Talk:Norwegian Child Welfare Services

Neutrality

This article is largely based on a few incidents of dubious representativity, combined with personal reflections. There is an alarming lack of references to relevant legislation etc --Orland (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Orland has no knowledge of this field. Norwegian authorities have had to pay over 1.3 billion kroner (NOK) (220 million dollars) to victims of child protection.

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7079907

That situation has not changed, says NIBR report 2006:7: Assistance measures in child care - do they work?

Quote:

"It seems that Norwegian Child Welfare is struggling with a paradox: CPS makes extensive use of measures of which we have little systematic, research-based knowledge and that we "are unsure" of "believe in" much based on tradition. These measures have been used for decades, and we have neither been able to find out exactly how they work or able to put something else instead ("new forms of measures")".

Where are today's victims of Norwegian Child Welfare? On Facebook there are several groups of several thousand Norwegian members:

4000 members:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/177890005726/

2500 members:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/551862654833009/

1700 members:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/271381683378/

NKMR - Nordiska Kommittén för Mänskliga Rättigheter (NCHR - The Nordic Committee for Human Rights.) 1270 members.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/126288523784/

Same as:

http://www.nkmr.org/

This group has nearly 34,000 members:

http://www.causes.com/ikkebarnet

"The forum Save Our ​​Children" is about this. The site has nearly 1,000 members and 32,000 posts.

http://forum.r-b-v.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.96.164 (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Orland would want to conceal --- here and elsewhere --- this popular movement against child welfare abuse, he knows best himself. Wikipedia should not be used for such concealment. It damages Wikipedia's reputation for decades. At some time it will surely become known that Wikipedia was used to hide the child welfare abuse in more than one country.

Posted by Arild Holta. Further presentation of the work I'm doing against child welfare abuse one can find for example here:

http://www.gateavisa.no/2010/04/16/arild-holta-vil-redde-norske-barn-fra-et-destruktivt-barnevern/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.96.164 (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

While facebook would certainly be a step up from the kind of sources found on this page at the moment, you should still take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Grdfmnhgr (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

Insert correct information about the violent and unlawful behavior of Child Welfare Service of Norway.

81.243.134.213 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cases overshadowing the service

The Norwegian Child Welfare Services ("Barnevernet") is a large government body, with its legislation, history, administrative strutuce and specialized serrvices. It involves helping parents to become better parents, it involves also moving children to live with foster parents. The latter is, of course the most discussed and criticized part of the service. Sometimes Barnevernet are criticized for taking action too late, and sometimes they are criticized for taking action too early or without due cause.

Neither of this is seriously represented in this article.

The main part of the text and references are concentrated on three different, individual cases concerning "diplomatic incidents". These should be removed as per WP:UNDUE. One such case was previously removed by User:Iselilja in november. I tried to remove to more such incidents in december, but these were reversed by Contributions/86.92.93.202. Then, another dutch ip expanded further. I am now removing again, and call for other good editors to assist in keeping this article as good as possible. Bw Orland (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Right Orland.I have this article on my watchlist, but I have a lot of articles there so it is a bit random what I catch, but I can try to keep an extra eye on it. I am a bit unsure about the Polish and Indian cases though, as those cases have gained much attention, and may have implications for Norway's relationship to those countries as it is sometimes brought up to government level. Something generally about international complications and also a strained relationship between the agency and some immigrant communities in Norway may be appropriate to include. But I see the problem here; also because there is privacy concerns in some of the entries; like the Russian and the Czech cases the where names of the children/families are mentioned. One way forward if problematic edits continue is also to request semi-protection of the article at WP:RPP; I see it was protected for three days in December; and a longer protection may be appropriate if this continues. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Orland and Iselilja are a prime example of personal POV, as Norwegians you have vested intrest in removing valid information that shows your country in bad light. The section "Criticism and diplomatic incidents" takes only a third of the page, which can be hardly desribed as "undue length." On the contrary, it presents crucial information regarding the agency, because that's what it's best internationally known for. Indeed, that's why I named the section that way. And even if the section was of undue length (it isn't), there exists no justification for complete removal of any mention about criticism and diplomatic incidents. That gave your motivation away.--31.220.27.24 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the third dutch IP with an opinion on this. Funnier and funnier. In 2012 Barnevernet offered it's services to 53.200 children. (Fact sheet 2013, pdf) Why then focus of these three cases rather that attract foreign interest than describing the normal services? Why not focus on all the serious misdeeds done locally? The Alvdal trial? The Christopher case? The Midtre Namdal fines?

Furthermore: By reverting, the IP is also reinserting a "Se aslo"-entry for Cinderella effect. Please explain why that is relevant? The IP also hided the years covered in the compensation cases metioned as criticizm.

I've read suggestions about my motives earlier. Such suggestions usually reveal lack of arguments. Bw --Orland (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but many people don't use a single static IP all the time. Besides, I clearly indicated in my previous post that I named a section in the article, so I'm indeed the person behind the Dutch IPs. Good job, detective.

The number of children taken by Barnevernet is irrelevant, all we can do is to mention it, but there's nothing more we can write about it. I didn't cover local cases because they're not so medialized and I don't speak Norwegian. You do, so it's up to you to cover these cases, but of course I don't expect you to, because you've clearly indicated you hate anything that shows Norwegian institutions in bad light.

I don't know what is "Se aslo," but it wasn't me who added the link to Cinderella effect. I just reverted edits which deleted a part of the article, including this link. I also didn't hide anything, as far as I know.--31.220.27.24 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not necessarily against having a criticism/controversy section, but it needs to be written more carefully and neutrally and with a broader perspective. I see multiple problems with the current version; both undue weight, POV and privacy/BLP problems. The Czech sub-section in particular in problematic; which I intend to remove part of that. I tried to see how controversies is handled in other, similar articles about child welfare agencies, but it was difficult to find many and those I found was mostly of low quality. I may try to put up notices at some relevant project pages to see if we might get input from other editors. Iselilja (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems, all your claims about undue weight, POV or BLP are vague and false. You didn't name a sinle concrete problem, you're just trying to delete relevant information. If you want to expand the article and add more information, you're welcome. But don't delete chunks of text just because you don't like the information they contain.--217.196.120.34 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As you are a man who claims to be able to read the mind of terrorists, I am not surprised by your attitude. If you can't read norwegian, how can you then be sure that your version is the best and most relevant documentation of what Barnevernet is doing and failing at? If you have no fancy for the Cinderella theory; why did you reinsert the "See also"? Here is a diff for the newly added facts that you removed. In my opinion, such edits indicate that you are not interested in improving the article in a broader perspective than your own hang-ups. Orland (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're a man who stoops to personal attacks when you can't prove your point. There is no reason to remove anything just because you don't agree with it. The Czech case is described the way it's described in the media, we don't have any statement from the Norwegian party, because Barnevernet refuses to comment on their cases. If you don't like the Cinderella theory, remove it individually and we can discuss it, but don't alter the rest of the article and don't add unsubstantiated templates.--31.220.27.119 (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the Cinderella teory individually (diff), I have added exact numbers (diff) in the orphanage compensation case. But this dutch IP doesn't care, he is still reverting all of it, taking it back to his own version of the text. I rest my case. Orland (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I would like to say that I don't have any vested interest; however, I have some specialized knowledge of the European Court of Human Rights procedures. I would like to say that the current version (after Orland's edit) grossly misrepresents the case in front of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court said "while we see there might be something into it (or might not), you, Michalakova, go and finish your business with the Norwegian state, and only then we will have a look at it." An average wikipedia user is not going to get this message from "the Court rejected her complaint," but would think that the Court found no merit (Norway already lost a similar case in 2007). I also think that other Orland's edit were not neutral. He did delete info that he sees as undue, but made so in a way that he omitted negative info on Norway. Peterchc (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well guess what, if you remove large chunks of text, you can't be surprised if someone reverts it right away. Your behavior borders on vandalism. I have removed the Cinderella effect, but I think it's relevant, because this article explicitly talks about abuse from the hands of the foster parents, and Cinderella effect is a term for higher incidence of child abuse among stepparents than among biological parents. So I will return it back unless you make some convincing arguments against it. But given your previous behavior I don't expect anything.--87.212.229.108 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a norwegian government body. If "this article explicitly talks about abuse from the hands of the foster parents", it is out of focus. Plus, Cinderella effect is about step parents, not foster parents. --Orland (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Orland made changes at 19:55, 27 January 2015‎, that he sees as solving undue details in the article. While I agree the article has these issues, Orland solved it by removing only negative information about Norway. This only amplifies other's worries about Orland's impartiality and neutrality, esp. when being Norwegian. Iselilja defends Orland's edit, and accuses editors of previous versions of non-compliance with WP:BLP w/o explaining why. I can say that I really don't see any WP:BLP violation here, and think Iselilja only dreamed it up to justify his erasure of negative info about Norway. --Peterchc (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.177.118 (talk)

No need to start a war by reverting back and forth. I stand behind Norwegians that the article is problematic, but I think Norwegians are solving problem by inserting another one. If you give me few days, I will rewrite it in a way where both parties would not agree, but it will be in the middle. Let's take Iselilja's version till then. It is not neutral, but it is quite ok for the moment.Peterchc (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding BLP concerns, this relates to the privacy of the children in the Czech case. We should not insert information that can identify children in such a sensitive case. Regards, 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Iselilja (talk)

Hello, I see your point. I disagree because I think it does not violate this (for reasons that you might not know, and would only be legalese.) Unfortunately you wanted to solve this problem by erasing negative info on Norway, and letting Indian names there. Please, could you edit the page or add other info once I update the page, thanks.Peterchc (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There exist no BLP concerns, because the name of the Michalák family is plastered all over the Czech media and there's even an article about the case on Czech Wikipedia. The whole Czech nation now knows Norwegians are thieves of children, and we all hate you and your ilk.--194.228.32.94 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that other media violations of BLP principles can be an excuse for Wikipedia doing the same. And what is more important: I don't think that czech hate is a valid and neutral viewpoint for Wikipedia editing. Bw --Orland (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Czech and English Wikipedia follow roughly the same rules, so if it's not a violation of BLP on Czech Wikipedia, it's also not a violation of BLP here.--2A00:1028:83CE:4F2E:E922:34DC:EE7:1265 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nordmenn har en personlig interesse i artikkelen at de er skamfull for å innrømme hva de Barnevernet hadde gjort. Severák (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Child Welfare Services = Nazism 177.86.143.129 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It is extremely upsetting that some people find it acceptable to belittle and trivialise the horrors of Nazism in order to advance their private agenda. Hanno (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a criminal organization from the state of Norway itself. There is no room for any discussion. 178.237.219.136 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

All of section 3.5 regarding the Bodnariu case

Virtually no information is known about this case. Sources mention that "christian indoctrination" is only one of the charges against the couple which resulted in them losing their children. We do not know what these charges are as it is an active situation. All sources are from Christian sources who are trumpeting the religious persecution angle without any information to back this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.87.15 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bodnariu husbands are discontent with the ban on child beatings, which they consider contrary to their religion, e.g. "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Proverbs 13:24. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Very depressing that there are no better sources of information about this case. Only christian media and low quality aggregation sites only raise questions about the whole matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.93.119 (talk • contribs)

Well, the pressure group consists of their denomination and similar (fellow) denominations. It seems that they do not have access to mainstream news channels and have only attracted the attention of marginal news channels. Some mainstream Romanian politicians did plead to support them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a criminal organization from the state of Norway itself. There is no room for any discussion. 178.237.219.136 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Christian newspaper

The source http://www.vl.no/meninger/kommentar/do-not-use-the-word-persecution-lightly-1.668127 is a Norwegian Christian newspaper. So, it looks ok. Quote: "The local newspaper Firda reported that the couple now risk six years in prison for violating the criminal law section covering «domestic abuse» for «threats, coercion, deprivation of liberty, violence or other violations». Even clearer: The parents are being charged for violence against their own children." Of course, as already stated, they have admitted to spanking their own children, so they are formally admitting guilt. Note that the newspaper is neutral about the case, it does not side with either party, and thinks that one of the possible solutions would be reuniting the family. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Schmitt stated that believing in an ideology is not in itself a crime (in a state of law). So, according to the above source, the Bodnarius are not punished for "indoctrination". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I suggest carrying out the following changes in the near future:

1. To move the article to The Norwegian Child Welfare Services. Reason: That is the official English name of this institution; it is understandable in English without further explanation; and the main text of the article uses the English name more often than the Norwegian one.
2. To remove the warning that additional citations are needed. Reason: All paragraphs now provide references.
3. To remove the warning that the lead section is too short. Reason: The lead section is now re-written, and it provides a brief summary of the central paragraphs.

If anyone disagrees in any of the above suggestions, please let me know. Best, Hanno (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've now carried out the changes proposed above. Hanno (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not neutral since May 2012

The page is allegedly not neutral since more than four years but the editors, who claim to know the subject haven't contributed to make the page neutral. Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Having edited this article several times does not mean that I know everything about the subject. Especially when several sources were in Czech, Polish and Russian, which I cannot understand. The gist of the argument: children were removed from the custody of their own parents, parents got angry and cried discrimination, plus there's is a lot of paranoid conspiracy theories about the organization in various blogs (like refreshing the national gene pool by kidnapping East-European children or because it would serve the interests of the "gay Mafia"/New World Order). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And, basically, Putin's propaganda machine uses cases like those presented in the article in order to show that the Free West is actually the new Sodom and Gomorrah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand mentioned languages. The Russian page quotes Norwegian page http://www.hra-n.no/flere-land/russland A source about the Polish case http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/detective-defends-hollywood-child-abduction/

Norway should inform newcomers about the rules but apparently fails.

Some Western countries tolerate marriages between children and Female genital mutilation, Norway acts when a child says it's unhappy because of grandmother the Polish case). People are sometimes sad and sometimes have fun.

Exactly the same accusations are formulated against the German service Jugendamt, that page doesn't inform about them.

The Barnevernet doesn't allow parents and children communicate in their mother language.

http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/2704-an-unfinished-debate-on-barnevernet

Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I have to admit that I don't understand the point you are trying to make, I would like to correct a mistake: parents and children are allowed (even encouraged) to communicate in their mother language. (At school, children are entitled to lessons in their mother tongue; the Norwegian Child Welfare Services often use interpreters when communicating with parents and children, allowing them to speak their mother tongue not only to each other, but also to the Services; and the Services try to find foster families with the same ethnic background, so that children can continue speaking their mother tongue.) Best wishes, Hanno (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This page is about the Service, not about schools or anything.

Urzędnicy utrudniają im kontakt z odebranymi dziećmi, zakazują rozmów w ojczystym języku, pytań o uczucia lub tłumaczenia sytuacji. - The (B.) officers make the contacts between parents and chidren difficult, ban talks in Polish, questioning about feelings or explaining the situation. [1] I understand that Polish press is biased, but symetrically the Service doesn't admit its errors. If Poles complain they aren't allowed to contact their children in Polish, can you prove they are liars? Nikola Rybka contacted her mother using cell phone, not allowed by the officers.

You are right, the officers should inform the parents in their langauge, but sometimes they don't, because e.g. the interpreter is tired.

Are Norwegians superhumans? No, they aren't. Their ways of coping with psychological problems not always works.

Even if the Polish families are poor and uneducated, kidnapping of native children in Canada and Australia was wrong. Norway will admit the same in 50 years, 50 years too late.

Since 2015 Polish consulate in Norway is being informed abaout cases of Polish children. It's quite possible that the situation is better now, but this should be written in the text - some problems existed till 2015.Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have quoted Norwegian sources, do they misinform? Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hei Xx236. You wrote that "Barnevernet doesn't allow parents and children communicate in their mother language", which is definitely erroneous as stated. It may have been correct in other decades (perhaps pre-1970?); and if it is correct that specific employees of the Services have done what you say, they have done so against the laws and instructions given to them. That is why I commented your statement.

As the article does not state that Norwegians are superhumans or that the Norwegian Child Welfare Services do not make mistakes, I struggle a bit to see your point. Whether or not your informants are liars, I do not know and cannot know – more important: it's not wikipedia's task to find out whether or not your informants are liars. That is why the use of primary sources is strongly discouraged. It is very possible that (parts of) the Norwegian Child Welfare Services do not follow their own rules, but this should be documented (as everything else in wikipedia, and in contradistinction to blogs and several news media) by referring to secondary or tertiary sources. Best wishes, Hanno (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, "don't beat/spank your children" holds for everyone who lives in Norway. Don't like it? Then don't come to Norway. Seems pretty simple. This being said, if there were abuses, why not trust the state of law, which has more integrity than the Polish and Russian justice, to sort out the problem? And if parents were denied access to their children by the justice, then it seems likely that they did have a problem in the first place. About sources: credible intellectuals have a knee-jerk reaction to paranoid conspiracy theories and hate mongering, they don't consider such publications reliable. Blogs are rejected by default as reliable sources, since they generally have no fact checking nor editorial control. So, if there were abuses, which could happen because all people are prone to making errors, it does not seem like an official policy of kidnapping foreign children. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Briefly, claims of conspiracy are not credible. Hate mongering is not credible. Blogs are not credible. Of course, such situations do not happen only in Norway, see e.g. [2] and [3]. How comes that such parents always claim discrimination and conspiracy, but never see any problem in their own behavior? If they have no legal income, no proper housing to raise a child or spank their children it may be their own fault. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Personality rights / privacy

I would once more like to raise the issue of Privacy (BLP). As the article stands now, it identifies several clients of the Child Welfare Services by name. I cannot help thinking that this is a violation of the personality rights of these clients and, more seriously, of their children. The children certainly haven't asked for this public attention (while, in some cases, the parents may have), and it represents a serious (additional!) burden for the children involved.
Now it seems that in some cases the names of the families are mentioned in press coverage outside Norway. (In Norway, media don't normally identify clients or victims by name, especially when children are involved.) However, this does not in itself justify doing the same on Wikipedia. Other media have to defend their practice, we have to defend ours.
In this case, it is my opinion that the name of client families does not add anything to the subject of the article. The motivation for mentioning these cases in the first place, has been, I assume, to document criticisms raised against the Child Welfare Services. This goal is equally well achieved without providing the names of the clients and children involved. My suggestion is therefore, not to remove these cases, but to anonymise them.
If you have opinions supporting or opposing this view, please let me know. Best wishes, Hanno (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The changes proposed above have now been carried out. Hanno (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not neutral since May 2012, again

Above, the issue of the non-neutrality has been brought up, but it hasn't really been answered. So I bring it up once more. The non-neutrality tag was added by Orland with the following reason: "This article is largely based on a few incidents, combined with personal reflections. There is an alarming lack of references to relevant legislation etc". A lot has happened with the article during the intervening 4½ years (see the article as per 19 May 2012), and it is my impression that the original reason is not valid any more. A non-neutrality tag should be removed when it is no longer justified. I would therefore like to know:

1. whether someone is still of the opinion that the article is not neutral, and (if so)
2. which sentences or paragraphs need to be changed to make the article neutral.

When nobody argues (and gives a reason) for continued non-neutrality, I will remove the tag within a month or so. Best wishes, Hanno (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is still undue weight on a small number of incidents involving foreign services or citizens, giving their opinions too much value. But I have no veto here. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, more than a hundred lawyers, psychologists and social workers wrote an open letter last year criticising Barnevernet as "a dysfunctional organisation that makes many erroneous evaluations with severe consequences". [4]

kidnapping [5]

Please quote your sources supporting the services.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The

Why does the title include "the"?--Khajidha (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Silje Garmo

There are many articles in Polish (you wouldn't understand) and in Norwegian (I don't understand). The only English text https://christiancoalition.world/news/read2/warto-rozmawiac-jerzy-kwasniewski-silje-garmo Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 state of art

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/norway/articles/how-norways-child-welfare-service-is-creating-world-wide-controversy/ Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

170 leading Norwegian professionals involved in child protection sent an open letter to the Children’s Minister, accusing Barnevernet of being a ‘dysfunctional organisation which makes far-reaching errors of judgment with serious consequences’. [6]Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That's damned if I do, damned if I don't: if a child dies or gets maimed because they did not intervene, they get blamed, if they intervene and the parents get angry, NCWS gets blamed. So, they will get blamed regardless of what they do. Also, spanking children has been outlawed, but there are still parents (especially foreigners) who still don't get it. So, yes, according to Norwegian law, spanking is child abuse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone should inform the foreigners what are rules in Norwey. Someone apparently fails.Xx236 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes...Definitely a criminal organization from the state of Norway itself. There is no room for any discussion. 178.237.219.136 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

2019

• https://saveyourchildren.in/a-new-bbc-documentary-on-norwegian-child-protection-by-marianne-haslev-skanland/ Xx236 (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Simplification

Reverted 7 edits by Norwaybreakshumanrights (talk): Largely cited to facebook which is not a RS (TW) You have removed recent information about expulsion of Kowalski, not from FB.Xx236 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Amy Jacobsen

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2019/july/norwegian-nightmare-barnevernet-preys-on-children-and-parents-nbsp Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

CBN is crying persecution (crying wolf). It is a partisan source with an axe to grind. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your sources please.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As stated before, Bodnariu's own church published an official statement that there is no persecution against Christians in Norway. So it is Bodnariu's own statement that they were religiously persecuted, their church does not think so. And, yes, a Norwegian Christian newspaper was very specific that they shouldn't cry wolf. [7], [8], [9]. And, in most cases when parents are cooperative, NCWS simply appoints some form of coaching or supervision instead of removing the children from their parents. Parents have then to admit they were wrong and are willing to improve the situation and there is no big fuss. That's part of their culture: be honest and cooperating. While the Romanian culture is that one should deny all wrongdoing and quarrel strongly about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Erik Brøyn was sentenced to prison under the country’s child pornography laws.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/lifestyle/case-exposing-double-standards-norways-cps Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Child Welfare Services" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Child Welfare Services. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1#Child Welfare Services until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on this wiki page seen

Seeing the edits on this page, some are editing this page to Theft Services or organised Crime Services

A semi protected status can be granted to prevent this.

I believe such cases have increased after the movie Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway released in my home country of India, which shows a case related to this organisation, following which some editors with Indian IPs are vandalizing this page SunnyandBunny 21 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)