Norwegian officials try to kidnap a Brazilian child

[Medulin]

Brazilian mother forced to flee to her country's embassy in Norway after officials try to take her daughter, 3, into care 'for not eating like a Norwegian'

A Brazilian woman has fled to her embassy in Oslo with her three-year-old daughter after Norwegian child protection services threatened to take the child into care.
Vitoria Alves Jesumary, 37, a Brazilian native, claims social services tried to take her daughter Sofia because she is not ‘eating like a Norwegian’.
Ms Jesumary has now been hiding at the embassy for a week and is refusing to leave until she is allowed to return to Brazil with her daughter.
Ms Jesumary recently divorced Sofia’s father, a Norwegian man of Chilean descent, and the custody battle and troublesome split led to her contacting welfare services for help, but instead was threatened with losing her child, she claims.

A friend of Ms Jesumary says she was told the reason for Sofia being taken into care is because of her eating habits and dominating character.

_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518616/Brazilian-mother-flees-embassy-officials-try-girl-3-care-eating-like-Norwegian.html#ixzz2n1OxjhyR

Thousands of former children in care have sought compensation for the suffering and abuse under child protection. The majority of these have received compensation. In total 220 million dollars.

The Service has been severely criticized by the Government of India for taking away two children of an Indian couple who are working in Norway.

Berit Aarset, who heads Human Rights Alert, Norway, has called the incident "state kidnapping." She said, "This is not the first time such a thing is happening in Norway ...the legal system favours the Child Welfare Services and they do what they want all the time....quite often when a Norwegian is married to a non-Norwegian they also do the same thing; they also do this to asylum seekers and in almost every case they say one of the parents have a mental problem just to make their case strong ...that is what has happened in the Bhattacharya case too."

The Child Welfare services were accused of forced abduction of two Turkish-Norwegian Kids from Turkey using a private investigator.[8][9] The children were handed to the foster parents who stayed with their parents. Some time later, the foster father was arrested for child sex abuse clearly demonstrating the ineptitude of the child welfare services.

Another incident involved a Russian citizen living in Norway. Her shocking staments took many newspapers' front pages: "During the court hearings, the judge told me: 'We give you residence permit, and you give us your son.' I refused, and then the repressions started."

Many times in past Child Welfare Services have been accused on violation of human rights for taking away children from their parents.

In two widely publicized cases, the Polish private investigator Krzysztof Rutkowski has helped children (a Russian-born boy and a Polish girl) escape Norwegian foster care and reunite with their parents.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Welfare_Services_%28Norway%29

 

[Medulin]

Marianne Haslev Skånland:

An incomplete list of reasons given by the child protection services of the Nordic countries for depriving children of their parents :

(1) The father is out of work and cannot support the family.

(2) The father is ill and the mother cannot get paid work. Therefore the family is too badly off to pay for toys and for school and after-school activities for the children. [The foster home received many thousands of crowns each month for each foster child.]

(3) Clean clothes are not placed in 'military order' in the cupboard.

(4) The psychologist registered that the mother could not make an omelet to his satisfaction and she cuts the bread into too thick slices.

(5) The child looks eagerly at strangers around it and smiles at them. This means that it is not attached to its mother. [The mother stood talking to some people after visiting the social security office, while the baby in the pram looked eagerly at people around it.]

(6) The baby turns its face the wrong way when its father washes it. [Probably an insinuation that the child did not want to look at its father because it disliked him. In reality perhaps it didn't want to get soap in its eyes, so what is the 'wrong' and 'right' way to avoid that?]

(7) The mother uses too much soap when cleaning. [Reported to the CPS by a 'home helper' who had been instructed by the CPS not to help with practical work but to 'observe' the family.]

(8) The father is too active, the mother is too passive. [CPS observers are frightening enough to make anybody either, out of sheer nervousness.]

(9) The father has a foot injury and cannot stand on a ladder. Therefore he is not able to clean the top of the window frames.

(10) The house does not have an indoor toilet but outdoor conveniences. [This assessment made by the CPS makes one wonder how they imagine generations of people survived in Scandinavia in previous centuries when everybody had outdoor toilets (not in the open, of course, but in a shed separate from the house and without any heating) and no CPS to 'protect' children against them. They were even in use in some parts of downtown Oslo 60 years ago and are still common with summer cabins and also with many winter cabins up in the mountains – can be freezing cold.]

(11) The mother has made a previous landlord angry because her cats had urinated on the floor. [This had happened several years before her daughter was born, but it was used as proof that the mother did not provide a good environment for her daughter.]

(12) The child is not interested in the 'concept training' in kindergarten.

...

_http://www.mhskanland.net/page10/page122/page122.html

 

[HiThere]

I do not know the details of this case, but Marianne Haslev Skånland has a long history of being publically very adverse to the childrens services, and has stated that she isn't sure that any parents are ill suited for the job, no matter how big their problems (including drug use/violence/incest, I presume). And the examples of reasons listed here is not how the childrens services work in Norway generally. In other words, this looks like propaganda to me.

 

[Gwenllian]

How would you describe social services in Norway, Hithere?
Are they more open-minded than their colleagues in Sweden for example?

Maybe this Marianne has an agenda, although the listed points on her website do not seem too outlandish to me.
I know that child protective services/social services can make the perfect parent look like a basket case. They are terribly adept at writing reports in an ambivalent and suggestive manner. I read those reports myself and spoke to many parents that had been reported to SS.

I also think that these so-called services are a stark reminder of the fact that we live in an Orwellian world. Whatever you do as a parent it's never good enough. Kids have been removed from their homes based on reports full of lies and because of psychopathic ex-partners that colluded with SS. It is a global industry, that is why we should watch these agencies like a hawk.

Then again, this Norwegian lady could be a bit extreme, I don't know, maybe she has seen too much suffering in this field? Just wondering. :)

 

[HiThere]

How would you describe social services in Norway, Hithere?
Are they more open-minded than their colleagues in Sweden for example?

Norway comes from a form of government that has had socialistic leanings since the 1920's and before, but have moved towards greater individual freedom the last decades. It is a fact that there are a lot of rules and expectations concerning what is right and wrong, and as a people it is somewhat ingrained not to put yourself above the rules, for good and bad.
This in my opinion makes it easy for the authoritarian followers, as there is a climate that can make such individuals feel safe by obeying the rules and enforcing them without appreciating the individual behind every case.
I have seen examples of the social services being rigid, authoritarian and locked in their ways, and I know of cases where there has been grave errors of judgement and where there has been little willingness to admit the mistakes that are made.
In my experience it is usually possible to win through by repeatedly stating the facts and repeating one's view, BUT this is probably more difficult when one is the suspected one and not acting as a professional.

I think that the society is fairly egalitarian but rigid, with less space for individuality than many other countries.
The social services in Norway do not have the authority to take a child from its mother on the basis of what the parents eat - veganism is not forbidden in Norway, neither is McDonalds. And the other stated reasons aren't sufficient grounds either.
I don't know the case and the social services aren't allowed to discuss it in public. It might be a case of misuse of power, or there might be factors that aren't publically known - there often are.

But I appreciate that it seems outlandish, and it is very possible that an authoritarian follower has been too eager to show his/her diligence.

I also think that these so-called services are a stark reminder of the fact that we live in an Orwellian world. Whatever you do as a parent it's never good enough. Kids have been removed from their homes based on reports full of lies and because of psychopathic ex-partners that colluded with SS. It is a global industry, that is why we should watch these agencies like a hawk.

Agreed.

Then again, this Norwegian lady could be a bit extreme, I don't know, maybe she has seen too much suffering in this field? Just wondering. :)

I do not know much of her other than that she has been very active in this field for many years, and seems to believe that the social services are all bad. In my experience they are needed, but every case should be evaluated carefully, and the child returned when it is possible - the social services agree to this in many cases and I've witnessed this process myself a number of times.

 

[Gwenllian]

Norway comes from a form of government that has had socialistic leanings since the 1920's and before, but have moved towards greater individual freedom the last decades. It is a fact that there are a lot of rules and expectations concerning what is right and wrong, and as a people it is somewhat ingrained not to put yourself above the rules, for good and bad.
This in my opinion makes it easy for the authoritarian followers, as there is a climate that can make such individuals feel safe by obeying the rules and enforcing them without appreciating the individual behind every case.
I have seen examples of the social services being rigid, authoritarian and locked in their ways, and I know of cases where there has been grave errors of judgement and where there has been little willingness to admit the mistakes that are made.
In my experience it is usually possible to win through by repeatedly stating the facts and repeating one's view, BUT this is probably more difficult when one is the suspected one and not acting as a professional.

It is hard to win through, I think, for many parents that are also authoritarian followers. They don't know the law, so they will obey, when they are pressured a bit.

I think that the society is fairly egalitarian but rigid, with less space for individuality than many other countries.
The social services in Norway do not have the authority to take a child from its mother on the basis of what the parents eat - veganism is not forbidden in Norway, neither is McDonalds. And the other stated reasons aren't sufficient grounds either.
I don't know the case and the social services aren't allowed to discuss it in public. It might be a case of misuse of power, or there might be factors that aren't publically known - there often are.

But I appreciate that it seems outlandish, and it is very possible that an authoritarian follower has been too eager to show his/her diligence.

I don't think it matters whether veganism or McDonalds is forbidden or not when it comes to SS. They make up their own rules, protocols and laws. We had a case of a family that eats raw and the mother wanted to homeschool. Both options are not illegal, although homeschooling is problematic to say the least. SS was about to remove the child from his home. IMO, they do as they please, perverse incentives and bonuses define their policies.

I do not know much of her other than that she has been very active in this field for many years, and seems to believe that the social services are all bad. In my experience they are needed, but every case should be evaluated carefully, and the child returned when it is possible - the social services agree to this in many cases and I've witnessed this process myself a number of times.

I do wonder whether they are needed. Especially because the whole industry is so corrupt. If kids are put into care who guarantees they will be safe? Pedophiles are found everywhere, in children's homes, amongst foster parents. Even if a child is in danger at home who knows what will happen to that particular child when s/he is removed? Apparently, the removal in itself is very traumatic for the child (often there is police involved), even if he/she is abused. I think that in most cases removal shouldn't even be an option.
The point is, I think, that SS workers do not evaluate cases carefully. Their work is sloppy, they rely on reports from neighbours, schools and so on to get their numbers. They are not unlike the gestapo in Nazi Germany IMO.

 

[HiThere]

It is hard to win through, I think, for many parents that are also authoritarian followers. They don't know the law, so they will obey, when they are pressured a bit.

I agree that this happens. Often the parents aren't resourceful or uncertain of their parenting abilities, and some of them do not seem fit; psycopaths, narcissists, drugs/alcohol etc.

I don't think it matters whether veganism or McDonalds is forbidden or not when it comes to SS. They make up their own rules, protocols and laws. We had a case of a family that eats raw and the mother wanted to homeschool. Both options are not illegal, although homeschooling is problematic to say the least. SS was about to remove the child from his home. IMO, they do as they please, perverse incentives and bonuses define their policies.

Which country was this, Sweden? If the child in the end wasn't taken then this is a good result it seems.

I do wonder whether they are needed.

In situations where small children for example are sexually molested by their parents and/or sold to other pedophiles, there has to be an organized way of finding these children new homes. This problem isn't going to go away, so in my opinion we have to work towards the best possible way of getting these children cared for.

If kids are put into care who guarantees they will be safe? Pedophiles are found everywhere, in children's homes, amongst foster parents. Even if a child is in danger at home who knows what will happen to that particular child when s/he is removed? Apparently, the removal in itself is very traumatic for the child (often there is police involved), even if he/she is abused. I think that in most cases removal shouldn't even be an option.

Sometimes the parents are so unfit that the children have to be given a new home.

The point is, I think, that SS workers do not evaluate cases carefully. Their work is sloppy, they rely on reports from neighbours, schools and so on to get their numbers. They are not unlike the gestapo in Nazi Germany IMO.

In my experience it is bad for children to be taken away, but I have seen circumstances where it would have been worse for the child to stay. And I strongly disagree that all social service workers are like the Gestapo - I have not seen arbitrary mass executions or torture from the social services (but I only have experience from Norway). :)

 

[Gwenllian]

Meanwhile in the US:

The Destruction of Families

Prison may seem the logical finale for this litany of over-criminalization, but the story doesn't actually end with those inmates. As prisons warehouse ever more Americans, often hundreds of miles from their local communities, family bonds weaken and disintegrate. In addition, once a parent goes into the criminal justice system, his or her family tends to end up on the radar screens of state agencies. "Being under surveillance by law enforcement makes a family much more vulnerable to Child Protective Services," says Professor Dorothy Roberts of the University of Pennsylvania Law school. An incarcerated parent, especially an incarcerated mother, means a much stronger likelihood that children will be sent into foster care, where, according to one recent study, they will be twice as likely as war veterans to suffer from PTSD.

(_www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/books/review/cris-beams-to-the-end-of-june.html?_r=0)

In New York State, the Administration for Child Services and the juvenile justice system recently merged, effectively putting thousands of children in a heavily policed, penalty-based environment until they age out. "Being in foster care makes you much more vulnerable to being picked up by the juvenile justice system," says Roberts. "If you're in a group home and you get in a fight, that could easily become a police matter." In every respect, the creeping over-criminalization of everyday life exerts a corrosive effect on American families.

http://www.sott.net/article/269931-US-gulag-Everything-in-American-life-has-become-a-police-matter

 

[HiThere]

Meanwhile in the US:

The Destruction of Families

Prison may seem the logical finale for this litany of over-criminalization, but the story doesn't actually end with those inmates. As prisons warehouse ever more Americans, often hundreds of miles from their local communities, family bonds weaken and disintegrate. In addition, once a parent goes into the criminal justice system, his or her family tends to end up on the radar screens of state agencies. "Being under surveillance by law enforcement makes a family much more vulnerable to Child Protective Services," says Professor Dorothy Roberts of the University of Pennsylvania Law school. An incarcerated parent, especially an incarcerated mother, means a much stronger likelihood that children will be sent into foster care, where, according to one recent study, they will be twice as likely as war veterans to suffer from PTSD.

(_www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/books/review/cris-beams-to-the-end-of-june.html?_r=0)

In New York State, the Administration for Child Services and the juvenile justice system recently merged, effectively putting thousands of children in a heavily policed, penalty-based environment until they age out. "Being in foster care makes you much more vulnerable to being picked up by the juvenile justice system," says Roberts. "If you're in a group home and you get in a fight, that could easily become a police matter." In every respect, the creeping over-criminalization of everyday life exerts a corrosive effect on American families.

http://www.sott.net/article/269931-US-gulag-Everything-in-American-life-has-become-a-police-matter

Yes. It is an Orwellian world, and the US is leading the way towards even worse conditions.

 

[Gwenllian]

Some quotes from 'Somebody else's children The Courts, The Kids, and The Struggle to Save America's Troubles Families by John Hubner & Jill Wolfson which I thought were appropriate for this thread:

In the late 1970s, the media showed the nation what people on the inside had long known: far too often, far from protecting the children under its care, the state abused them. Newspaper and television accounts documented the scandals: thousands of children were wasting away in soulless institutions where, at best, they were languishing and, at worst, they were being sexually assaulted and physically abused. No one knew how many foster children there were, where they were, how long they had been in foster homes, or how many homes they had been in.
Native Americans and blacks were accusing child welfare departments across the country of cultural genocide, charging that their children were being legally kidnapped simply because they were poor, Native American, or black and left to drift through a netherworld of foster homes, going "from one placement to another, with no long-term plan for their future and little likelihood that they would ever enjoy a stable, family-like placement."
...

About these reports that I spoke of earlier:

These reports are written for the most part by novices operating under the most artificial conditions imaginable. The counselors do not have to appear in court to defend their observations, but the reports, which can be overly subjective, become part of the social services record. They may heavily influence a judge who is about to make the final decision on where to place a child.

PTSD as a result of routine removals.

The levels of abuse and neglect in this country are far greater than even experts in the field had realized. But plucking children out of their homes is no solution either. It has never been a solution. Throughout history, the state, no matter how well-meaning, has proven over and over that it is a rotten parent.
When Judge Edwards first came on the bench, he had routinely ordered that children remain in the Children's Shelter while a social worker completed a report. Separating a child from his parents would show the parents how serious these proceedings were, and two or three days in the shelter would not hurt the child. But when the judge visited, he saw children who were exhibiting signs of shock. "I realized then that removal from a parent is a terrible event for a child," the judge says. "They found themselves in a new world of strangers, and they had the terrible fears of not knowing where their parents and brothers and sisters and other loved ones might be. I regularly come across children who have been removed for a weekend and then return home to suffer from months of nightmares. They refuse to be out of the presence of their mothers."

A septic tank.

All around the country, parents who have lost children to the system and believe that they have been wrongly accused of abusing those children are joining volunteer organizations like VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws). In Santa Clara County, the spokesman for such a group, the Coalition of Concerned Parents, calls the system a "septic tank" and complains that it doesn't take much to "start the nightmare. Someone--anyone!-- can phone in an anonymous report and the next thing you know there is a social worker at your door, taking away your child."
The problem, say legal scholars like Douglas J. Besharov, is that child abuse laws are so vague and open-ended; they are the legal equivalent of a trawler, hauling in cases the system should never catch. Besharov estimates that 65 percent of all abuse cases reported to child welfare departments are based on erroneous information. "Besides being a massive violation of parental rights," Besharov writes, "the flood of unfounded reports is overwhelming the limited resources of child protection agencies, so that they are increasingly unable to protect children in real danger."

 

[HiThere]

Some quotes from 'Somebody else's children The Courts, The Kids, and The Struggle to Save America's Troubles Families by John Hubner & Jill Wolfson which I thought were appropriate for this thread:

In the late 1970s, the media showed the nation what people on the inside had long known: far too often, far from protecting the children under its care, the state abused them. Newspaper and television accounts documented the scandals: thousands of children were wasting away in soulless institutions where, at best, they were languishing and, at worst, they were being sexually assaulted and physically abused. No one knew how many foster children there were, where they were, how long they had been in foster homes, or how many homes they had been in.
Native Americans and blacks were accusing child welfare departments across the country of cultural genocide, charging that their children were being legally kidnapped simply because they were poor, Native American, or black and left to drift through a netherworld of foster homes, going "from one placement to another, with no long-term plan for their future and little likelihood that they would ever enjoy a stable, family-like placement."
...

About these reports that I spoke of earlier:

These reports are written for the most part by novices operating under the most artificial conditions imaginable. The counselors do not have to appear in court to defend their observations, but the reports, which can be overly subjective, become part of the social services record. They may heavily influence a judge who is about to make the final decision on where to place a child.

PTSD as a result of routine removals.

The levels of abuse and neglect in this country are far greater than even experts in the field had realized. But plucking children out of their homes is no solution either. It has never been a solution. Throughout history, the state, no matter how well-meaning, has proven over and over that it is a rotten parent.
When Judge Edwards first came on the bench, he had routinely ordered that children remain in the Children's Shelter while a social worker completed a report. Separating a child from his parents would show the parents how serious these proceedings were, and two or three days in the shelter would not hurt the child. But when the judge visited, he saw children who were exhibiting signs of shock. "I realized then that removal from a parent is a terrible event for a child," the judge says. "They found themselves in a new world of strangers, and they had the terrible fears of not knowing where their parents and brothers and sisters and other loved ones might be. I regularly come across children who have been removed for a weekend and then return home to suffer from months of nightmares. They refuse to be out of the presence of their mothers."

A septic tank.

All around the country, parents who have lost children to the system and believe that they have been wrongly accused of abusing those children are joining volunteer organizations like VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws). In Santa Clara County, the spokesman for such a group, the Coalition of Concerned Parents, calls the system a "septic tank" and complains that it doesn't take much to "start the nightmare. Someone--anyone!-- can phone in an anonymous report and the next thing you know there is a social worker at your door, taking away your child."
The problem, say legal scholars like Douglas J. Besharov, is that child abuse laws are so vague and open-ended; they are the legal equivalent of a trawler, hauling in cases the system should never catch. Besharov estimates that 65 percent of all abuse cases reported to child welfare departments are based on erroneous information. "Besides being a massive violation of parental rights," Besharov writes, "the flood of unfounded reports is overwhelming the limited resources of child protection agencies, so that they are increasingly unable to protect children in real danger."

Yes. The children are traumatized when they are taken from their homes, and that fact should weigh heavily on the minds of the people who make the decision to remove a child.
Jobs involving care for children attracts pedophiles, and it should be mandatory that all employees had to show a police warrant that documents no prior criminal record.

But even when the decision to remove a child is based on true facts of abuse/violence etc and they do not get abused in foster care, the children will still be vulnerable to abuse for years to come, because they as abuse victims attract unwanted attention through sexualized behaviour and/or inviting behaviour stemming from wanting to be loved.
Some abuse victims even perpertrate abuse themselves, as this is a learned behaviour. Young children in foster care that has experienced horrific abuse/rape/torture can almost immediately start to molest smaller children if they are not watched.

These children have to be cared for by people who have knowledge about abuse and its consequences, and even under the best of circumstances many of these children will never be able to have a happy life.

 

[Gwenllian]

Yes. The children are traumatized when they are taken from their homes, and that fact should weigh heavily on the minds of the people who make the decision to remove a child.
Jobs involving care for children attracts pedophiles, and it should be mandatory that all employees had to show a police warrant that documents no prior criminal record.

Unfortunately, most psychopaths/pedophiles will never be caught, only the unsuccessful ones, at least that is what I understand from the literature.

But even when the decision to remove a child is based on true facts of abuse/violence etc and they do not get abused in foster care, the children will still be vulnerable to abuse for years to come, because they as abuse victims attract unwanted attention through sexualized behaviour and/or inviting behaviour stemming from wanting to be loved.
Some abuse victims even perpertrate abuse themselves, as this is a learned behaviour. Young children in foster care that has experienced horrific abuse/rape/torture can almost immediately start to molest smaller children if they are not watched.

I was thinking the exact same thing today.

These children have to be cared for by people who have knowledge about abuse and its consequences, and even under the best of circumstances many of these children will never be able to have a happy life.

That is why I think the present system of social services will never be able to deliver. Unless kids are fortunate enough to have very knowledgeable foster parents that have access to very good therapists and books. And if we look at the present state of the world and the ignorance that we see around us kids won't stand a chance once they are in the system.

I don't think it matters whether veganism or McDonalds is forbidden or not when it comes to SS. They make up their own rules, protocols and laws. We had a case of a family that eats raw and the mother wanted to homeschool. Both options are not illegal, although homeschooling is problematic to say the least. SS was about to remove the child from his home. IMO, they do as they please, perverse incentives and bonuses define their policies.

Which country was this, Sweden? If the child in the end wasn't taken then this is a good result it seems.

The Netherlands. The mother spoke to the media and contacted the ombudsman who acted as a mediator. Yes, it was a good result. But the stress that families in the meantime have to endure is very taxing, which is also a form of child abuse IMO. If a child is threatened with removal or supervision it will affect the entire family.

In situations where small children for example are sexually molested by their parents and/or sold to other pedophiles, there has to be an organized way of finding these children new homes. This problem isn't going to go away, so in my opinion we have to work towards the best possible way of getting these children cared for.

I couldn't agree more. But again, SS do not act on behalf of the child. As long as they have their psychopathic system of perverse financial incentives only a few decent social workers will do what needs to be done. As far as I know the social workers that truly care about kids leave and find a job elsewhere.

Sometimes the parents are so unfit that the children have to be given a new home.

But what can we offer these children? Which parent is aware of the work of Martha Stout and Peter Levine, to name a few?
Where do you put them? Over here there were not enough places for kids with problems. SS put them in juvenile prison. In prison!

In my experience it is bad for children to be taken away, but I have seen circumstances where it would have been worse for the child to stay. And I strongly disagree that all social service workers are like the Gestapo - I have not seen arbitrary mass executions or torture from the social services (but I only have experience from Norway). :)

I don't think that all social workers are like the Gestapo, but the system is. I watched 'Nazis - a warning from history', which is one of the threads on the forum and it appeared that the Gestapo relied heavily on neighbours, colleagues and so on to turn people in. Social Services operate in the same way. The ministry of Youth and Families even put up an advertisement on a website for parents before the summer holidays in order to stimulate them to call in and even keep a log if they were suspicious about certain parents. These are heavy-handed tactics and very Orwellian.

Added: Also, look at all these scandals that surround children's homes and their links to pedophile rings.

 

[HiThere]

All you mention has merit in my opinion. But here we are, stuck in this world - and probably voluntarily to boot. I find solace in believing that every one here chose their existence and that I am not supposed to save them all.

The world is what it is and one's feelings about it won't make any worthwhile difference in my opinion - but one's own actions might bring a temporary sense of meaning and relief, and may be of assistance to someone struggling. That is good enough for me - it is my firm opinion that this world can't be "saved" in any way we down here would recognize as being saved.

So I try to let it all unfold itself as it will and make my own 2 cents of difference as I can. :)

 

[Gwenllian]

All you mention has merit in my opinion. But here we are, stuck in this world - and probably voluntarily to boot. I find solace in believing that every one here chose their existence and that I am not supposed to save them all.

The world is what it is and one's feelings about it won't make any worthwhile difference in my opinion - but one's own actions might bring a temporary sense of meaning and relief, and may be of assistance to someone struggling. That is good enough for me - it is my firm opinion that this world can't be "saved" in any way we down here would recognize as being saved.

So I try to let it all unfold itself as it will and make my own 2 cents of difference as I can. :)

I do not get very well what you are saying here, Hithere. Maybe I have not explained myself very well, as I feel very tired ATM or maybe I am projecting. It is after all a topic close to my heart, as I have observed loved ones, friends and strangers suffer and struggle with this agency. And I know first-hand how threatening these people can be, especially when they are dealing with parents whom they consider to be vulnerable, like single parents, non-European parents, parents on benefits and so on.
I know that there are unfit parents, but if we have to believe SS many parents are unfit, unless they follow the dictates of SS. In The Netherlands they have now moved into schools and set up so-called care teams, which means they will be able to entrap more kids with so-called problems, or problems that could be solved without the interference of SS.

I wasn't implying that we should save all these kids. I just asked you what one can do once one decides to remove a child from her or his home, since the alternatives are not safe and do not look promising, either.

 

[HiThere]

You describe law-enforced removal of children from healthy parents, and that is indeed a sinister situation. I do not have any solution for that, other than to watch out for power abuse as always, and try to stay under the radar so as not to draw attention to oneself from the authorities.

EDIT: You asked what to do once the decision is taken to remove a child. It would be important to have fosterparents with knowledge of the problems surrounding abuse victims, so as to be able to create as nurturing an environment as possible. For he most damaged ones, there would have to be 24 hour facilities with educated staff, and resources to deal with problems that often follows these children, as discussed above. I get the impression that you know as much as me at least about what it would take, and I do not have anything more to add.
In a society where there was more knowledge about what sexual abuse does to a child, (i.e. program them to self-destruct, to varying degrees) it would be easier to build structures that aren't seen as the enemy by the victims, but this problem isn't solved in my country either - it is rare that a child looks back on his/her time in foster home with undiluted affection etc. Hence my somewhat defaitistic post above. :)