There is a new posting on the facebook site which should be read:
It contains several things which must in my view be judged as negative.
"- Initially, we reported that Ruth was left at home with baby Ezekiel. It turns out that Ruth was not left home with the baby; she was arrested and taken to the police station at the same time that the two older boys were taken by the Barnevernet.
… It turns out that Marius was also arrested, at work, and taken to the police for interrogation. Communications with Marius and Ruth were then impossible as the police confiscated their phones.
Monday, Nov. 16th …. After many hours of interrogation, Marius and Ruth were allowed to return home with baby Ezekiel."
So the parents were immediately taken by the police, apparently arrested (apparently, because asking them to go to the police station need not be a formal arrest. The fact that the children are taken could very well be enough to make them comply.) Certainly the treatment of them by the police seems to have been quite harsh. This kind of procedure means the CPS will fight to the bitter end never to let the children out of their clutches.
"- Tuesday, Nov 17th, Barnevernet, accompanied by four policemen, came to the Family home and took 3 month old baby Ezekiel because they considered that the mother was “dangerous.” At the same time, Ruth was told that their four children were placed in two separate foster homes, have already integrated, and that the children don’t miss them."
Claiming that the children had, after being taken from their parents in that way, "integrated" i foster homes only one day later, shows "attachment theory" in practice. It is by far the most dangerous device of the CPS at the present time and has been heavily sanctioned by state directed policy, rubber-stamped by the Raundalen committee, and is practically never questioned.
"The lawyer highlighted that the Barnevernet should have been presented parents with written legal accusations at the time of the arrest and that it was the baby’s right to remain with the mother while being breastfed."
This lawyer apparently either totally trusts the CPS to act in children's "best interest", or is completely ignorant of actual practice: Children are torn away from breast-feeding and before the whole time, even taken by the CPS in the hospital minutes after being born. In fact, the prevalent idea is that children should be taken as early as possible, to prevent them from "attaching" to the parents.
"After meeting with their lawyer, Marius was able to look at the docket clarifying the legal accusations filed against them. Among other things, there was the accusation that the parents and grandparents are radical Christians and are indoctrinating the children. The Barnevernet abused their power, broke Norwegian laws, already harshly stacked against parents, and violated the due course of the law as established in that country."
The reference to Norwegian law seems to have come from the family's lawyer. Again, it is alarming if the lawyer thinks that the CPS having broken the law means that the Bodnariu family will easily win through and be re-united. Some thousands of families in Norway have experienced such breaches of the law. They believe that when this is shown in the County Committee or in court, they will emerge triumphant. Great is their confusion and disbelief when no account is taken of it. In fact, in most cases the law does not permit a lot of the things the CPS do, but they are allowed to do it all the same.
When a lawyer argues as if the legal field of child protection is as the words of the law prescribe, the lawyer is ignorant, or speaks against better knowledge. Either way the result is the same: It gives the CPS the upper hand.
"Legal counsel has advised Marius and Ruth to refrain from disseminating further in-depth details of the case, as customary in any legal proceedings, to avoid stalling and/or negatively impacting their Family’s case."
This is quite revealing about the lawyer. Both the CPS, the courts and also the private parties' lawyers tend to buy this propaganda about silence benefitting the family's case. In reality, the family is then utterly dependent on the lawyer. The lawyer should know that nearly all child protection cases are won by the CPS regardless of what anyone – family and lawyer – does, and not pretend otherwise. In fact, if the family shuts up, the CPS and the whole bureaucracy have even greater power. One is then practically in a secret court case, very much as in Kafka. – This has been going on for several decades, in the hands of the lawyers and the judges. Why should they be trusted? What have they accomplished, other than to implement every system-created "idea"?
In all the devastating destruction by the CPS in Britain, one complaint rises above the rest in utter clarity: about how bad the situation is because of the secret family courts.
A fundamental need in a society under the rule of law is open court cases, open reporting from the cases – transparency. Open procedures all the way through is the only way to try and stop the "system" when the system has completely gone off the track and courts and judges and lawyers nevertheless "believe" naïvely in its excellence.
Secrecy is a rather sure sign that what goes on cannot stand the light of day. The Bodnariu family should know that in Adele Johansen's case against Norway (case (a) ) the Norwegian state even tried to get the European Court of Human Rights to hold closed hearings! With the argument that CPS cases in Norway were confidential!
Of course the Norwegian state and all their minions will threaten the family with sanctions if the family goes public. They always do. Of course they will say that by publicising, the parents prove that they are unfit as parents. They always do. But family lawyers should know better than to yield. In actual fact official Norway is quite bothered about all the information that the internet makes possible, and about the seeds of international networks of people who are working to put a stop to CPS abuses. Look at what is being done on a high political level in the Czech Republic and in India. The Nigerian government, too, has acted very well, as have the Russian children's ombudsman and a Polish court. Malaysia sent a top cabinet minister to get three children out of Sweden. (There are articles about this in the on Forum Redd Våre Barn (Forum Rescue Our Children).)
In contradistinction to this, look at the limp Norwegian press, which follows official Norway's lead like faithful dogs and believe unquestioningly in the official rigmarole. Norwegian press certainly shuts up about most important details in CPS cases and takes refuge in their "rules of circumspection" about "sensitive" matters. What is the result?
" Conversations or accusations against Norwegian authorities on this page, or other venues regarding this situation, do not benefit the Family or situation."
Oh indeed! – If each family buckles under like this, the CPS atrocities will go on forever. Each single case will not be helped by silence, rather it will cement the idea that the family has grave faults to hide and the children must be "saved" from them. Lack of free information will not prepare the population for ever new cases either, so the CPS are well served by silence.
A characteristic of violent abusers within families is that the abuser isolates his victims from other people and threatens them to shut up - or else! Here we have the Norwegian CPS and Norwegian courts and lawyers doing exactly that. It is necessary to understand, digest, the parallel, and act on it. Unfortunately, CPS victims do not have the understanding and help that victims of abuse from family members have from society at large. Rather, the agents of our society are the ones who abuse and threaten them. But they victims can support each other and contribute to stopping this system of abuse by telling the truth clearly and not letting themselves be cowed into submission.
The Bodnariu family have experienced what a Norwegian state agency does. Apparently they still have great trust in what the system people say.
"Monday, Nov. 23rd, is a very important day for the Family. The older children will be interviewed by “specialists” and the Barnevernet will determine if the case will proceed to Court. It is expected that if enough evidence against Marius and Ruth is not gathered before Monday, the children might be allowed to go home with their parents and as a family. We are praying and hoping for this outcome, as our efforts support the reuniting of the children with their parents."
"It is expected that .." Who expects?
This shows, again, some trust in what the authorities say – or perhaps in what their lawyer says. It does happen from time to time that children are let go early on in a case like this, but if so, it has nothing very much to do with the merits of the case. It is just accidental. Unfortunately.