In this article you hear the voice of children against the Child Protection Services (CPS) – two girls who ran back to their mother after years of forced foster care and a little boy whose cries for his mother went unheeded. Also note the way the child who resists being separated from his family is drugged into submission by the system. This is also yet another story of Western CPS preying on mothers fleeing domestic violence.
This article startlingly anticipates the bizarre and tragic drama that unfolded in April 2018 in Britain in the case of Baby Alfie Evans. It would appear that children as state property has an ancient legacy in Europe.
A Member of the European Parliament writes about Norway’s Orwellian system of “child protection”.
A case for abandoning utopian communitarian ideals in child welfare for a balanced approach that gives due consideration to family and love in child-raising.
Danish-based Indian journalist Mrutyuanjai Mishra writes about the proposed “ghettoudspil 2030” law that targets Danish ghetto areas where immigrants tend to be concentrated and under which it would be easier for child protection authorities to remove immigrant children. This appears to be an extension of steadily tightening immigration rules that are even discriminating against returning Danish expatriate’s families, particularly those with foreign spouses.
Not only has the child protection industry been ignoring the culture of abuse of children outside the home, they have been guilty of molesting children themselves. What this does tell us is that the child protection industry has not been under sufficient scrutiny to keep to any standards – whether in the character of the people it hires, or in the quality of the work being done.
UNICEF’s and international aid-organisations’ nation-wise ranking criteria for babies and children are racist and unhelpful.
Tales of unending despair from the “happiest” country of the world.
Regardless of where you stand on child protection agencies, with thousands of children being torn annually from their parents in Scandinavian countries, they can hardly claim to be the “happiest” in the world. Do we really have in Scandinavia a unique and historic case of parental dysfunction? Or are parents being misjudged by their system?
In this article, Denmark-based Indian journalist Mrutyuanjai Mishra claims that Scandinavia’s social welfare agencies are causing a human rights crisis with the systematic wrongful removal of children from parents. He argues that this state-sponsored child snatching is driven by an aggressive version of feminism that views the family as an outdated patriarchal institution which oppresses children who need to be “saved” by being removed from their parents. But the result has been the unfair targeting of the poor, the uneducated, migrants and, recently, fathers in general.
Professors Nandita Chaudhary and Heidi Keller question the application of Attachment Theory in the field of child development. They point out various settings in which the universalising methods and practices of Attachment Theory would not apply and would lead to an incorrect evaluation of there being attachment failure between a parent and child. This paper has important insights for child protection as Attachment Theory is a key tenet of modern child protection thinking. Child protection agencies are removing babies and toddlers by judging the attachment with a parent (usually the mother) to have ‘failed’ even where there is no actual evidence of harm to the child.