very simply put: norwegian child welfare does not work and it's clear that there's not one formula that can solve this question it's probably several intersecting issues but i will address a tiny part and a main issue that i believe can contribute to this debate in a good way i think i will start by reading from a key document which very few know about even among jurists it is proposition no. 56 of 1952
it's a part of the preparatory works for the former child welfare act of 1953 and what i will read for you now, that is very important i'll come back to it later and here it reads: it is well understood about the principle that the best interests of children in general are growing up in a natural family environment together with their real parents and siblings this also applies if there are certain shortcomings within the home both in terms of economy and conditions otherwise al homes cannot be equal good and all parents are not equal good providers and nurturers. a child is still often linked to the home, father, mother and siblings with such strong emotional ties that can lead to serious psychological damage to the child if these ties are ripped apart these injuries can in many cases be far greater than what is achieved by repositioning the child in a materially and socially better environment
society should therefore not be allowed to go to such a drastic step unless there is a real danger for the child's health or development so, this is written in 1952 then it says further in a chapter here when conditions in a home or child's behavior or condition has become such that community and child protection board, have found it necessary to intervene, it should as aforesaid only in an emergency, and that is an important part, only in an emergency separate the child from the parental home. this was prior to the "modern" law came in 1953 in the court journal ..... supreme court ... in 1982 at page 764, for those that is technically interested... so have supreme court in a judgment pointed on precisely what i've just read that's how important it was
in 1992 there came a new, ie renewed child welfare act (law). the one we have today. and then in the court journal in 1996 on page 1203, for those interested it states in that judgment that the legal situation in terms of a care and repealing a care in reality has not changed when the child welfare act of 1992 replaced the child welfare act of 1953 and in 1996, the supreme court again pointed at the preparatory work i just now read. and what is important, it is: and it seems to be an unanimous consensus, at least among lawyers, we that don't know about psychology ..... but must get along with common sense,
as well as we can, so we see that there is a distinction change around the year 2000 it is not exactly in 2000, it may be 1998 or it may be 2003 but here something happens because until then the talk about a care was when it was relatively severe violence we talked about serious psychiatry sexual assault or substance abuse from about 2000 and up then all these "theories" started to appear...
that no one, at least not me, understand so much of. not so many lawyers either. it's like "affiliation theories", it's "development theories" and it's written page after page.... it has nothing to do with science and then this is mixed into the border for where the care order decision shall be and that is wrong! it was never intended that these theories should be used for this purpose my focus is: where is the distinction between a care or not? where is the limit here?
that's what i'm concerned about. that is what is central to a lawyer appearing before the county board it is not whether parents may evolve to be super parents that kind of "super moms" that's not my focus. others can that much better. but we have to work with where the border is drawn what we often see is that they take the children out of the family and it turns out afterwards that it was not so dangerous and then the damage is already done. and this is where the kernel may be that they have begun to take the children from their parents for anything but science. and most parents naturally become at least slightly irritated when one is taken away their kids and this is based upon beliefs, thinking and imaginary thoughts
and they are not even able to explain for the parents what they have done wrong except that they are bad parents. then we have a problem. then we have conflicts. then it's difficult to have any type of cooperation now, someone already talked about that. i will not say anything more about that. it's then not so strange that one does not manage to work and cooperate with the same people. humans are not made like that. so we should probably eventually differentiate these services from one another everything is ok in today's law, almost.
we have the legal authority we need. it''s the way they are applied that's incorrect. regarding protective care, that is a paragraph named 4-12, which most people are aware of
it's a part of the preparatory works for the former child welfare act of 1953 and what i will read for you now, that is very important i'll come back to it later and here it reads: it is well understood about the principle that the best interests of children in general are growing up in a natural family environment together with their real parents and siblings this also applies if there are certain shortcomings within the home both in terms of economy and conditions otherwise al homes cannot be equal good and all parents are not equal good providers and nurturers. a child is still often linked to the home, father, mother and siblings with such strong emotional ties that can lead to serious psychological damage to the child if these ties are ripped apart these injuries can in many cases be far greater than what is achieved by repositioning the child in a materially and socially better environment
society should therefore not be allowed to go to such a drastic step unless there is a real danger for the child's health or development so, this is written in 1952 then it says further in a chapter here when conditions in a home or child's behavior or condition has become such that community and child protection board, have found it necessary to intervene, it should as aforesaid only in an emergency, and that is an important part, only in an emergency separate the child from the parental home. this was prior to the "modern" law came in 1953 in the court journal ..... supreme court ... in 1982 at page 764, for those that is technically interested... so have supreme court in a judgment pointed on precisely what i've just read that's how important it was
in 1992 there came a new, ie renewed child welfare act (law). the one we have today. and then in the court journal in 1996 on page 1203, for those interested it states in that judgment that the legal situation in terms of a care and repealing a care in reality has not changed when the child welfare act of 1992 replaced the child welfare act of 1953 and in 1996, the supreme court again pointed at the preparatory work i just now read. and what is important, it is: and it seems to be an unanimous consensus, at least among lawyers, we that don't know about psychology ..... but must get along with common sense,
as well as we can, so we see that there is a distinction change around the year 2000 it is not exactly in 2000, it may be 1998 or it may be 2003 but here something happens because until then the talk about a care was when it was relatively severe violence we talked about serious psychiatry sexual assault or substance abuse from about 2000 and up then all these "theories" started to appear...
that no one, at least not me, understand so much of. not so many lawyers either. it's like "affiliation theories", it's "development theories" and it's written page after page.... it has nothing to do with science and then this is mixed into the border for where the care order decision shall be and that is wrong! it was never intended that these theories should be used for this purpose my focus is: where is the distinction between a care or not? where is the limit here?
that's what i'm concerned about. that is what is central to a lawyer appearing before the county board it is not whether parents may evolve to be super parents that kind of "super moms" that's not my focus. others can that much better. but we have to work with where the border is drawn what we often see is that they take the children out of the family and it turns out afterwards that it was not so dangerous and then the damage is already done. and this is where the kernel may be that they have begun to take the children from their parents for anything but science. and most parents naturally become at least slightly irritated when one is taken away their kids and this is based upon beliefs, thinking and imaginary thoughts
and they are not even able to explain for the parents what they have done wrong except that they are bad parents. then we have a problem. then we have conflicts. then it's difficult to have any type of cooperation now, someone already talked about that. i will not say anything more about that. it's then not so strange that one does not manage to work and cooperate with the same people. humans are not made like that. so we should probably eventually differentiate these services from one another everything is ok in today's law, almost.
we have the legal authority we need. it''s the way they are applied that's incorrect. regarding protective care, that is a paragraph named 4-12, which most people are aware of
No comments:
Post a Comment