ShutUp! Media
Productions
Independently Protecting Your Rights From Underground
Abducted Infants, Persecution and Propaganda
Vibeke, Ken Joar and Aria
The couple Vibeke and Ken Joar, are among the many parents in Norway, who have been exposed to the unthinkable, and were deprived of their little daughter, just three weeks old.
Without prior knowledge about the family, never having seen the home of the couple, and without meeting the child's father, who lives with the child's mother, employees at the Norwegian organ for child protection, Barnevernet, made the decision of forcefully removing their new born infant.
Baby Aria was removed without a court order from Moringen maternal institution owned by the state organ for foster-care, Buf-etat. mother, Vibeke, was forced to go to the center by police after birth, under threats of losing her child if she did not obey. This action, called "voluntary measure of help" was done when the child's father was not present. When Vibeke said she wished to go home, baby Aria was taken by force, and placed at a secret location after the arbitrary abduction.
This story has aroused international interest and support, among others, from a member of the European Parliament, Tomáš Zdechovský.
Just even weeks after the forced removal of baby Aria, contrary to Norwegian law and international human rights conventions, the county appeal board, Fylkesnemd in Lørenskog, with undersigned members, Leo Reiff, Haktor Helland, Tonje Alice Flaten Bråten, Ellen Andersen and Eli Volckmar had made a resolution, recommending long term foster care and forced adoption of Aria, including a recommendation that parents could be given the opportunity to see pictures of their daughter, instead of visitation rights. The county appeal board also recommends that the parents are denied their right to appeal the decision, by removing their legal standing.
Excerpts from the resolution provided by, and property of Ken Joar Olsen. Reproduction with permission only. Contact justiceforbabyaria@gmail.com
Direct translation to show the unnatural language of the documents, lacking the grammatical fluency expected in legal documents.
Excerpts from resolution:
People who express themselves against the Norwegian government's human rights violations, are often subjected to threats and attacks on their name and reputation. The made-up word, "violatable" is used in a condescending manner about parents who do not tolerate their own and their children's rights being violated with serious consequences. It is not uncommon that psychiatric "diagnoses" are arbitrarily given parents by social workers at Barnevernet and members of the county appeal board. This practice is supported by the judiciary. Attacks on the freedom of expression and opinion of those who express themselves against the authorities, occur.
The father of baby Aria was subjected to arbitrary arrest after publishing the name of the Barnevernet leader who had made the decison to forcefully remove Ken Joar's and Vibeke's daughter from her family. This is an actual description of Ken Joar by employees at Barnevernet, and the county appeal board.
"When it comes to "mentalizing ability", father is "violatable", and he has a conduct that fits into an anti social personality disorder. In reference to the many Facebook posts he has."
According to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Human Rights Convention, the placement of a child in state custody is to be regarded a temporary measure, with aimed return to the parents.
Parents who have experienced being violated by the Norwegian authorities (Barnevernet), are encouraged to share their story with the Council of Europe, which has started a survey on Norwegian authorities violating the European Human Rights Convention.
According to the Child Welfare Act in Norway, a child should only be placed away from his or her home, if there is serious harm inflicted onto the child, and with a return to the family in mind.
United Nations Children's Convention also emphasizes that a public care order is required for a period, the child has the right to frequent and continuous contact with the parents, and that a decision about removing a child from his or her home, must be undertaken by an independent tribunal court, and the situation must be evaluated by competent authorities.
Norway as a state party to these conventions has made a commitment to abide by these.
Yet decisions on forceful child removal are made by a public administrative body, which is not a tribulnal court, Fylkesnemd, county appeal board. This practice that is a direct violation of the CRC, along with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opens up for an arbitrary system of potential political persecution, financially motivated kidnappings and other forms of child-exploitation with severe consequences.
Visitation reports show a different reality than stated. More at:
Attacks on name on reputation; human right violation and criminal offence under Norwegian criminal law
Natasha, Erik and their twins
"Placement in foster-home.
The placement in foster home is the best alternative for Aria. This is pr. today evaluated as long term, regarding growing up and future adoption."
"Secondly that removing parental rights will indicate that the parents will no longer have legal standing. Father has expressed that he will never give up in the question of having the daily care for Aria. Constant appeals will create unrest for the child. Removing legal standing will prevent constant claims on getting back the daily care of her.
Visitation
In this case it is especially the estimated duration of the placement and Aria's age, that are essential for the evaluation of extent of visitations. As stated earlier, it is assumed that the placement will be permanent in regards to growing up, and Barnevernet will with great propability consider adoption in the future."
Another couple who have been in the international media, Natasha and Erik, experienced Norwegian police officers storming the delivery room, abducting their twins who were only a few hours old.
Mum Natasha was accused of being mentally challenged. According to TV2, the doctor who diagnosed Natasha as 13 year old, said that this was done by assumption. "This was also the rationale Barnevernet used to deprive them of their twin girls in the delivery room, but the diagnosis has since been refuted by two expert psychologists who have examined Natasha." "It was concluded that she was within the normal range" Nevertheless, Barnevernet automatically claim the twins in permanent foster fcare.
The parents managed to win back their twins, but were placed at a family institution with their babies.
The couple were told by Barnevernet staff that their daughters would be removed from the family for the second time, before the matter was dealt with by the county appeal board and legal system. This resulted to the family moving from the family institution to Poland, where they applied for political asylum, to protect their twin girls. After the family had moved, thus not under Norwegian jurisdiction, a meeting was held by the county appeal board in Norway, without the parents present, and a decision was made to place the twins away from their family again.
Nevertheless the Norwegian news channel, TV2, responsible editor Olav T. Sandnes, claims that the Polish police cooperates with the Norwegian police to find family, and that the case is about child abduction. During Asbjørn Øyhovden's interview with the couple in Poland, attempts are made to persuade them to report themselves to the Norwegian police, "for the sake of the children".
Considering that the resolution by the county appeal board claiming the children of Natasha and Erik to state custody in Norway, was made when the family was no longer within Norwegian jurisdiction, and the fact that Erik and Natasha enjoy legal custody of their children, they have not violated Norwegian law. The case has not been ruled by a tribunal court, a fact that also points out the arbitrary nature of the case, that can be described as persecution.
"Aria was placed ca. one week after birth, and has not developed a bond to her parents. Attachment will therefore neither be maintained, nor etablished. It is yet a long time till Aria will have reached a level of development where it can be expected that she has developed an understanding for her situation as foster-child. She will the following years have the need to get attached to her foster-parents and to experience the foster-home as her home. A frequent visitation plan will create insecurity around this process of attachment, which will be harmful for Aria's basic experience of safety. The intent of the visitations will thus be for Aria and the parents to have knowledge of each other.
At first, Aria has not had much reactions during visitations, but at the last visitations there has been more and more uneasiness. With few and short visitations she will no longer know them. It will seem scary for her, and one asks oneself how many times she must be exposed to them, also thinking about their functioning. Instead of frequent visitations, an alternative is, that the parents get pictures of Aria."
Photo, TV2
Photo, Justice for Baby Aria
A brief and concise summary in English,
approximately 1-2 pages,
is recommended to be sent to
the Council of Europe:
Maren LAMBRECHT@coe.int
Tanja KLEINSORGE@coe.int
September 10th, 2016
This article is about two families, how they have been treated by Norwgian authorities, and concluded with a notice about the Council of Europe starting a survey on alledged violations on the European Human Right Convention in child welfare cases in Norway.