22 April 2016
Child Protection Service – A betrayal of trust
Speech at the
demonstration outside the Norwegian parliament on 16 April
Aamodt is a lawyer who has worked in the judicial system
for the last 30 years, and has seen the Barnevern system
from several different angles.
cannot buy love.
child protection policy of the Norwegian government is
of these flaws is the assumption that you can buy love.
child needs love and care. You can buy some care, but you
can not buy love. And love is essential. This love can not
be bought from institutions, foster homes or social
all make mistakes as parents. But the effects of these
mistakes are tempered by the love we have for our
Everyone makes mistakes. So
also foster parents, employees in institutions and social
workers. The effects of these mistakes are not tempered by
This flaw becomes evident with
the steadily recurring surges of reparations offered by the
state every 20 years or so for abuse suffered by children
in the care of the state.
second flaw is the assumption that you can distil the
universal experience of bringing up children into one
single sociological theory and impose this on a population
without seriously damaging the very fabric of society.
such theory is possible. Any attempt made may only scratch
the surface and is singularly inept when it comes to
dealing with everyday life.
The absence of such a theory
renders its practitionaries helpless in the face of
reality, leaving them only with opinions.
Everyone who has ever read a
child protection report without bias, will generally
recognise the facts and conclusions stated in the report
for what they are, the opinions of the author.
Opinions about how people
should lead their lives, opnions about the needs and wants
of children, opinions of morality – all set in the setting
of the politically correct context with one single
motivation – to avoid personal liability.
The evidence of these flaws can be found
in the fact that nearly every report regarding young
children brings up the question of the mother's attachment
to the child. And every such report I have ever seen, and I
have seen quite a number, criticizes the mother. She is
either criticized for attaching the child to closely to
herself, or she is critized for being incapable of a
sufficient degree of empathy.
This demonstrates that there is
no defined area of normality. This in a theory aspiring to
encompass the totality of humanity?
third flaw is the absence of
Through my years of dealing
with the child protection service I have found that the
service routinely distorts the truth, presents statements
from parents, children and witnesses out of context,
presents opinions as facts and makes allegations without a
shred of evidence.
find it disconcerting that public officials can do this
over time, without ever being held accountable for what
often amounts to nothing more than blatant lies. The only
remedy I have found is to openly tape every conversation
held with representatives of the service.
This permeates through the
entire system and is present even in the courts where there
is a seemingly inexplicable tendency to believe anything a
public official may express, even in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
is a well known fact that belligerent neighbours,
disgruntled employees and ex spouses abuse the child
protection service by making false reports of child abuse
and often compounding this with untrue accounts amounting
to nothing but perjury.
The service willingly lets
itself be abused in this way and actually encourages this
by allowing anonymous reporting, the perjurers never being
held accountable for what constitutes a serious criminal
is my opinion that this absence of accountability
perpetuates the unacceptable state of affairs in the child
Norwegian government pretends that its child protection
policy is a sound, responsible policy well founded in facts
and scientific research. This is untrue. It is, in reality,
a radical social experiment, instigated and perpetuated by
a socio-industrial complex that has evolved over the last
15 to 20 years.
the military-industrial complex of the American sixties and
seventies, this socio-industrial complex is no formal
alliance but an expedient, and often tacitly implied,
co-operation between entities of differing goals, but of
three entities are:
politicians, eager to utilize the current public opinion by
tapping into an already established, politically correct
set of values without actually making the effort of
evaluating for themselves, thus achieving the much vaunted
public exposure through a seemingly uncontroversial topic
furthering their own political careers.
profession of child care workers, represented by the
professionals themselves, by their educational institutions
competing for students and by their union, attempting to
monopolize the role as the only experts in the field, all
of whom are seeking to enhance the social and economic
status of this emerging profession.
finally, the private venture companies already handling the
majority of institutions and foster homes that are actually
responsible for the care of children taken from their
parents by the child protection service, a care obviously
leaving much to be desired, as these companies, as all
private ventures, are profit driven.
individual motives of these three entities work together to
encourage legislation that focuses on delving ever deeper
into the private lives of the population and places ever
stricter boundries for acceptable behavior and ever lower
conditions necessary to remove children from their parents.
This of course being the most profitable course of action
for the involved entities, as the alleged seriousness
enhances the status of the involved politicians and
professionals as well as the renumeration necessary.
radical social experiment is out of control.
gone so far that parental control is threatened to the
effect that any form for physical intervention is regarded
as criminal abuse, a legislation way beyond what was
accepted as normality no more than twenty years ago even in
the Norwegian society, and arguably way beyond public
opinion even today.
this is not enough. The phrase psychological violence (mark
the use of the word violence, not abuse), has sprung up, an
attempt to instill the same feelings generated by physical
violence as a public reaction also to psychological abuse,
this without even contemplating where to draw the line.
There are indications that even raising your voice is to be
sufficient to constitute violence.
runaway train, this hurtles along, gaining speed and
severity every day, hurting innocents and creating fear in
everyone that comes in its path.
power wielded by the Norwegian Child Protection Service is
rampant, without justification, without temperance and with
few restrictions. It strikes the weakest in our society and
inflicts serious damage against the very individuals they
allegedly are out to protect, as it bereaves children of
their most basic need, the love of their parents.
Perhaps the most insidious and
disgraceful side of this is that this is done without even
considering whether or not the state can provide better
care than the parents, this in full harmony with the
official policy of questioning the so-called biological
democratic society power is wielded on behalf of the
people. It is the responsibility of every citizen to see to
it that this power is not abused. I am one of the people.
This power is not wielded on my behalf.