1 February 2016

Marianne Haslev Skånland:

"Rights" for children – what is the result?

There is a committee working on a revision of the child protection law in Norway. This is often held up by our authorities as something that will end every objection to what has gone on in the child protection "services" (CPS) for actually 120 years, and which is feverishly intensifying at present because the CPS are, by changes in law and regulations and through practice, given ever more leeway to do exactly as they like.

And what they like is to "protect" children by depriving them of their parents, who are ideologically on top of their list of dangers to children. The CPS never never want to mention or even have others mention that there is far more likelihood of a child being abused, even of being killed, in
all other environments than with their own biological parents. The statistics on this are absolutely solid and they are international, but it goes against "things as they are": an enormous social sector of paid social workers, psychologists, foster homes and institutions supervised by the CPS, "visiting homes" for children paid by the CPS, health nurses at schools, social teachers, kindergarten personnel instructed in CPS ideology, doctors, dentists, nurses instructed in the same way, lawyers, police, judges . . . .

A pertinent recent article (by the way referring to
the Bodnariu case running in Norway just now):

E. Ernie Walton:
UN Treaty Touts 'Rights' But Separates Families
cns news, 14 January 2016

S. Ernie Walton seems to come close to my opinion of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: that it is rooted in a social worker's view of children as so autonomous subjects that their overwhelmingly important need to be with their own family is drowned.

Instead of their own family, children are to have everybody else, especially social workers: Starting to babble about social workers' love.

In the hands of social workers, and of a state which believes unquestioningly in the excellence of the social sector and its quack psychobabble evaluations, something like Article 9, which specifies that the state shall see to it that a child shall not be separated from its parents except if "such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child", is of course no good at all. It is no good, since the determination of the child's best interest is never attempted defined, has never been attempted defined in any objective way, but is left entirely up to the current popular ideology of the classes ruling child politics, and these are of course exactly the ones that so many children need to be protected from: the social sector and their supporters and admirers.

It would seem easy for the humblest mind to understand that something is vitally wrong when "the best interest of the child" is undefined, undiscussed, and simply left to the whim of forces which benefit from deciding that the child's interest is served by that which benefits the child professionals themselves. But oh no, it is all allowed to continue. And our coming legislation will strengthen this: The new law regarding child protection is going to emphasise the child's rights as its very foundation, we hear. This is supposed to assure us that all will be extremely well.


See also

Marianne Haslev Skånland:
Hillary and Bill Clinton – zealous promoters of forced adoptions in the USA
MHS's home page, 6 July 2021