17 June 2015
parliament passes law making it obligatory to receive
'help' from the child protection services
Many victims of the child protection services (CPS) –
barnevernet – ask for aid and assistance instead of
forcible removal of their children.
One thing is certain, however: The kind of help they want
is something they will never get from the CPS and allied
professions. What the CPS means by 'help' is something
It is about time our population started to realise this,
because the full reality of it has been clear all along.
This week our parliament has processed and passed the
expected and long announced proposition imposing an
obligation for parents to receive various kinds of 'help'.
It means a more or less full abolishment of any kind of
private life and private independence and
self-determination – in short: the end of freedom – for
children as well as for parents.
These 'aid measures' are no alternative to child removal.
They are steps on the road, full separation and subjugation
just come later, after an even more prolonged period in
hell, during which the CPS has full accesss to the family
at all times and can claim that they have 'observed'
anything they like to 'prove' that removing the children is
The Norwegian text of the parliamentary debate is too long
for me to attempt a translation. It may perhaps be possible
to find a translation provided by parliament itself later.
The parliamentary debate, in preliminary, not proof-read
form, is found here:
Sak nr. 13 [18:42:57]
Innstilling fra familie- og kulturkomiteen om endringer i
(utvidet adgang til å pålegge hjelpetiltak)
(Innst. 332 L (2014-2015), jf. Prop. 72 L
from the Committee of family and culture re changes in the
child protection law)
(extended authority to impose aid
The CPS will
no longer have to say that the only alternative is forced
removal of the children in order to impose 'aid measures'.
They will have full powers at any time – just claiming it
as 'preventive measures' – to 'advise' the parents in the
home and about the home and every aspect of life in the
home, in fact to decide everything in the home, to decide
how parents should talk to the children and treat the
children, how the parents should arrange their own lives.
They can impose obligatory kindergarten and after-school
organisation, of course, obligatory visiting-home for the
children to be brought to every so often, obligatory
acceptance of support-contact people to be with the
children, obligatory 'therapy' for the children (read:
brain-washing of the children). They can send the parents
to guidance courses.
There is a whole list of such 'aid measures' which will now
be obligatory, and the list is not closed, meaning that the
CPS can at any time impose some other measure which they
claim will help the children.
One particularly serious matter is this (I translate one
out of several complimentary references to it from the
"In the category between compensatory measures and
transfer of care there are care-changing measures such as
advice to parents and a period of residence at centres for
parents and children. These can be good and necessary
measures for many families. A stay at a parents/children
centre can prevent the infliction of damage on the child,
either by unnecessary separation from the parents or
through observation and guidance preventing the parents
from inflicting injury on the child. In some cases a
transfer of care can be avoided, while in other cases
transfer of care will be recommended. In both cases the
stay at such a centre will have a very important function.
– Today Parliament makes it possible to impose an
obligatory stay at a centre for parents and children when
this is necessary to ensure that the child receives
satisfactory care, ..."
such centres families are kept imprisoned. The reason why
they usually do not flee is that if they do, the children
are automatically taken. From now on, the alleged reasons
for placing families at such centres will not even need to
be claimed by the CPS to be serious, just a vague worry
that failure to care or unfortunate development may surface
in the future (cf Aage Simonsen:
Norwegian child protection hits
There is a very good Norwegian book about the way one
family was forced to go to such a centre,
Viktoria-senteret, to stay. The mother suffered from
epilepsy, her mother was forbidden by the CPS to give any
help in the home of her daughter and son-in-law when they
had a baby, and parents and child were then forced to go to
the centre, where, however, nothing happened (how could it?
It is simply a prison, with social workers totally
unqualified to help anybody and totally unwilling to give
any practical help with daily dhores and needs). The
child's mother became very ill under this pressure, was
hospitalised and actually was close to dying. Nothing has
been done later to sanction against the Viktoria centre,
the local CPS & co, the local or other politicians who
forced all this through. A great deal of information about
the whole case, unfortunately only available in Norwegian:
With all that is known about such centres and the treatment
of children and parents there, a particular association
inevitably springs to mind. Only the cattle-wagons are
missing from the picture brought to life by our
enthusiastic Norwegian parliament.