legi noi, va trebui să aibă în minte în primul rând interesul naţional rus, observând că minorităţile musulmane nu sunt ruse”. (Parlamentarii ridicaţi în picioare l-au ovaţionat pe Putin timp de cinci minute!)

————————————-

Viorel ROMAN

www.viorel-roman.ro

http://viorel-roman-bremen.over-blog.de/

Bucureşti la 14 aprilie 2016