On the inside of the Norwegian Child Protective Services - Barnevernet

Published on may 14, 2015.

Bjørn Johansen talks to the psychologist Einar Salvesen. Einar Salvesen gives us an inside view of how the norwegian child protective services work. It is scaring and clarifying information that he presents in this 20 minutes long conversation. Einar Salvesen has (at the time of the video) more than 40 barnevernet cases behind him as expert psychologist both for barnevernet and for the private part, so he gives us a nuanced and multi-angled picture of barnevernet and the expert psychologists way to work.

Bjørn: Einar Salvesen, you are a psychologist and through your work and profession you have met the norwegian child protective services.

Einar: yes

Bjørn: Can we, in a few words, hear your view about the case, to say it in a way?

Einar: yeah... I think that I have to take an example... start with that... because there was a lawyer that contacted me a few years ago in relation with a barnevern-case and he asked me to read the report from the expert/specialist. These are specialist in psychology that write these reports and they are very crucial in the final decision of the case. So he wanted me to have a look at the report and say what I thought.

So I took on the job and I saw the report and thought "this is really crappy work" and I witnessed at the court and I dismantled the report in pieces and the children were returned. They had been apart from their mother for two and a half years. The expert had gone into the case so that the mother didn't have any more contact with the children.

Then I followed up the family afterwards and it showed that the mother had none of the personality disorders the expert had alleged. The mother was not unwilling to work as it said in the report. The mother had a good relationship with the children, which the expert tried to dispute.

What was interesting was that the girl that was 15 years old, there the expert had remarked that she was so uneasy/upset before the mother came. Not just when the mother left, but also when she first came. And that was one of the reasons that the expert meant was why the mother should not be allowed to see her children anymore. So I asked her "why were you so upset before your mother was coming?" ... "nah, I thought that she was going to leave again, and then I got so sad..."

And then I asked barnevernet and the expert to sit down with this family and talk, so in a way they could regain a little bit of dignity and get back some self esteem around this... and the expert didn't want to do this, and barnevernet didn't want either. The expert then went to the Psychologists Association, and there she got confirmed that she wasn't obliged to do this. The expert was wrong in all her points and then my request was that all of us could sit around a table and and give this a worthy closure. The family wanted this, it was good for them, but neither the expert or barnevernet wanted to do this.

I could not believe my own eyes, to say it somehow. I couldn't believe that it could be like this in Norway. I could not believe that a colleague could act like that. She have had more than 100 cases for barnevernet. So that experience I had, I think it was shocking.

Bjørn: So these experts reports are written by psychologists or people with high education in the public administration?

Einar: Yes. Expert psychologists are complete crucial in the cases and they are often hired by barnevernet, and then you can say that you have a huge impartiality problem. That barnevernet is paying the expert psychologist that has to evaluate the child's evaluation and then the same expert is evaluating the family.

Bjørn: but why is it like that? Why becomes like that? we see in many cases this twisted picture between the legal protection, where the parents are standing completely alone on one side against the big and heavy norwegian state that has on its side a huge machinery, everything from the police to barnevernet, to the reports from the experts, to the judges, that all of them, to begin with, are paid by the same source?

Einar: Yes. That is a big question you are asking, because what you are actually asking is "how can it be like that?", "how can it be so little legal protection"?... and then you have to take link by link, and if we then start by barnevernets evaluation, then I think that barnevernet do not have the competence to make such an evaluation. They are suppose to evaluate, and here I am talking about cases where the neglect in the care of a child is vague, where it is maybe about eye contact, capacity for empathy and reflection and so on. And then you have to really have the right expertise to be able to determine that type of interaction in the families, in a good way. And my experience is that barnevernets evaluations are not up to the standards. And then comes a psychologist in to the case, and it is also as bad. There is such an easy handling of the facts, there is a bad factual basis, and they draw far reaching conclusions from, like for example: "the mother has a personality disorder", and the expert has met the mother only once. Also the example in this case, where there was a lot of mistakes done by the expert, and then it had a positive outcome when the children were returned to their mother. The expert had very little basis to come with those evaluations and conclusions. And that is what I think you see again and again in these cases, they are classic mistakes that go again the whole way.

Bjørn: But what is the motive for these classic mistakes that are repeated? Why? What drives these people to this? It can not be something beneficial for an expert to write a bad report just because?

Einar: No, and that I have wondered very much about. And in fact there has been colleagues that have admitted that they do not get to work in cases if they don't agree with the evaluations, and then they are not called anymore.

Bjørn: And what does it mean for a psychologist to not be called as an expert? do they lose something personally or...?

Einar: Many psychologists today have this as their only income, and there is a lot of money to earn. There is not another area where you can earn so much money, except if you are a psychologist for an organization. Here are we talking about several millions norwegian crones per year, so that is a huge problem. So my perception is that there are many that are bought and paid to do these jobs. And then it can be another element... and it is stupid? right? it is simply about what kind of people is taking these type of jobs? then I think for myself, because I have had colleagues that I have tried to bring in and they could not bear it. They have been experts in one case, and they have said "I can't stand to be exposed to this anymore... there is so outrageous poor legal protection" and "this has affected me so much"... meanwhile these experts that work with this, they are not affected at all, and they write bad reports and then I think that maybe they are bad at evaluating human interaction? maybe they are just bad at the human factor?

Bjørn: or maybe they are just good to fill up their bank accounts?

Einar: yeah, yeah, both of them. Here are several elements: bad clinicians, also bad at evaluating other people? and then it can be a good thing to work for barnevernet instead to work as a clinic psychologist that takes people into a therapy room? it can be many things, but money is decisive here. And I can not understand why we don't have a team appointed by the state with a fixed salary, so we would get rid off all of this here.

Bjørn: so the solution to the problem from the experts reports is to have experts with a fixed salary, that take their job seriously from a neutral standing point, and have nothing to profit from...

Einar: yes, I will say that is two dimensions: the first one is a solid team with a fixed salary, so they have nothing to gain by being inclined to one or the other side. The other one is an understanding of how to clarify a fact, thus a scientific formation. And the third is the human factor, that you actually are good at interacting. What you are supposed to decide in these cases is people's ability to understand and put themselves in the situation of the child, to follow up the child in a correct way and so on... it has something to do with your capability for empathy, your ability for the in-depth understanding where the other person is and so on... And then you have to have the qualifications, and that you don't get just by studying psychology of course, this is the human factor, it has to be developed in other ways. It surprises me, that when you see at management problems, something that I have worked a lot with lately, a middle chain manager is supposed to deal with people and there is a big focus on the human factor. If you are going to work for barnevernet or as an expert psychologist, there is absolutely no focus on the human factor. Is only required that your papers are in order.

Bjørn: so education gives you the right then, so we are just talking about if it is the "goo" or the fellow human that will be allowed to develop in the work you choose...?

Einar: I have seen how foster children are placed in foster homes of people that is good friends with barnevernet and so on, then you can make your own thoughts about that... what is happening here? There is a lot of money in the picture... I can not understand why can not we use more resources to help the families, so we drop taking the kids away. I can not understand that they don't think more of what it costs to take the parental rights. Because you risk that the children go from foster home to foster home. There is no special good forecast for these kids that come to foster care, so you can wonder how would it have been if they had stayed with their parents? there is some research that shows that maybe in the end it would have been better. I am convinced that if we could get on place good initiatives, and that requires competence again, is not just to start an action, it requires the human factor, it is very important. If you have people that can do that, so could very many of these cases been avoided.

For example, I had a kurd (from Kurdistan) that had a son that went to school, he was 6-7 years old, the mother had schizophrenia, so the child had only his father. The father had a good interaction with barnevernet, he moved to another place, didn't know barnevernet in the new place. So the teacher says to the son "you are so noisy, I have to call your father". The kid said "no, don't do that!". "Why not?". "No, because he hits me!"... and then the natural thing would be to invite the father to the table and talk with him about this and so on, and this wasn't done. The son was taken, he was put in an institution and later in a foster home. He was gone for two and a half years. The came along a sensible lawyer into the case, and I was the expert and we managed to get the son returned. And we managed barely. And that I think , it was such a foolishness... that son had a completely horrible experience, he wrote a 12 pages letter to Barneombudet (ombudsman) where he told how terrible it was to be in a foster home and how terrible it was to be in an institution, and how they used violence against him, right? There he had the notion that they, or if they did that, I don't know, but he put a lot of words in to that they used violence against him. This is something that nobody is interested to hear now, but they were very interested to hear that the father had used violence. The son was returned and I remember that he poured soap on the floor. The father called, was totally confused, the child was pouring soap on the floor, and the son says: "I am doing this so if barnevernet slips if they come and take me again"... he was completely traumatized by this barnevernet, that had taken him in such way.

What happens next is that when he comes home, then is barnevernet completely out of the picture, they have just tried to work against the father and son all the way. I follow them up, I help them with the transition, and then what happens is that it comes up the court case... because it has been three and a half year or something like that since it happened, but then comes up the case against the father because he hit the son three and a half years earlier. And the father gets a fine of 50.000,- or something like that. He doesn't have any money left, he has used everything in the case. That is the norwegian system, and it is scandalous. I don't understand how that is possible.

Bjørn: the impression I get is that there is some kind of damage attempt with bureaucracy and money as weapon, because the state has unimaginable means to such things and the councils have very little money to get on place so help at the homes, because then the state is not willing to pay. The state only wants to pay if the child is taken out of the home.

Einar: Do you know this? this is new to me.

Bjørn: Yes, these are municipal decisions that do that if you want to help the child at their own home, then it goes out of the social budget of the municipality... but if you take the child, it goes automatically to the economy of the county.

Einar: There I thought that barnevernet could come with their own resources then... but it is very interesting if it is like that it is...

Bjørn: yes. What we experienced after the demonstrations in Oslo the 3rd of May, where we presented to the minister of infancy and equality that was at the moment, some demands and signatures, then we see that he couldn't care less. He didn't care that 5.000 people took the trouble to sign a petition for barnevernet, for a better control in barnevernet. And he didn't even bother to take it up to the Parliament. So here goes our own elected politicians against their own rules when is convenient for them. And there is no resources or chances to take up such things because... it speaks for it self: when lawyers, judges, barnevern institutions and such, they are earning millions in this industry on one hand? and in the other hand we have these children that really need help. These children where the parents neglect their responsibility. And then the state plays with that... "yeah it is so very much"... is is psychologically natural that so many children are affected by the necessity of being taken from their homes in a small transparent country such as Norway is? Because we are talking about big numbers here. There are a lot of children.

Einar: there are many children... hmm... what I think is that we have built up... we have a The Children Act that put very high demands for how a child has to grow up. And then you have a built up hierarchy that has to implement this law practically. And then they come to a situation where they do not have the competence that is required to analyze what is going on in the homes. At the same time it is very much that needs to be analyzed, right? Because according to the Children Act, there are so many things that need to be fulfilled for the children to have a good care base. And when you get this disparity between the law and the competence, thus the law is way ahead of the competence, then you have a huge problem. It is a problem. It has nothing to do with the money.

But then what happens next is that because of the lack of competence, this I have seen, because I have work a lot as an organization psychologist, when a person has bad competence, a boss for example, so starts him to build an authoritarian system, where people can not say anything about things. That is what I see in barnevernet, the whole system is kind of a dysfunctional system that is not very open to dialogue, that applies also in the court room, there is not a good dialogue in the court room. You stand there, and then you witness, and then you are allowed to ask some questions and then the judge says that you are asking the questions in a wrong way. Is not what I call a dialogue process, that would be much more convenient. And neither during the course of the case has the dialogue enough qualities so that we can get the cases facts in a good way. And that is because they do not have the competence, and what happens is that it becomes a closed authoritarian systems. And that is what I experience with barnevernet system: it is closed and authoritarian.

How many times haven't I recommended to my expert colleagues, because the private part wants to use me as expert, so I have said to the other expert "you have had 2 conversations with the parents, but I have had 20. I have probably a lot of input to supply you with, that you can benefit from, and vice versa. Can not the two of us sit down together and go through the case together?"... no, it is very difficult to get that... why can not we do that? what is he afraid of? I have asked experts, and they do not want to sit around a table and for me it was surprising. I thought we are colleagues, here is a difficult case, this is not about winning the case, let us find the actual facts... and they do not want to sit down around a table with me? that I don't understand. It is a lack of fundamental ethics at my colleagues, I see that again and again... and just to say something about legal protection, because that also is very puzzling... there was a case with triplets from the north of Norway, and they were placed in different foster homes. And we had lost appeal after appeal, and I thought here I need to get some heavy artillery, so I got a professor from England to go into this case to evaluate how it was for triplets to be placed in different foster homes. And then he comes into the court, presents the research that shows that placing triplets separated from each other is at least an abuse as huge as it was to take the parental rights.

He said: "I can not say anything about if they should have been taken from their parents or not, but what I can say is that the abuse committed here in relation to put them in different foster homes is as big as to remove them from their parents home based in the wrong reasons"

This was not reflected over in the verdict at all. He wasn't heard at all. And this I experience again and again, when I am the expert for the private part, I am almost not heard. If I am the expert hired by barnevernet or the court then I am heard.

Bjørn: so here we see clearly: we work for the state, ergo judges, barnevernet, police, experts, we the public employees, we have the words that have value. While the citizens have words of no value.

Einar: It is basically as you say it. And there are other concrete examples, because the lawyer for the municipality, thus barnevernets lawyer, they can use as much money as they want, while the one that is the lawyer for the private part has a certain limit of hours. And the private part is not rich people. This is people with bad economy. The ones with money can hire experts and so on, so it is one problem. The other problem is that is barnevernet who hires the expert and then is the same that happens again and again and so on.

I have the impression that barnevernets expert people is heard. That is decisive. And is the expert psychologist, is the psychologist at the polyclinic and so on. Also if barnevernet, the nursery/preschool, the school nurses have a negative impression of the care of the mother and father, then that is used in barnevernets cases. But I experience that if it is the other way, that the school nurse and all these other authorities say that the mother has good caring qualities, but you have ONE expert and barnevernet saying the contrary, that she does not have that, the expert basing his impression in one or two observations, then is the expert who is heard. I have ridiculous cases where it has been overwhelming material showing that the mother has good caring qualities and only one bad barnevern report from an expert psychologist, and then barnevernet wins. Is unbelievable. And I can go out of the court thinking that we have a good case, it is impossible to believe that we could lose this case... any reasonable person will understand that this mother has good caring qualities and then no, you lose anyway.

Bjørn: You lose the case

Einar: you lose the case. So I don't feel it is reason that control these cases, it is power...

Bjørn: what do you feel that you can achieve now? And what should we achieve? what is it that the norwegian people don't see, that you that is involved in these cases experience, that you want us to spread now?

Einar: I hope that I have communicated a little bit now... that this is a shattering scenario that we meet, where the playing rules of democracy do not apply, where the scientific understanding doesn't apply, where there is no ethics in many of the cases. It can be that many of the cases work in an excellent way, but I have written some articles about that and I have gotten an unison feedback from lawyers, family doctors, psychologists, people that has worked at barnevernet... "the way you describe it, that is how it is"... and that tells me this is not just about the 40 cases I have worked with, it has to be the same in many other cases since they agree with what I describe, so that is how they have experienced too, such experiences they have as well...

As a boss of barnevernet from a municipality told me, when they called me "as you describe it, is exactly like that, we recognize everything you say. In our commune is like that: we don't take the children we should take, we take the children we should not take"... and that is a pretty strong thing to say.

Bjørn: But then, Einar Salvesen, psychologist, professional in this subject, I thank you for a great interview and I hope that we see more of the fruits of what you want to communicate. And that people understand that here we have a responsibility all together as citizens of a society, and not ignore what doesn't touch us directly

Einar: exactly

Bjørn: because here are our children and our future and I appreciate very much that people dare to stand forward and talk. Some where we have to start, and dialogue is a good place... thank you very much.