Einar Salvesen about Bodnariu and Norwegian Child Protective services

Here is another interview with Einar Salvesen, it has english subtitles.

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.

The case of Amy Bjørnevåg and her son Tyler

This is not a joke people. This happened in Norway and more and more cases are coming out to the light about the abuses committed by Norwegian Child Protective Services "Barnevernet": children being removed from their homes for NO reason. This is supposed to be the best country in the world to live in, the best country to be a parent, to grow up as a child, and still this CPS institution can do whatever they want without any kind of supervision and without ANY kind of consequence for their wrong doings! THIS NEEDS TO STOP!

On July 23rd 2013 Tyler (who then was 19 months old) was taken away by Norway’s Child Welfare System “Barnevernet” over a Breastfeeding issue. They took him because he did not want to move to solid foods, he mostly wanted milk and his mother Amy would still nurse him occasionally.

At an age of year and a half he weighed 9,6 kg. So there was no reason for concern, because according to weight charts 9,6 kg are normal. Even though she is an American citizen, the American embassy did not help her.

Originally, Amy was allowed to visit Tyler weekly. This was then reduced to bi-weekly visits, and eventually Amy was deprived of all visitation rights. Tyler's name was even changed to a Norwegian name so that it would be more difficult for Amy to find him.


This is a clear case of government overreach. Amy's parental rights have been severely infringed. Norway has failed to recognize the basic human rights of parents and children in this case.

The last time Amy saw her son was in September 2014. She has lost all parental rights and she will not see her son again until he is 18 years old. In Norway they seem to be afraid that if she gets the chance to meet her son, she would take him back home to America.

 

You can follow Amy and Tyler's case directly on Free Tyler. You can sign the petition to return Tyler here.

More about Amy and Tyler's case:

 


Norway Took Baby From This American Mom; She Is Still Fighting for Her Son 5 Years Later

This article was published by Christian Post on june 19, 2018.

It's been nearly four years since American citizen Amy Jakobsen Bjørnevåg has seen her son, Tyler, after he was taken away from her and put in foster care by Norway's child protection service because of a weight issue.

Born in Brooklyn, New York, and having spent much of her childhood in New Jersey, Bjørnevåg and her family moved to the Scandinavian country where her father was born when she was 12.

After giving birth to her son at the age of 18, she took Tyler to regularly scheduled check-ups at her local health station. Although her son's weight curve flattened a bit as she had troubles getting him to eat solid foods, Bjørnevåg never had any major issues with the Norwegian government until Tyler was 19 months old.

She will never forget the day that her "worst nightmare" began. It was July 23, 2013.

 
On that day, agents from Barnevernet (Norway's child protection service agency) and police officers went to Bjørnevåg's home in Lyngdal and forced the young mom, her son and the baby's father, Kevin, to go to a hospital where they were put on "lockdown" while the baby was examined by a doctor.

The mother was accused of still nursing her son and accused of not "pushing solids enough." While she was told that Tyler should weigh 22 pounds (10 kilograms) instead of 21 pounds (9.6 kilograms), it was also determined that Tyler had a Vitamin B12 deficiency.

What seemed like minor health issues at the time turned into a life-altering whirlwind that ended with Bjørnevåg being stripped of her parental rights even though she says that the agency never bothered to conduct a full and fair investigation to see how she was as a mother.


"In cases like this, you would usually see authorities evaluate the mother or the caregiver. They haven't tried and are reluctant to even do that [in my case]," Bjørnevåg told The Christian Post over the phone. "They do it with a psychologist who is neutral to see how my caregiving skills are and how I am as a person. That has never even been a part of the case. So they can take a child and remove him without even considering how I am as a mother? I don't understand how that could work in the system."

Bjørnevåg is not alone in the heartbreak and frustration of having a child locked in the strong grasp of a child welfare system that some critics say excessively intervenes to separate families and seemingly has a troubling pattern of removing children from ethnic immigrant parents.

Over the last several years, Barnevernet has gained international scrutiny as many families and their supporters have raised their voices in outrage, saying that the agency has violated their human rights and wrongfully removed their children for a wide variety of reasons and put them into foster care.

Bjørnevåg said that she was made to believe that it was her fault that Tyler had trouble eating solid foods even though she had asked for help from her doctor and the health station. She says that one of the reasons the agency took her son away from her at the hospital was because they feared that she could escape with him back to the United States.

To make matters worse, Bjørnevåg was told about a year after her son was removed from her home that she no longer had a right to even visit with him during the limited hours she was granted each week to do so.

"It is heartbreaking" 

Bjørnevåg recalls the last day she saw her son — Sept 22, 2014.


To this day, authorities won't tell Bjørnevåg where Tyler is located as he's now of primary school age.

Her lawyer told her that court records indicate that authorities have changed Tyler's name on different occasions to something "more Norwegian." One previous name that Tyler was given before it was changed again was "Jackob Michelsen," she said. She doesn't know what name has currently been assigned to her son.

"It is heartbreaking," she said of the fact that she's been absent from most of her 6-year-old son's life. "I feel like I can't breathe."

After losing hearings before a county welfare board and district court, Bjørnevåg is still fighting an uphill battle to see her son.

As families have the right to file for a revocation of a removal order, she had to wait at least one year after her previous hearing in 2016 for her case to be eligible to be heard again.

"My lawyer filed for a [new hearing] in June 2017 and it was supposed to take three months. They ignored it for almost a year now. Finally, it is getting up hopefully in the beginning of September," she said. "I was naive in the beginning in thinking that the judges will look at this and see what is right. You don't have a chance to win regular court cases here. You need to put pressure on the government, I mean severe pressure for anything to help."

As Barnevernet removal orders (also called care orders) must be approved by one of 12 county welfare boards, statistics show that the county welfare boards side with Barnevernet in about 91 percent of removal order cases.

A review of all Norwegian care order decisions from 2012 through 2016 shows that the average age of children subject to care orders are 3.5 months old. The review also shows that parents agreed to placing children in foster care in only 27 percent of the cases.

According to the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 1,545 children were subject to a care order approved by a county welfare board during the course of 2015, which is about 1.4 children per 1,000 0-17-year-olds.

Although parents are entitled to file for a revocation of care orders, the department shared that only 34 percent of children (173 out of 508) in cases where parents filed for care order revocation in 2017 were actually returned to their families.

"The County Social Welfare Board or the District Court is entitled to revoke a care order when it is highly probable that the parents will be able to provide the child with proper care," Kristin Ugstad Steinrem, the head of the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs, told CP in a statement. 

Although Steinrem could not comment specifically on Bjørnevåg's case, she asserted there are "strict conditions" for the issuance of a removal order under the Norwegian Child Welfare Act."

She explained that children can be taken for a number of reasons that include serious deficiencies in everyday care, parents failing to "ensure that a child who is ill, disabled or in special need of assistance receives the treatment and training required." Other reasons are if children are being mistreated or abused at home or if parents are not adequately taking responsibility for the child.


"A care order is always a last resort, and cannot be made if voluntary measures can provide satisfactory conditions for the child," Steinrem claimed.

International outcry over Barnevernet's removal practices reached its peak in 2015 and 2016 after the agency removed five children from the home of a Romanian Christian couple on grounds that they discipline their children with spankings (something that is outlawed in Norway).

With tens of thousands attending protests held at Norwegian embassies all over the world calling for the return of the Bodnariu children, the international pressure was successful in the fact that the five children were eventually returned to Ruth and Marius Bodnariu several months after they were separated.

But as the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights gears up to hear a case against Norway's child protection service for the first time ever this October, human rights lawyer Marius Reikerås told CP that the agency has taken steps to intimidate parents and advocates, to scare them away from spreading international awareness of their cases through social media.

Unfortunately, for Bjørnevåg and other parents fighting to get their children returned, the waning of international pressure over the last few years has only emboldened the Barnevernet and left the parents "chanceless" in their attempts to win in court, Reikerås asserted.

"Without the international pressure, without the pressure from the people, these families are chanceless. They have no chance at all," Reikerås, who has defended several parents in court against the agency, said. "You see all these cases that are successful but all these cases have to do with the fact that people have gathered and raised their voices together."


No choice but to flee

For one Christian immigrant family with mixed international heritage that spoke to CP under the condition of anonymity, their situation with Norway's Barnevernet was so hopeless that they felt it was better to pick up and flee the country before the agency could permanently remove their youngest daughter from their home just like they had done with their older daughter months before.

After living in Norway for many years, the family's troubles started in 2016 when a doctor made a complaint of "suspicion" that the father had sexually abused their oldest daughter, an allegation that the family has flatly denied and police have cleared him of.

The mother explained that the allegation was reported to Barnevernet a full eight days after her oldest daughter had visited the doctor.

Although the father was cleared of the allegations after a police investigation, it took more than a year-and-a-half for the father to finally be cleared of the charges. He was not cleared of the charges until after the oldest daughter had been removed from the home.

Barnevernet refused to return the older daughter to the family after the father was cleared and even removed the couple's younger daughter from the home for a month before she was returned after a local county board ordered her to be returned.

The wife said that Barnevernet continued the court process and to harass her family, and sought to remove their child.

Barnevernet also threatened to remove the younger daughter if the dad dared to return to his own home. The father felt forced to live in hotels and other places other than his home for a period of six months before the family decided that it was best to leave Norway and move to the United Arab Emirates before the Norwegian government could take their only remaining daughter away from them.

"My husband's police case is closed now and there has never been any evidence against him. Despite that, Barnevernet wants to remove our child from both parents," the mom said. "I am the mother, and they have not considered me to be suitable because I will not say that my husband is guilty concerning the 'suspicion' of abuse. Do I have to lie and say my husband is guilty in order to save my child from their clutches?"

Through the whole ordeal, the mother said that Barnevernet agents only visited their home once and asserted that they have not done any investigation.

"Barnevernet demanded mine and my children's passports to be handed to them immediately," she added. "They had already threatened to take also our younger daughter, if my husband moved back home after he was free from police interrogation. My lawyer also advised me to hand all the passports immediately, stating that if I did not, Barnevernet would remove my child immediately."

The mother and Reikerås told CP that after the father was cleared of the sexual abuse allegation and the county board ordered the younger daughter to be returned, the Barnevernet specified other reasons that it would be justified in removing the younger daughter.

Ethnic and religious reasons for removal?

Reikerås said that a document issued by the county board that authorizes Barnevernet removal orders and was later seconded by a district court states that there were also ethnic and religious concerns held by the government.

"[The board said] it was still not too late to transform this daughter into Norwegian culture," Reikerås explained. "That was truly shocking to me to see that. That is the first time I have seen judges writing this on a piece of paper."

Reikerås assured that the family is "perfectly normal" and there is no reason to be concerned.

"I visited them a little over a month ago. They are no reasons for these atrocities committed by the Norwegian government," Reikerås said. "It's obvious that the main reason for taking this younger child was because they wanted to make sure that she had the so-called Norwegian identity without the parents' religious or cultural interference."

The mother told CP that she and her husband did everything to cooperate with authorities and that they had nothing to hide.

"They just wrote in the verdict that one of the main reasons for removing the child is that she is still young and that she can still adapt to the Norwegian standard and one of the main reasons for taking the child is the family's religion and ethnicity background," the mother said of the government document. "When we saw in the court that they weren't stopping and now they are throwing out religion and ethnicity, we said that we can't [stay]."

"Once the daughter was taken away for a month, there was no point living for us," she added. "When you lose your child like this, there is nothing in the life left to live for."


The mother said she was not allowed to be in contact with her oldest daughter who was permanently removed from their home and was not allowed to have contact with her youngest daughter when she was taken for a month.

"No justice in Norway"

The mother also questioned the motives of Barnevernet in removing her daughters and refusing to place them with family members instead of in foster care facilities.

"I feel very sad that there is no justice in Norway. It is clear to me that they are removing children just to remove them," the mother said. "In Norway, it is very clear that families are not important. Children have not been allowed to have any contact with us or their relatives. If they have decided that the child should be removed, why should the children go to a foster family? Why not to somebody who they know like someone in their family? It is raising a lot of questions in my mind about why they are actually doing this. It is a money-making thing for sure. They have all these foster families ready even before they have the children."

Steinrem shot down claims that the Norwegian child welfare service targets immigrant families or any other groups. 

"The Child Welfare Services work to protect children from violence, abuse and from serious deficiencies in the everyday care," Steinrem maintained. "They work to secure that children that are in particular need of assistance receive help."

AP reported in 2015 that kids born in other countries are more than three times as likely to be removed from homes by child services in Norway than native Norwegian children. According to the Norwegian government, 8.8 children in 1,000 who are immigrants in Norway are under the care of Norwegian child services.

While many speculate why Barnevernet is removing children from immigrant families, some argue that it is because foreign families may not be familiar with strict Norwegian parenting customs.

"That is the major argument given by the government — immigrant families have to adapt to Norwegian customs and laws," Reikerås said. "The thing is that I have been involved or talked to most families who have been experiencing childcare take orders without any legitimate reasons at all."

In 2015, psychologist Judith van der Weele argued that many foreign parents are afraid of the Barnevernet and many even send their kids back to their home countries to avoid losing them.

She asserted at the time that the agency "lacks competence and expertise on cultural differences as well as cultural brokers who could help to introduce different cultural habits and traditions in order to achieve mutual understanding and trust."

Reikerås noted that in the overwhelming majority of cases he has handled since becoming involved in child protection issues in Norway, the parents "all say the same thing."

"For some reasons they can't even understand, the CPS system has taken the child based on some kind of lack of parental responsibility that is very undefined," he explained. "I am truly in favor of Barnevernet taking care of children that really need it. I am dealing with all these families and I see a pattern here. I am really seeing families that I consider normal. That is why I am so much involved in this. Can all these families that have approached me throughout the years, can they be telling the same lie or are they telling the truth and the government is lying?"


Fined for speaking up

Although some families are trying to speak up and get their cases noticed by the international community, Reikerås said that the government is clamping down on those parents and activists who do speak up and try to raise awareness of their cases.

He explained that he knows of one woman who was fined the equivalent of $1,200 for speaking up on social media about her family's situation with the Barnevernet.

Reikerås said that he has personally been fined thousands of dollars by the government for his human rights advocacy on grounds of "too much activity on social media." He admitted he runs the risk of being fined for participating in this article.

"That doesn't scare me because I have a lot of support from the international community. It is obvious that they have the same tactics with a lot of other people," he said.

Bjørnevåg also said that she has faced backlash for speaking out about her case.

"They try to force you into not exposing it," she said. "After that first YouTube interview I had, it has been used in every single court case [against me]. They have shown it to prove and to say that 'She wants to go back home to America and that she is willing to go to the media.' You stop because you think that you need to obey their orders but it still won't help. You have to go through social media and the media or else they are just going to keep it behind closed doors."

In her statement, Steinrem stated that "parents are free to provide media or others with their story."

"It is however important that journalists are aware that children are not removed from their families without evidence or reasons," she wrote. "Due to strict rules on confidentiality, neither we, nor the Child Welfare Services, can provide a description to the media of the grounds for removal of a child in a specific child welfare case, and thus details of what actually happened to a child are therefore seldom known to the public."

A recent petition launched by CitizenGo on behalf of Bjørnevåg has achieved nearly 25,000 signatures calling for Norway's minister of children and equality, Linda Hofstad Helleland, to ensure that Tyler is returned to Bjørnevåg.

Bjørnevåg told CP that she has not received much help from the U.S. Embassy in Oslo in trying to secure the return of her son. The embassy told CP that it could not offer public comment on Bjørnevåg and Tyler's case.


Earlier this year, the Barnevernet returned a 12-year-old kid it had removed from a Canadian mother after she and her husband decided to homeschool their child. The mother captured a video that went viral on Facebook that showed police officers chasing and tackling her son in the snow. The son was later returned after international rights groups voiced outrage.

"The government has been quite smart in that they have returned the children to the families who are making the most voices," Reikerås said. "But they are continuing to harass a lot of other families that don't raise their voices as much as the ones who have received their children back like the Bjørnevåg case, for instance. That is a very good example."

A case before the Grand Chamber

Whether it likes it or not, the Barnevernet will be on an international stage in October when the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights hears the case of Lobben and others v. Norway on October 17, which deals with a complaint of forced adoption.

According to Reikerås, the Grand Chamber's decision in April to hear the case is a big victory for family rights activists in Norway and is a sign that the "European court is looking upon Norway and its practices with child care in the way I do and the way other people do."

"So if we are successful with the outcome of that case, that will change a lot because then Norway will be committed to change the system," Reikerås said.

The case involves a young mother similar to Bjørnevåg who had her first child taken from her by forced adoption shortly after she gave birth in 2008 at the age of 22, he explained. 

"Of course, after the child was adopted by force, she has never been able to see that child. The court is asking whether this is acceptable or not."

Reikerås asserted that the Lobben case could "definitely influence the outcome of cases in Norway and throughout Europe."

"That case will definitely be the most important one when it comes to the history of Barnevernet and the CPS system," he stressed. "No CPS case has ever managed to reach the Grand Chamber before. I am quite confident we will win because we do see a lot of other nations intervening in this case — Belgium, Czech, Poland and other Eastern European countries."

Steinrem clarified that a removal order is "not an adoption."

"Adoption is rarely used as a child welfare measure in Norway," she stated. "In 2017, there were 58 forced adoptions made in accordance with the Child Welfare Act."

With several Barnevernet cases having been heard by the ECHR in the past several months, the family in Dubai is in the process of applying for their case to be heard by the ECHR as the parents run the risk of being arrested and returned to Norway on charges of abducting their own child if they ever leave the UAE.


"It's the new Bodnariu case because of the way we are being treated and it is breaking human rights," the unnamed mother told CP. "It is a scandal to take away children on the grounds of religion and ethnicity. I don't even have the words to say what we are going through. It is just a nightmare that you can't wake up in the middle of the night without worrying what tomorrow will bring."

This article was published by Christian Post on october 11, 2018:

American Mom's Son Could Be Adopted Against Her Will After Losing Appeal in Norway CPS Court

An American mother whose baby was taken from her by Norway's controversial child protective service over minor health issues five years ago has lost her appeal and says that the groundwork is being laid for her son to be forcibly adopted.

Last month, a local county welfare board that handles child protective services cases near her home in Lyngdal, Norway ruled against United States-born mother Amy Jakobsen Bjørnevåg.

Bjørnevåg is seeking to regain custody (or at the very least gain visitation rights) of her son, Tyler, who was taken into custody by Norway's child protection agency, Barnevernet, when he was just 19 months old in July 2013.

Bjørnevåg, who moved to Norway with her family when was 12 and gave birth Tyler at the age 18, told The Christian Post earlier this year that her son was removed from her home over concern that Tyler wasn't eating solid foods, weighed about a pound less than he should have and was experiencing a Vitamin B12 deficiency.

As international rights advocates have long spoken out against Norway's CPS system for being too quick to remove children from their parents over arbitrary reasons, Tyler has not been returned to Bjørnevåg or his father, Kevin, even though five years have passed and he is soon to turn seven.

Having been through years of court battles and appeals to regain custody of her son, Bjørnevåg told CP Monday that she could soon lose her ability to even fight for custody if Tyler's foster family is successful in its attempt to legally adopt the child.

"This time, I was applying for custody back. If not custody, then at least visitation and parental rights back," Bjørnevåg explained. "[The welfare board] answered that they wanted for him to be — forced adoption."

The board, which frequently sides with the CPS agency, also denied Tyler's father's plea for custody and visitation. Bjørnevåg said that she plans to again appeal the welfare board's decision to the local district court.

"[The courts] have stated earlier as well as now that I would not have a bad home for him or have poor care taking skills. There is no issue with that," she added. "Now, the issue is that he has become so attached to his foster parents that [forced adoption] is the only option available. Since I don't want him to stay in the foster home and I want him back transferred legally, they are saying that 'She can't have any visitation rights because she will try something.'"

Not having seen her son since September 2014, Bjørnevåg states that the administrative court won't give her visitation because the Barnevernet is afraid she will leave the country with Tyler and return to the United States or go to some other country where citizenship is not required. Bjørnevåg has offered to give up her passport and her U.S. citizenship for her son.

"Their ruling completely sided with the CPS. I lost on all my accounts," she said. "If the court finds that it is a good idea for forced adoption to take place, they won't look into if it was even correct reasoning to take away parental rights or for taking him away from our home at all."

Before the September hearing, Bjørnevåg's last hearing in her quest for custody of her son came in 2016. After losing that appeal, she had to wait at least one year before she could file another appeal for custody.

Bjørnevåg filed for a new hearing in June 2017. However, she claims Barnevernet officials handling Tyler's case "dragged out the court process" and didn't answer her appeal for "months on end."

"The mayor [of Farsund] is now involved in my case because they kind of broke the law when they went many months over their limit to answer the court or my lawyer," Bjørnevåg said.

In court, Bjørnevåg said that they used her previous media interviews against her. However, she said she won't be intimidated into silence.

"The thing is you just have to keep pushing. If you just close the door, they will be happy and go on with their ways," she said. "As of now, I have absolutely nothing to lose because when it is forced adoption, I can't appeal to the court every year. That is final."

The mother explained that the government has taken steps to prepare for the forced adoption, including changing Tyler's name and social security number.

In the last hearing, Bjørnevåg learned that a guard has been assigned to watch over Tyler at school to ensure no one tries to kidnap him.

Speaking of Tyler's foster mom, Bjørnevåg stated that "she is unable to have kids" and "thinks of Tyler as only hers now."

Bjørnevåg explained that if the forced adoption does go through, the foster parents have the right to choose whether or not the biological parents can have visitation. However, the foster mom has allegedly declined that option.

"When we were in court, one of the CPS workers, they sent a message to the foster mom asking if she would be open to that if Tyler was interested. Her answer back within a minute was a clear no," Bjørnevåg explained. "The court and CPS is saying that the foster mom has Tyler's best intentions and if he wanted to have contact with his biological parents then they would let that happen. But within a minute, the answer was still no."

Bjørnevåg said that reports indicate that Tyler has been asking about who his biological parents are.

"Now that he actually has interest in actually seeing who his family is, this is not the right time for [forced adoption.]"

Tyler is soon to turn seven, the age in which he will be given his own spokesperson.

As part of the adoption process, Bjørnevåg explained that one psychologist has already visited the foster home to evaluate whether the adoption process can proceed. Although Bjørnevåg requested to have input on who the health expert to visit the home would be, the Barnevernet refused that request.

"He had one little meeting with them and he wrote off that he is doing great. [The experts] have to appeal to somewhere to see if they have done enough [to approve adoption]. It wasn't enough with just one meeting to say that he should be adopted," Bjørnevåg explained. "So, he has to go back a second time. This time around, we want someone else to do the checking out of the foster home to see how he is doing there."

Bjørnevåg and her lawyer are calling for an independent psychologist who is not affiliated with the Barnevernet to do the second inspection.

Over the last several years, Norway's Barnevernet has come under much scrutiny for removing children from their parents homes.

In 2015, international protests were sparked when Barnevernet removed five children from a Romanian Christian couple's home over allegations they spanked their children for disciplinary reasons, which is illegal in Norway. After months of protests at Norwegian embassies across the world, the children were eventually returned to their parents.

This year, a BBC documentary highlighted two other mothers who had their children removed from the home over arbitrary reasons. One of the mothers recently regained custody of her two youngest children who were removed from her custody in 2013.