Norway has way too many similar cases, for such small country of only 5 million people. Barnevernet also puts artificial obstructions for adoption by biological relatives, such as grandparents.
As someone said, accused parents in such cases have less rights than Breivik.
I recall a diplomatic incident with India when they tried to take away custody of Indian citizen children from their parents and put them in foster care or something.
> As someone said, accused parents in such cases have less rights than Breivik.
Hang on a minute. Here in the US, my tax dollars support your children. WIC and Food Stamps and school lunch programs which come from my tax dollars ensure your infants and children do not starve in case something happens to you or your income. As a parent, you get to claim tax deductions which means more money out of my pocket to cover for the loss of tax revenue. As I see it, your children are not your property. The children belong to the community at large. They are my investment. If you are damaging our collective investment, I very much expect you to be relieved of your duties to take care of my investment.
> As I see it, your children are not your property. The children belong to the community at large.
There has been no country stupid enough to ever make such an outrageous claim, no matter how communist they were.
For starters: Children are not property at all, not their parents, nor society at large. They belong to themselves, they're independent and they are people just like adults, not cattle or objects. Second, parents are the primary agents responsible for their children and if at all possible parents should be the ones to raise their kids. Only in extremely rare cases should children be removed from their parents care, the main reasons are that this is the natural order of things, that parents tend to have their childrens best insterests at heart and that parents are by and far the best placed to relate to their children.
Last but not least: the number of violations per capita of the physical integrity of children placed in 'care' vastly exceeds that of those children living with their parents.
Well children certainly aren't independent in the US. They can't choose to smoke and drink. They also can't choose to stop attending school without pretty harsh punishments. They are effectively prisoners of society until they turn 18 (even though they still can't drink).
Children are primarily their parent's responsibility, however if their parents are not present or able, then the responsibility is that of all other capable adults. But they are not yours or anyone else's investment and they do not belong to anyone.
Wow, this is incredibly disgusting. To claim that children belong to the community is full-blown communalism, and the end of individual rights. This is one fine distinction away from claiming that we are all property of the State.
Parents have an obligation to protect their children, and you are attacking that.
Taxation is not an "investment" and does not confer rights. It is non-contractual; it is merely force; it is not entered into voluntarily. You cannot start any valid argument with "Taxation, therefore..." If you don't like paying for WIC and Food Stamps, advocate against those taxes.
I absolutely don't mind safety nets. I don't want people to starve and die. What I detest are tax breaks for having kids or deductions. It is disgusting.
Parents have right for due process, right to raise their own children and so on. Children also have some rights, those might colide wiuth rights of parents in some cases.
Problem is that in Norway parents have ZERO rights. Norway have not signed relevant EU treaties for Child Protection. Once children is taken by social servies, there is were little chance for return. SS than bullies parents, forces them to divorce, not even allowed to seek help.
To put it in US context: Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough. All perfectly legal with zero chance to get children back (or sometimes even see them ever again).
> Problem is that in Norway parents have ZERO rights.
This is obviously not true. Norway has laws that safeguard both parents and children, and is in the process of ratifying the relevant Hague convention.
Bear in mind that when you read or hear about these seemingly horrifying stories, you only hear one side of the story. This is due to very strict privacy laws protecting all parties.
Well everything. Barnevernet cannot comment due to privacy laws.
So you get the stories about the "unfortunate parents" that do not understand why their child(ren) were taken away. The reality is that you never hear about the abuse or neglect in these cases... and that is the truly horrifying part.
Says who? Why, precisely? Where is this right enumerated and what is its basis?
> Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough.
But the issue with this is religious discrimination and a lack of separation between church and state. The wrongness of this has nothing to do with parental rights.
> Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
> Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,
And Article 5
> States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
There are reasons why states can intervene in family life. But those interventions need to be in the child's best interest; and they need to be proportionate.
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Yeah, none of that reads to me as "parents have the right to raise their own children". It can certainly be construed that way when convenient for people who want to keep a leash on their kids, but if you actually read all of those qualifiers, it's actually saying the exact opposite.
Who determines the "appropriate direction and guidance"? What is a "family environment"? When is "interference" arbitrary? As an example, if local custom dictates beating a child mercilessly every other month for absolutely no reason but tradition, that's a good reason for intervention, to me. I don't care about local custom in such a case.
(Also, holy shit, you think honor and reputation are sacrosanct according to the UDHR? I just lost a ton of respect for that document if your reading is correct. Goodbye, journalism.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Welfare_Services_(Norway...