CHILD WELFARE IN NORWAY HAVE TOO MUCH POWER

– They make poor decisions that affect those involved very hard….

CHILDREN

  Former judge in Court of Human Rights, Gro Hillestad Thune, said: «Families are defenseless in the face of the municipal child welfare. It may seem as if the child welfare acts more as a police function for the parents than a caring role around the child. Individuals in the municipal child welfare has much power and parents and grandparents are in many situations powerless. It is necessary to problematize CPS dual role as helper and as the police and the prosecutor. Norwegian children in care are in principle without legal protection and must get better complaint possibilities. «

CONFLICT

  Government reports shows that CPS has too little knowledge about the complicated cases they handle. This often leads to that the decisions they take creates more conflict for children. One example is that child welfare workers in their studies do not learn how to lead a good dialogue with the children, and often end up with the manipulation of children so they will fit into their understanding of what is best for the child, rather than truly understanding and compliance with children’s wishes and needs. Psychologist Einar C. Salvesen said: «The CPS   expertise is, more often than expected, absent in the intervention and examination processes required in connection with a care takeover. Poor decisions is made that affect those involved very hard. Conclusions are often made on the basis of assumptions. Good alternative measures is absent, and the large unstoppable process – which rarely can be reversed – moves on. «

RISC

Attorney Sverre Kvilhaug said already in 2003 the following on these conditions: «Many people have very difficult to understand that they do not do kids a favor by removing them from a home that they think is a bad home and therefore they sacrifice the thought that they exposes children to a potentially very damaging loss that can be far more serious for the child than bad care is. It is symptomatic that you never see in an expert opinion in child welfare cases that the expert or county board discusses how the risk to the child will be after the care takeover, only the risk before takeover. They   only conclude that there is neglect, and thus have the county board and the experts life lie as the definitive answer and establishes the takeover without more discussion. «

CARE

  Most children are retrieved unannounced first day. Figures from 2012 from the Department of Psychology now shows that 8 out of 10 children are retrieved by emergency decisions. From 1994 to 2004, there was a doubling of emergency decisions, from 500 to 1000. In 2004, half of the decisions was by force. The increase seems to accelerate, from 2009 to 2010 the increase was 17 percent. The increase in emergency decisions was a staggering 40 percent from 2011 to 2012! There were also 35 percent more 0-3 year olds who were taken out of the home in 2009 compared with 2002. What the Parliament believed would be a narrow exception rule, now is the main CPS rule. Children will remain away from home for many months before someone looks at the realities, that often go in the CPS’s favor, because of the system. There are many shattered parents and grandparents in the wake of what the CPS has made to it’s main rule. Children who are removed from the home not only  lose their parents. They risk losing contact with their biological family, school, local community and friends. I remind you that the Child Welfare Act builds on tht it consistently will be the child’s interest that the parents are caring for it, and further that the parents, if care must be deprived of them, in general should have contact with the child and have parental responsibility for it.

LAWS

  Psychologist Joar Tranøy went in 2005 through 37 cases which were tested for the county board, where CPS had won a care takeover descicion. 19 of the cases were tested for the court, where two of the cases were overturned in relation to county boards’ decisions. None of the experts’ reports comply with the requirements of Health Personnel §4 about prudence and in §15 that reports shall be objective. Authorities had not fulfilled the requirements of the CRC Article 9 1 for care of the care transfers. Applicable law and procedures were not followed. When CPS submits incorrect explanation to the court, this is often a result of that they have not put themselves into all aspects of a case. This is in case a serious misconduct.

DEPENDENCE

  Failing quality on expert knowledge work – combined with conflicts of interest, says psychologist EC Salvesen more about: «Questions about impartiality shows that in some cases the close ties between the CPS and the psychologists that CPS appoint for emergency decisions. When CPS have first made an urgent decision and put the children in an emergency care home, is gone prestige in the matter. It is difficult for the expert witness to lay on a line that differs from the child welfare. » Several psychologists state that there is an addiction to child protection since thats where they get most of their work. One says that he did not get any more assignments from child welfare services in the county where he lived after he went   against their conclusions in a care order. Many experts lives of contract from child welfare, and some have little opportunity for alternative sources of income. Revenues for an expert mission, including an expert report and attendance in court, are significant. It can safely be said to be a legal problem that child welfare services are as well-paying clients for the experts psychologists who basically have as its task to ensure that the child welfare decision has been made on legal grounds. According to BIBR report 702 children died in child care in the years 1990 to 2001, 150 was suicide. This is 10 times higher than in the corresponding age group in the population. No one is punished or investigated for these deaths. My question is, is this the child’s best?

Comments

comments