The Case of Bodnariu Family – A Norwegian Perspective

The Bodnariu family

I was asked lately, a number of times, why I am not commening on the case of Bodnariu family, a Romanian married to a Norwegian, whose children were taken recently by Barnevernet, the Child Welfare Service in Norway.

First, I want to express very clearly my compassion for this family. Whatever the case of this very painful situation, I hope no family would ever go through this. I also hope that, with wisdom and good will on both siodes, the situation will be solved, and children will be returned soon to their natural family.

Secondly, I did not comment on this until now because I do not know the facts. All I know is what the affected family is saying and what others comment about it. However, we do not have yet any official point of view and, really, we do not have the facts. I do not use to hold opinions on things I do not know enough about. I know that every Romanian has at least two (often conflicting) opinions about any given matter, but I am not a fan of this national sport.

Thirdly, in light of the above, when I was approached by somebody about this matter, I have suggested that those concerned should approach Forum 18, a respected Norwegian agency spoecialised in religious persecution. That have the credit of the public, the respect of the government, and the necessary expertise to explore the actual facts. I am not aware that anubody has done that yet. rather, the virtual space is filled with a sort of hysteria, if not real paranoia, about some ocult conspiracy. This is promoted especially by the fundamentalist comandos if the US (Cristian Ionescu and the like), who are stirring up regularly such campaigns in Romania, in order o justofy their financial campaigns (it’s all about money, stupid).

Knowing all this, I have decided to ask the opinion of  Norwegian friend, who is a respected educational specialist, and who knows very well the context there. With his permision, I share with you here his response, without disclosing his name, in order to protect his privacy. I underlined in bold the most imporant passages.

* * *

Dear Danut,

Sorry for the delay! I have been somewhat busy and I wanted to check a little before I answered you.

I guess we are talking about the Bodnariu family living in Nausdal. I have found information on the Internet, mostly blogs. Strangely I found nothing on Norwegian national news media. This is strange, since they usually are quick to report on matters concerning the Child Welfare Service (Barnevernet in Norwegian). Still there might be local media interest, but my search did not find it.

Here is what I found, mostly based on the appeal made by the father´s brother in “Popas pentru suflet”.

Mid November the Child Welfare Service in Nausdal took custody of the five children, the youngest 3 months old. This has apparently been done without a court order or documentation. It is claimed that in Norway children are considered the property of the state and that the Child Welfare Service targets immigrant families or families where one parent is of different nationality. It is also claimed that the Child Welfare Service rewards its employees for “generating” leads that can create casework for the organization. It is also claimed that teachers in school encourage children to report parents to notify the teacher if the parents make the child do something the child finds unappealing – like homework. It is also claimed that the Child Welfare Service has a long history of acting on unimaginable grounds like “the father putting the child to do certain chores in the home, the baby sleeping in the same bed as the parent or the child weighing one kilogram lighter than the national average for his/her age group”. In the Bodnariu case it is claimed that the reason given by the Child Welfare Service was “religious indoctrination”.

As you will understand, I have no way of knowing what has happened in the Bodnariu family and what the reasons of the Child Welfare Service in Nausdal were for doing what they did. One of the problems in cases involving the Child Welfare Service (and the Heath Service or the Social Service) is that they are bound by client confidentiality and are by law forbidden to “go public” no matter what they are accused of. In some cases (mostly if the press is very involved) there will be an inquiry, but that takes time, and by the time the facts are established the press has lost interest, and very few will be informed of the results of the inquiry. In the Bodnariu case the events are so recent that the public in reality has no chance of knowing what is what. So my comments will be general and focus on what is likely and not.

The claim that “religious indoctrination” is the reason for intervention is hard to believe. Next to the Church of Norway, the Pentecostal community is one of the largest religious movements in Norway (about 300 congregations) and it is unlikely that the Pentecostal community would not have reacted. There is no tradition in the Child Welfare Service that belief or religion per se is a reason for intervention. There are examples where the Child Welfare Service has taken custody when belief has led to life threatening decisions on the part of the parent. This is the case when Jehovah’s Witnesses deny a child life saving surgery because surgery would involve blood transfusion. In such cases parents loose custody on a temporary basis and parental custody is restored after the treatment of the child has been ended.

One claim that often has been made is that ignorance of cultural differences can be the grounds for intervention from the Child Welfare Service. This might be true in some cases, but sometimes it also seems to be the case that parents are ignorant of Norwegian law. In Norway it is by law forbidden for parents to use physical punishment, and repeated use of physical punishment could be cause for intervention. It is however important to remember that taking custody of a child never will be the first action taken. The Child welfare Service is obliged to offer counseling, help in the family, a support person for the family etc. and only as a last resort taking custody should be considered.

A court order is not required (or usual), but taking custody shall always be based on a decision made by the Child Welfare Service Board in the municipality. In emergency cases immediate action can be taken, but then the local Child Welfare Service Board must approve this afterwards. In every county there also is a Child Welfare Service board (independent from the municipalities) where decisions made by the local authorities can be appealed. In the Bodnariu case an appeal was made, but two days ago the family lost the appeal and the loss of custody of the children was upheld.

The claims that the Child Welfare Service is an “industry” rewarding employees for creating cases to improve funding is absurd. Government funding of the Municipalities (Norway has a system of local autonomy) is not based on local number of cases or how many families have lost custody of their children. It is true that expenditure on Child Welfare Services has gone up in recent years, but a more credible explanation is that Child Welfare is considered important in Norway. That the schools encourage children to report parents for making them do homework is equally absurd. We have an ongoing discussion about the benefits of homework and worries that children in some families will lack parental support for homework. Because this is the case, homework would increase the social differences, but the argument has been to increase time in school so that all children could get help with their “homework”.

I am also surprised [of the statement] that children in Norway are considered the property of the state (in the brother´s words “Children are considered property of the state; a premise utilized by the Barnevernet to abduct children and place them in foster family care for any unchecked/unregulated/unaudited reason as upheld by the Barnevernet”. In different surveys and indexes Norway has achieved very high scores. On the UN Human Development Index from 2014 (2015 not published yet) Norway was number 1 (same as in 2013), and on the “Happiness index” in Live Science for 2015 Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark and Norway were top four with no statistically significant difference in the score of the four countries. I doubt that the researchers involved in these reports would have missed the fact that children in Norway are the property of the state. In fact I can tell you that children in Norway are not the property of the state [see HERE and HERE].

So, what of the Bodnariu family and what has happened to them? As I said earlier, I do not know, and it will at the moment be extremely difficult for anybody not party to the case to know. The parents are angry and troubled (and that is understandable) and have their version supporting their frustration. The Child Welfare Service has said nothing and will not be allowed to say anything because they are bound by client confidentiality and we must remember that the information we have about what the Child Welfare Service has said and done is from the frustrated parents.

Norwegian media have not reported on the case and the decision to take custody of the Bodnariu children has been upheld by the County Child Welfare Service Board. To me this signals that there is more to the case than what we know at the moment.

Different parties who have been engaged in this case point to reactions in other countries (Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic) on the behaviour of the Norwegian Child Welfare Service. There have been some cases, but the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have checked them all. Norway has offered corrective information and information about how the Norwegian Child Welfare Service works and how it is organized, but there seem to be some “spin doctors” who for unknown reasons want to “spin” these cases.

The Minister for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, Solveig Horne has taken the accusations from abroad seriously in a column in Norway’s most influential paper, Aftenposten.

At the end of the column she says:

“More resources granted, and a study

Horne noted that more than 4,000 Lithuanians had protested against the negative picture presented of Barnevernet in their country. Information about Barnevernet is also being presented both through her ministry and the foreign ministry, to clarify Norwegian law and parents’ rights.

Horne said the Directorate in charge of child and family issues (Bufdir) has been granted more resources to boost competence and help local governments as advisers in specific cases with international aspects. And she has commissioned a study to see whether Barnevernet workers evaluate cases involving Norwegian children differently from those involving children of non-Norwegians. Bufdir, she wrote, is also in the midst of a three-year project aimed at increasing confidence in its operations within immigrant communities in Norway.”

Information on the Norwegian Child Welfare Service on the home pages of the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Best regards,


* * *

In a further message, my friend added:

I agree that there is much hysteria in this case. We must however remember that no matter what has happened the family is in turmoil, but it does not help their case when people surrounding them present unreasonable and untrue “facts”. It is custumary in cases where the Child Welfare Service takes custody of children in a family that there are certain demands as to changes the family should make, if they want the custody to be returned to them. Making unreasonable and untrue claims will just support the case of the Child Welfare Service. My advice would be to try to seek the support of their Pentecostal community. No matter what happened they need support. They should also see if they can find grounds for cooperation, maybe with the assistance of the community. So, please feel free to use the information, but be ready for some unpleasant reactions!

Author: DanutM

Anglican theologian. Former Director for Faith and Development Middle East and Eastern Europe Region of World Vision International

90 thoughts on “The Case of Bodnariu Family – A Norwegian Perspective”

  1. It seems to me you have already made up your mind on this matter. So, I do not see the point of continuing. Have a good day.


  2. To say none of this would have happened if the parents had respected the law is a presumption and a statement i personally wouldnt make because it appears from the many cases that have come to light in Norway, Barnevernet’s reasons for removing kids have been very arbitrary and quite frightening actually, because it’s hard to guess what would be cause for losing your children, apart from the extreme. I would always be wondering if I’m doing something wrong to catch their attention. And perhaps that’s the reason many Norwegians haven’t spoken up–they don’t want to draw attention to themselves by criticizing the system. Or they simply don’t know because noone is talking about it. It’s easy to see why so many families who have lost children didn’t say anything to anyone– either they were told it would hurt their chances of getting their kids back or their ashamed. Afterall, nothing says you’re a terrible parent more than having your children removed by social services. So in the end, noone is talking about it and this institution grows more and more powerful.
    As to the religious persecution claim, I don’t think it’s that far fetched. I agree, a lot of people leaving comments on social media are very emotionally involved and exaggerate (something I don’t tolerate much of either) however, the initial complaint from the school principal, as far as we’ve been told, was because of the family’s belief in God punishing sin. I also read in Peter Costea’s account, a lawyer from Texas who had access to some of the file, that the family’s religion was mention several times in Barnevernet’s meeting minutes or some documented meeting, I’m sorry I don’t recall exactly. (I’m sure you can find his website with a quick search.) In fact, I think Ruth’s family was also mentioned in that context, which may explain why the kids were not placed with her family. At least here in the States, extended family members are always considered first– for obvious reasons– if the best interest of the children is truly a priority.


  3. I agree with you that the action of Barnevernet is exaggerated in relation to the seriousness of the offence. And most probably they did not do due diligence and overreacted.
    Yet, none of this would have heppened if the parents respected the law and did not spank their children.
    What I also dislike profoundly is the dishonnest way in which this was presented as a case of religious persecution. This has become a popular sport in the US among fundamentalists and they are behind this ugly campainh a whole country is demonised.
    As a Christian, I would have nothing to do with this.
    PS You cannot legitimately compare the US legal system with the one in Norway. To give you an example, the law in Romania is very similar to the one in Norway, but in my country the law is a joke and nobody takes it seriously, including Christians. When, to this, they add the claim that they live in a sort of parallel universi and are responsible only to the law of God, interpreted literalistically, you realise we are already in an Orwellian space. Pure madness.


  4. If I understood your position correctly, from reading your replies to various comments, you are sympathetic to the family but believe the law is the law and the law is clear and well-known in Norway that corporal punishment is illegal and therefore a punishable act, correct? My question for you, sir, is do you know what the consequence/legal punishment is for spanking in Norway? I don’t, but I imagine that it’s not the removal of the children on the first offensive before a proper investigation has been performed. I work in the legal world and value justice and respect the law and see its value. Justice, however, also involves the principle that “the punishment must fit the crime” as exists here in the States. This is what I find very unreasonable in the case of the Bodnariu family. The law is clear and they admitted they broke the law, however, their punishment does not fit the crime. It is the equivalent of you driving past the speed limit, knowing full well the speed limit but chose to break the law anyway and getting thrown in jail for speeding. Or punching someone out of anger for mistreating your wife and commiting assault, a known crime, and having the maximum penalty applied without taking into account your character and lack of past criminal record, or without the testimony of your family as to your character, that you’re generally a peaceful man, etc. None of this has happened, as we’ve been told by the Bodnariu parents in their case. There was no investigation of this sort before the children were removed. The extended family, employers and coworkers were not interviewed. I’ve seen a video of close friends with whom the Bodnariu’s lived for several months while they were renovating their home say they were never contacted, even though they witnessed first-hand how Marius and Ruth parent their children. Instead the children were removed– the maximum penalty unjustly applied.


  5. Am totuși o nedumerire cu privire la “orbirea” de care se dă dovadă în această discuție vis-a-vis de Barnevernet și acuzațiile care se aduc împotriva acestei organizații – ați auzit de zicala “nu iese fum fără foc”? Dacă Barnevernet este o organizație care lucrează corect și fără abuzuri de unde atâtea acuzații împotriva ei, acuzații care nu țin numai de cazul Bodnariu, dar și de alte exemple din diferite părți ale lumii. Oare nu cumva acest “fum” este o dovadă că avem de-a face cu un “foc”? Nu contest faptul că emoțiile mari joacă un rol determinant în prezentarea cazului Bodnariu și că ceea ce cunoaștem vine dintr-o perspectivă unilaterală, dar refuz totuși să accept ideea că acțiunea întreprinsă de Barnevernet împotriva familiei Bodnariu este justificată în metodologic.


  6. Stimata Cornelia Popa, sunteti una dintre putinele persoane care si-au exprimat aici aprecierea pentru incercarea mea de prezenta lucrurile mai obiectiv. Pentru cei mai multi, asta este o dovada de lipsa de compasiune fata de parinti si copii, daca nu chiar de un act de tradare fata de interesele propriei traditii religioase. Din fericire, Dumnezeu este cel care ne judeca, nu oamenii. Si asta este ceea ce conteaza in cele din urma.


  7. Oh, Doamne! Degeaba va chinuiti sa scrieti obiectiv, indiferent ce cuvinte ati folosi, tot se vor gasi cativa care sa interpreteze nuantele. Eu am cautat informatii despre caz pe net deoarece mass-media din tara manipuleaza stirile infiorator. Am fost bucuroasa sa pot gasi in cateva locuri si alte date despre caz. Pe la noi nu se poate discuta rezonabil, cu argumente pro-contra civilizate, daca ai alta parere decat curentul general esti potopit de insulte. Oricum, ma bucur sa pot afla diverse perspective asupra cazului si sa-mi pot face o parere mai putin “infierbantata”.


  8. Nota zece pentru ,politically correct’, domnule Manastireanu.
    Ca rezumat din ce ati postat si comentat, eu asa spicuiesc:
    Nu imi dau cu parerea dar rog cativa prieteni sa isi dea cu parerea.
    Nu imi place teoria conspiratiei dar va spun ca e ‘fishy’ si cam suna a conspiratie.

    Desi ati vizitat multe orase sunteti tot un roman neaos. Ca in poezia lui Ioanid cu cioara fara coada.
    Va doresc mult har si intelepciune!
    (Nu e nevoie sa imi raspundeti, de ani de zile nu am comentat in spatiul virtual si nu cred ca voi mai intra prea curand pe blogul dumneavoastra)


  9. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, be it a wrong one.
    You have no idea of the real facts, but you already have an opinion, that is not wise, to say the least.
    Did it ever occur to you that the reason of this secrecy – exagerrated, I admit – is the intention to avoid the disgusting show that the press is making of such events? Pray a lot, think more, talk less. It is much more helpful.


  10. So interesting that a country would subject its citizens to silence, to not tell anyone, of course they would because what they do is absurd. They steal children. Living in that country you are probably fed lies and your so called statistics are fabricated by those who steal. We are looking from the outside in and it is dark in your country. A dark turmoil stirs and I pray that the people stand up for their loved ones.


  11. Tovarasul ‘A’, dvs. nu va este clar inca faptul ca nu stau de vorba cu lasii, care balacaresc din spatele pseudonimelor?
    Ceea ce scriu eu, bine sau rau, o fac deschis, cu subiect si predicat. Oamenii bicisnici, ca dvs., latra si musca pe la spate. Sa va fie rusine. Banuiesc ca pretindeti a fi crestin. Nu va faceti iluzii.


  12. Va multumesc pentru articol, e binevenit in acest caz predominat de story-uri si supozitii, si nu pe FACTS si argumente rationale.
    Subscriu la cele subliniate de dvs.
    Poate situatia aceasta va aduce lumina si in comunitatile crestine care cred cu tarie in teoriile lor cu privire la disciplinare si contrazic sau ignora parerea specialistilor si chiar legislatia in unele state. Eu mi-as dori o politica sociala si de protectia copilului mai performanta si mai protectiva fata de copii si in Romania.

    Toate cele bune,


  13. Fara nicio indoiala. La fel si cu atentia lui Dumnezeu fata de noi toti. Unii de altii ne putem ascunde, dar nu de el. Fie mila lui peste noi toti, si mai ales peste copii si parintii din fanilia Bodnariu.


  14. Observ, cu ingrijorare, ca boala scenaritica specifica fundamentalismului, incepe sa va afecteze si pe dvs. pe care va socoteam un om rational.
    da, ceva e putred in afacerea asta, si s-ar putea sa aflati cu surprindere ca este in alta parte decit crede Ionescu si adunatura de isterici din jurul lui.


  15. @DanutM … ft. trist se vede ca se apuca de atacuri ad hominum, cand o familie, si cinci copii sufera.

    Se intelege ca situatia familie B. este extrem de tragica, si metodele de zdruncinare a lui B. din N. asupra familie au fost ft. dure.

    Mi se pare ca elefantul din camera, nu este aceasta situatie tragica, dar cea ce se prezinta ca si “crestere Crestina” … asa cum spune si dl.Daniel Bodnariu: “DA, parintii au vrut sa-si creasca copiii in lumina Cuvantului lui Dumnezeu! Este o infractiune sa-ti disciplinezi copilul?? Atunci sistemul si legea voastra sunt fundamental anticrestine”.

    Intrebarea mea este, >>Ca Crestini din secolul XXI, putem intelege cele 3 versete/pasaje din Proverbe despre “the rod” ca un ALT FEL de model de educatie, care nu este fizic, si care nu foloseste “corporal punishment”? <<

    Liked by 1 person

  16. @Dl. Daniel Cristiana Bodnariu
    imi pare ra caci ati “Am citit ca in Danemarca sunt pedepsiti popii care nu cununa homsexuali.” NU ESTE ADEVARAT. Legea data in iunie 2011, spune ca cei-atrasi-de-acelas-gen au dreptul la casatorie in biserica de state (Folkekirken, People’s church) ca toti cetatenii tarii. DAR, pastorii au la fel dreptul de a refuza cuplul si ceremonia. Deci cuplul “special” trebuie sa-si gaseasca pastorul/pastorita care sa-i oficieze. … Este si chestia caci atunci cand un pastor/preot/præst aplica pt. o pozitie, este comitetul local care il angajeaza … si daca sunt liberali …il vor intreba cu siguranta daca va oficia “casatorii speciale.” Dar, asa cum este atitudinea generala a danezilor, au cort mare … vor ca toti sa fie inclusi, si sa aiba drepturi.


  17. @Denisa, I cannot speak for Norway, since I do not live there. I try to stay away from exagerations, emotional-appeals as form of persuasion, and extreme analogies. I have no doubt that power corrupts, and absolut power corrupts absolutely.

    In neighboring Scandinavian country down south, they say that these examples of abuses or overzealous activities would never happen. I cannot speak for the insititutions here in DK, but here is an anectode, a real & recent story:

    My son’s kindergarden friend near-future life was ruined by an overzealous psychologist who had to find a box that he fits in. Now this 6 yr. old kid is “autistic” and therefore is has only the option of attending a troubled school with children with huge handicaps. The mom is devastated, but instead of paying a private person to do the evaluation, she used the public (overzealous) servant (newly educated, w. little practical experience), and the records of the child are public. A local Christian voucher-school has refused the child, after mom paid the fees and was initially admitted. The reason: they read his public file, and were scared of allocating new resources (aka hiring a specialist) to deal with a “problem” child. Such is a “normal” story of a mom with an “abnormal” child. A very sad situation, when a child is being analyzed as an object, in most unfavorable circumstances, with no second-opinion options.

    I pray that the Bodnariu case gets resolved so B. can save face and also the parents can be reunited with the kids. An “expected” action, imho, would have been for B. to talk to the parents also, and to require them to take some parenting classes (for example) in other methods of “applying the rod” than using any physical punishments. Drunk drivers are given a 2nd chance, so why should not parents also?


  18. De-acord cu dvs: Justitia trebuie sa-si spuna cuvitnul. N-ati observant ca Justitia nu are autoritate asupra Benevarnet? La fel ca Immigration in USA. Anume e asa: sa eludeze puterea judecatoreasca. Pina la urma nedreptatitii se pot adresa justitiei… dar dupa ce totul s-a consumat. N- am fi auzit de judecatori/procurori care sa-i acuze pe alde Bodnariu? Presa din N zice ca exista un raport al Politiei; nimeni nu stie ce scrie-n el. Procurorii/judecatorii sunt in vacanta de Craciun? Ei intervin probabil dupa ce Benevaret-ul si-a gatat ancheta. Ati crescut copii si nepoti. Intrebati psihologii si vedeti daca sub presiune copiii nu pot sa-si schimbe varianta. Altfel de ce Benev nu i-a mai lasat pe copiii mari sa vorbeasca macar la telefon cu parintii? Ca sa nu-i influenteze. Dar ei nu-i influenteaza impotriva parintilor?
    Buna intrebarea de ce tace Biserica? Reportajul citat de mine era professional; jurnalistul nu-si spune parerea. El il intrvieveaza pe minsitru pt protectia familiei si copilului (caruia i se subordoneaza Bev>) Ala a spus doar: “sa va fie clar, copiii sunt luati pt binele lor” (de la familiile biologice). In rest nu poate spune nimic fiind confidential. Chiar asa prost oi fi eu? Ministru nu putea spune: oameni buni nu dati slanina la copii si aveti grija cum ii spalati la fund ca vi-i luam!!! De ce nu protejeaza familiile –ministrul ala grozav-educindu-le? Aceasta taina nordica e menita sa-si protejeze angajatii. Expertii Benev. sunt mai guralivi: “de vina sunt emigrantii pt ca ei nu-nteleg ca in Norvegia noi avem dreptul sa intram in familii”. De ce tace biserica? Conventia international a copilului unde e (daca N o fi semnat-o)? Ei intra in casa si te filmeaza cu copiii in baie… Reportajul spune ca au fost 6 mii copii sechestrati anul trecut (la 4 mil. locuitori cu natalitate scazuta). Anual, cresc cu 1 mie sechestratii; majoritatea emigranti. De ce tace biserica, organizatiile internationale? In urma scandalului cu unele tari (Lituania, Turcia, Cehia, India) s-a permis unor copii sa se repatrieze. De ce tace lumea? Recunosc o gresala: au avut curajul sa sechestreze un copil de musulman din Turcia…. Invatatorii sunt spioni ai Benev: se uita-n gura copiilor si trag cu urechea la ce vorbesc ca apoi sa sune la Benev sa vina aia sa-i ia. Parintii mint cu totii? Toti pretind ca n-au fost avertizati in prealabil! Unii au reusit s-o stearga peste granita in Danemarca; altii au fost prinsi la granita. Avocatii norvegieni sunt citati si ei, confirmind aceste cazuri. Iar UE -dupa spusa dvs- le da 10 cu felicitari. Merita! Unde e diversity and cultural sensitivity? Toate acestea n-au nicio legatura cu Bodnariu. El poate fi vinovat. Dar agentii B? Ei nu gresesc? Lucrez si eu la o caritate crestina: nefericirea oamenilor ne da noua o “piine”; e aspectul cel mai trist. Salariatii B isi cistiga o piine facind din tintar armasar. Cine-i poate verifica? Unde le sunt politicienii? Buna intrebarea dvs. Altfel n-ar avea cazuri daca n-ar face pe a-tot-stiutorii. Exista-n lume 7 miliarde de natingi (mai putin 4 mil. de norvegieni). Toti astia nu stiu sa-si invete copiii sa umble, sa stea pe olita, sa-i hraneasca… Bine ca au venit neo-comunistii norvegieni sa-i invete. Ceva e putred in afacerea asta…


  19. Well said Danut. I would not bother to even reply to some of the posts, imho.
    The Bodnariu family and kids situation is very sad. Let’s all continue to pray for them and hope the authorities will also analyze the whole situation. It sounds like there were quite a few misteps on all sides, and situation is snowballing out of proportion. God’s Peace.


  20. ‘Legea e complet de partea celor ce proteeaza drepturile copiilor.’ Asa si trebuie sa fie intr-o tara normala.
    Dar tocmai pentruca nu crede in ‘drepturile copiilor’, si ii considera pe acestia un soi de ‘proprietate’ a parintilor, Statele Unite n-au semnat conventia internationala cu privire la aceste drepturi. Si nu ma mir, daca cei mai multi americani gindesc ca dvs. La cealalta extrema se afla modelele etatiste, precum cel din Norvegia, care ii considera pe copii un soi de ‘proprietate’ a statului. Dvd. preferati primul model, eu socotesc ca amindoua sunt ‘tot un drac’. Cind copiii tratati drept simple obiecte, se ajunge la aberatii.
    Acum sa discutam putin despre justitie. Inter-un stat democratic modern, legea nu se discuta, ci se aplica. Daca cineva considera ca o lege este rea, are inainte, cred eu, doua optiuni valide.
    1. sa sfideze in mod explicit legea – asa cum am facu eu cind am refuzat, explicit, inaintea securistilor, de a da informatii despre strainii cu care ma intilneam – in acest caz insa, persoana in cauza trebuie sa-si asume, sinin, si fara a se plinge, riscul de a cadea sub incidenta legii;
    2. sa ralieze support cetatenesc si sa incerce schimbarea legii – lucru posibil, chiar daca nu usor, in orice societate democratica, inclusiv in cea norvegiana, dar nu in spatii totalitare, cum a fost Romania sub comunism.
    Existam, desigur, si o a treia optiune, pe care o socotesc insa nelegitima: sfidarea legii, fara asumarea deschisa si semina a consecintelor legale. Asta, cred eu, este ceea ce s-a intimplat in cazul Bodnariu. Ei si-au disciplinat fizic copiiii, asa cum fac cei mai multi romani, si cum, din pacate, am facut si eu, desi stiau ca acest lucru este ilegal in Norvegia. Iar cind Barnevernet le-a luat copiii, poe baza declaratiilor copiilor si a marturisirii parintilor, acestia au inceput sa strige si sa se considere nedreptatiti.
    Chiar asa? Daca voiau sa aiba copiii cu ei – si ce parinte nu vrea asta? – trebuiau sa raspecte legea sau sa incerce schimbarea ei. Iar daca au ales s-o ignore, ar trebui sa inceteze a se mai plinge si sa incerce, cu aceasta noua motivatie, sa determine schimbarea unei legi pe care o socotesc nedreapta.
    A fost reactia Barnevernet una exagerata. Si eu si dvs credem ca da. A fost ea determinata de atitudinea recalcitranta a parintilor? Foarte posibil, cred eu; nicidecum, credeti probabil dvs.
    Problema in speta se afla acum sub investigatie. Viom vedea care va fi verdictul. Dar, repet, atmosfera isterica creata inm jurukl acestui caz de fanatici fundamentalisti de genul lui Cristian Ionescu nu poate face decit rau.
    Si, pina voi reusi sa scriu din nou ceva mai amplu pe aceasta tema, iata citeva intrebari la care nu am inca raspuns:
    1. de ce tace comunitatea penticostala norvegiana? de ce nu a apelat familia Bodnariu la ajutorul acesteia? – eu am ceva trorii in legatura cu aceasta, dar sunt foarte curios sa aflu care este raspunsul; aceasta tacere mi se patre foarte suspecta si ridica o serie de intrebari in legatura cu statutul familiei in cauza in cadrul acestei comunitati.
    2. de ce nu s-a apelat la sprijinul regelui Mihai, care ar putea contacta casa regla norvegiana in legatura cu acest caz? desigur, spre deosebire de parlamentarii corupti angrenati deja in acest caz,si pentru ca regele Mihai sa faca asta este nevoie de fapte si de atitudini echilibrate, nu de isterii fundamentaliste; casa regala romana nu se va asocia niciodata cu amascarile lui Ionescu et comp.
    3. de ce nu a fost solicitat sprijinul membrului local al parlamentului norvegian? acesta ar fi putut face interpelari in parlament, cu o greutate mult mai mare decit istericalele de pe bloguri sau din strada.
    Ma opresc deocamdata aici. Voi reveni.


  21. Partea proasta d-le Manastireanu -pe care dvs refuzatri sa vedeti- e ca justita nu joacva nici un rol aici. Agemtia de protectie a copilului a decis far sa fie nevoie de vreo justitie. Copiii au fost luati; familaia anuntata ca se incepe procedura de adoptie definitiva. Ce mai aseptati sa hotarasca justita? Ca nu au fost vinovati si ca li se dau copiii inapoi? Sau ca sunt vinovati? Deja au fost executati: li s-au luat copiii. O femeie simpla ce zice ca are un copil luat de B. face o observatie la care nu m-am gindut. Agentia din N planifica foarte rar intilnirile cu parintii bilogici pina cind copiii mici se ataseaza de familia adoptica. Subtil si dracesc! Ieri familia B trebuia sa se intilneasca cu baieti. Agentia B… a uitat sa0i aduca pe copii… parca r fi fost niste petece de hirtie. Femeia aia simpla aea dreptate (ea avusese 3 intilnir pe an cu copilul rapit) … si-n felul acesta copilul uita parintii. Dvs asteptati deczizia justitiei? E luata de mult de la 16 Nov. Ce se intimpla acum? Copiii sunt coercitati ca declare suficiente lucruri contra paritnilor ca sa justifice deciia B. Mi s-a facut frig: un avocat din N specializat spunea ca agentia are dreptormeaum sa vina acasa sa filmeze cum isi scoala parintii copii si cum le fac baie> Really> Brr… Indienii s-au plins ca le-au luat copii ca-i hraneau cu mina (obicei indian) si ca dormeau cu parintii in pat. Sute de paritniti fug cu copiii peste granita. Dvs asteptati decizia justitiei? Unde este prezumtia despre nevinovatie? Numai o minune mai da copiii astia inapoi…. Articolul citit de mine n-avea nici o legatura cu Bodnariu. Sute de oameni cretini? Care nu stiu ce-i stinga si dreapta? Pina si sandwich-ul te poate pune in probleme, potrivit avocatilor norvegieni ai drepturile omului. justitia? Cind astfel de lege/autoritatte, ce poate constata justitia? Legea e complet de partea celor ce proteeaza drepturile copiilor. Ce-o poate rasturna? Un tribunal contra o lege?


  22. Da. Faptul ca un copil este luat de la sinul mamei este tragic. Faptul ca un copil de 3 luni poate risca sa fie abuzat de parinti este insa si mai grav. Daca norvegienii au dreptate sau nu, vom vedea. Daca va intereseaza, eu cred ca nu au, dar aceasta numai justitia poate stabili. S-o lasam sa se pronunte si vom vedea dupa aceea.
    Ma bucur daca cautati o biserica. Sper ca acolo sa-l gasiti pe Dumnezeu, si nu cine stie ce fel de aberatii fundamentaliste.
    E cam greu sa va explic de unde se vede sau nu cind un om se roaga, dar, in principiu, se vede din ceea ce spune si cum spune.
    A propos, daca veti reciti fara prejudecati ceea ce am scris pina acum, veti vedea ca atunci cind am vorbit de isterie nu m-am referit la dvs, persinal, ci la atmosfera creata in jurul acestui caz.
    Din punctul meu de vedere convorbirea noastre se incheie aici. Sanatate.


  23. Daca n-ati priceput ca ma refeream la faptul ca un copil de 3 luni luat de la sanul mamei este un abuz- si n-am nevoie sa fiu aproape sau sa fac investigatie speciala sa stiu asta – n-ati inteles nimic.
    Nu merg la nicio biserica, v-ati facut parere gresita, dar e adevarat ca sunt in cautarea uneia. Ceea ce au facut penticostalii in cazul acesta m-a impresionat in mod deosebit, mi-am propus sa caut o biserica penticostala.
    Cum ati dedus dvs. ca nu se cunoaste ca ma rog, sau ca sa va citez “dvs stiti mai bine. Dea la distanta. Poate v=o fi soptit Sfintul Duh sau vreunul dintre profetii inselatori ” …?
    Si sunteti cu adevarat prost crescut sa numiti isterie modul in care am interactionat aici. Am vazut ca ati mai scris asta si in cazul altoe mesaje. Sau poate nu cunoasteti termenul si va place cum suna de il folositi asa de des. Numai ca nimeriti ca nuca in perete cu el si faceti proiectii.


  24. Nu, nicidecum nu numesc isterie cuportul moral oferit acestei familii. Aici va inselati amarnic.
    Ma refer de fapt la modul isteric in care se raporteaza pocaitii romani la acest caz. Fara a face cea mai mica investiogatie, s-au transformat subit in avocati si judecatori, rostind verdicte transante. Dovada? Cuvintele dvs insele. Citez: ‘Abuzul ramane abuz indiferent ca o instanta il va stabili sau nu.’ Cu alte cuvinte, chiar daca instantele vor decide contrariul, dvs stiti mai bine. Dea la distanta. Poate v=o fi soptit Sfintul Duh sau vreunul dintre profetii inselatori care bintuie printre penticostalii romani.
    E clar ca este inutil sa-mi pierd vremea cu oameni care ‘gindesc’ astfel. Deci, ne luam la revedere aici.
    Daca va rugati (desi nu se prea cunoaste), bine faceti. Daca incuraajati, faceti=o mai departe, dar lasati laoparte isteria cu care ii atacati pe toti cei care indraznesc sa gindeasca altfel decit dvs.


  25. Australian Christians are disgusted with what is going on in your totalitarian nation! Our country stopped kidnapping children(aboriginal) in the 1970’s shame on you!!
    What possible justification is there for taking a breastfeeding child from its mother??


  26. Ca dvs. numiti “isterie” suportul moral, emotional si chiar financiar al crestinilor e parerea dvs., dar asta nu inseamna ca trebuie sa subscriu la ea.

    Abuzul ramane abuz indiferent ca o instanta il va stabili sau nu, iar luarea unui sugar de la sanul mamei asta este (cel putin). Daca mi-a dat Dumnezeu minte, ma pot folosi de ea sa constat si singura anumite lucruri, nu trebuie sa aud ca o instanta a stabilit ca e abuz luarea brusca a copiilor de langa parinti ca sa-l numesc asa. Ceea ce ma sfatuiti dvs. de fapt este sa gandesc cu mintea instantelor norvegiene. Nu, multumesc.

    Din exemplele anterioare acestui caz, e clar ca nesiliti de nimeni, cei de la barnevernet nu vor da niciodata copiii inapoi, iar daca vor vreo sansa sa-i recupereze, aceasta se va datora numai acestor actiuni de suport.
    Si nu trebuie sa ma indemnati dvs. sa ma rog pentru ei, am facut-o din prima clipa de cand am auzit de acest caz.


  27. Dvs. puteti crede ce doriti, ca e la liber, dar justitia nu opereaza cu pareri, ci cu fapte dovedite. Deocamdata, asa cum au recunoscut parintii, ei au incalcat legea disciplinindu-si fizic copiii, ceea ce este ABSOLUT INTERZUS in Norvegia, fie ca va place sau nu.
    Se poate ca si Barnevernet sa fi incalcat legea sau, multmai probabil, ca au facut exces de zel. Dar asta nu puteti stabili dvs pe baza de pareri, ci vor stabili instantele competente.
    Pina atunci, isteria creata de oameni ca dvs in jurul acestui caz nu va ajuta nicidecum copiii sa revina in familia naturala. Dar pentru dvs. lucrul acesta, se pare, este greu de priceput. Mai bine va rugati pentru ei si pentru toti cei implicati.
    Dumnezeu sa aiba mila de copii si de intreaga familie si sa faca in asa fel incit adevarul sa triumfe. Sper ca puteti spune amin la asta.


  28. Dar ce va face sa credeti ca parintii nu au inteles ca au incalcat legea norvegiana? Si de ce dvs. intelegeti ca numai parintii au incalcat legea norvegiana si nu si Barnevernetul?
    E clar ca ambele parti au incalcat legea, iar problema este ca barnevernetul a comis un abuz mult mai grav decat cel comis de parinti si ca impotriva acestei institutii legea nu se sesizeaza din oficiu.
    Astept sa aud ca un avocat a dat in judecata institutia de protectie a copilului pentru comitere de abuz emotional asupra copiilor Bodnariu si ca politia vine tot asa de rapid sa ia copiii din ghearele acesteia. Abia atunci voi crede ca in Norvegia chiar se doreste binele copilului.


  29. Si eu, ca si dvs., sper ca in cele din urma copiii se vor intoarce in familia lor naturala.
    Pentru asta insa trebuie ca parintii sa inteleaga ca au incalat legea si sa-si schimbe atitudinea. E trist ca copiii trebuie sa sufere din pricina unor parinti iresponsabili. Si probabil a unor autoritati suprazeloase.


  30. Îmi cer iertare ca v-am judecat. Nu cred ca sunteți rece și insensibil. Însă , vizavi de acest caz , m-am simțit dezamagita , trista, când am citit comentariile d-voastra.
    Stiti , de multe ori nici noi nu respectam cu strictețe legile Domnului , și mai scăpăm așa nepedepsiti…eu sunt solidara cu aceasta familie , sper din toată inima sa își recapete copilașii , de ce sa nu fiu solidara , nu am nimic de pierdut .


  31. [ comentariu cenzurat]

    Raspuns: Ma intrebam cind vor incepe si injuraturile. Iata ca au venit si acestea.
    Astept acum amenintarile, ca sa fie tacimul complet.

    Marius dear, cauta te rog alte latrine unde sa-ti versi veninul. Aici nu esti binevenit.


  32. Domnul meu, asa cum bine stiti, dar va faceti ca uitati, problema mea nu este cu crestinii conservatori ci cu FUNDAMENTALISTII. Si intre cele doua categorii exista diferente radicale chiar daca dvs. nu va convine acest lucru.
    In rest, cazul Bodnariu este acum in revizuire si asa cum au recunoscut si autoritatile romane nu exista cel putin deocamdata, niciun fel de dovezi ca norvegienii au facut vreo discriminare in acest caz. Verdictul se va da peste vreo trei saptamini. Vom trai si vom vedea.
    Pina atunci, copiii Bodnariu sunt victime, in primul rind pentruca parintii Bodnariu au decis in mod constient sa incalce legea norvegiana cu privire la disciplinarea fizica a copiilor, si abia in al doilea rind din pricina reactiei (exagerate, cred eu) a functionarilor Bernevernet.


  33. Draga Daniela, imi pare sincer rau ca te-am dezamagit, dar ma tem ca ma judeci gresit daca astepti sa reactionez la acest caz conform spiritului de turma.
    N-as vrea sa fiu in pielea parintilor care sunt in aceasta situatie, si cu atit mai putin a copiilor. Este o situatie absolut tragica, dar este evident ca, asa cum au recunoscut parintii Bodnariu, ei si-a batut copiii, ceea ce – orice am crede noi despre asta, este ilegal in Norvegia. Daca au incalcat legea, este imevitabil sa suporte consecintele. Mi se pare iresponsabil faptul ca si-au supus copiii in mod constient acestui risc.
    Pe de alta parte, cred ca reactia autoritatilor norvegiene este exagerata, dar ei trebuie sa respecte legea. Daca ele au facut abuz, este datoria justitiei de a face lumina.
    Pina atunci, copiii sunt cei care sufera. Si toate astea putreau fi evitate daca parintii respectau legea.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Mon char, te invit sa-ti defrisezi limbajul, ca sa nu sfirsesti la cos.
    In rest, e plina lumea de oameni care au convigeri putine, dar fixe, si se cred infailibili.
    Si inca ceva. oamenii de onoare nu se ascund in spatele pseudonimelor, ca lasii.


  35. Este clar ca>

    1) familia Bodnariu este o familie fericita, se vede clar din poza, or fi ei religiosi sau ultrareligiosi dar sunt o famile fericita si nu cred o iota din declaratia Norvegienilor.
    2) Barnavernetul nu este decat o fatada, in spate se gaseste o organizatie de forta care aplica o politica sinistra a statului Norvegian.
    3) Organizatia secreta aplica o mantra si anume ca odraslele strainilor sau doar jumatatile lor , sa fie indepartate de la familie si date Norvegienilor pentru asimilare totala. Cum se explica lipsa totala de transparenta a cazului? Nu vi se pare ca miroase a politica totalitara!? Eu cred ca organizatia sinistra a pus ochii pe copiii familiei de multa vreme , chestia cu ultracrestinismul e un moft de prost gust. Chiar directoarea scolii a fost pusa sa faca reclamatia. Copiii acestia juma norvegieni sunt un caz perfect pentru rapire, adoptiune si asimilare.
    Nu aveti decat sa ma considerati conspiranoid dar analizati faptele, Barnavernetul se comporta ca o politie politica!
    4) Statul Roman trebuie sa fac presiuni diplomatice caci copiii rapiti sunt jumatate Romani deci cetateni Romani , in mod automat. Orice Stat adevarat si puternic trebuie sa aiba mandria de a-si exercita puterea in favoarea cetatenilor rapiti. In locul lui Iohannis as chema ambasadorul de la Oslo in prima faza, apoi as rupe relatiile diplomatice.
    5) Am vizitat Norvegia vara trecuta , 5 saptamani, , o tara extraordinara ca peisaje si ca realizari dar cand vine vorba de moralitatea femeii norvegiene… nu mai zic!

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Please read all the informations possible, and pray with tears because in fact is possible that this case is the one that God will use to release His power to change the situation of thousands of mothers who were separated from thir babies, from many European countries.
    I think this is the only Christian family which has the Church all around the world, praying and being close to them in this situation. I do not advocate the physical discipline, and I spanked my own child 1 time in his life-he is almost 18 years old. I am also wondering how could Ruth ignore her own country laws? they should live in another place, not there. I see an ignorance on their side, but their suffering is too bis to can say a fact, I am not judging them, I only want to point that they are in the wrong place. And of course, this is far too much of a pain the one they are in, to can add some more through comemnts..I suffer deeply with them.the children are in fact the only real love that we know in this life…

    I want to show that there are Norway native intelectual like Marianne Haslev Skånland, a former professor of linguistics at the University of Bergen, who gives us more clues about Norway child walfare system:

    “Marianne Haslev Skånland:
    Dr Mengele & Co in action in Norwegian homes?

    (…) It is no longer possible to avoid seeing the similarity between the public child care system of our Norwegian social authorities (CPS, the child protection services) and the Nazi SS, the KGB of the Soviet Union, and the Inquisition a few centuries ago. (…) In plain text: The child victims are not to be allowed to go home to their parents, the adult victims are to serve their own and their children’s tormentors. The real reason for the abduction of children by the child protection services does not lie in circumstances concerning parents or children, it is found in the need of CPS social workers and clinical psychologists for jobs and power. The taking-into-care business is an incomparable financial drain, a waste of several billion crowns on totally useless – even positively destructive – activities. The actions of the CPS are paid by society, by all of us. But in addition, the victims are often brought to ruin trying to get efficient help from lawyers and independent expert witness assessments in their quite lonely fight against the terrorising CPS. Because the CPS keeps the children hostage in institutions and foster homes, the parents cannot effectively protect themselves and their children against the “resource utilisation”. (

    Another, from February 2012. The entire article is here:

    “A Growing Industry Open to Corruption

    Professor of linguistics at the University of Bergen, Marianne Haslev Skånland points out another problematic dimension of the child welfare system. According to Skånland, it is turning into an industry, which pays incredible amounts, especially to psychologists, for “reports” and to foster “parents”. They advertise for people to be foster parents and announce a yearly pay of, say, NOK 430.000 (€ 30.000) plus paid holidays and regular “time off” from the foster children plus allowances for building their house or buying an extra car plus pension entitlement. The business also, of course, provides extra income and extra jobs for social workers, writes Skånland. She also notes that child care cases often rely on information from anonymous sources. She thinks one never knows who the sources are, and whether the sources are reliable. Or whether the sources possess first hand information, or are pure rumors.

    Another disputed issue is multicultural knowledge and skills in the child welfare service. Numbers from Statistics Norway show that children with minority background are more frequently in contact with child welfare service than children with majority background.”


  37. Sincer nu va-nteleg, d-le Manastireanu; omeneste si crestineste. Atitudinea dvs se-nscririe pe linia mai generala de-a suspecta pe crestinii conservatori. Nu conteaza domeniul! Macar compasiune omeneasca ma asteptam s-aveti, ca parinte, bunic, crestin, aparator al drepturilor civile.
    Filozofic va-nteleg. Vad tot mai mult o tendinta in Europa si America in care oamenii sunt dispusi s-accepte dictatura … daca e tehnocratica. Dar ce argumentul epistemologic poate oferi guvernul –ma refer la organele lui specializate- ca sa detina monopolul adevarului? Ar fi stiinta. Dar cit este stiintific si cit este traditional/filozofic/teologic sau cit tine de cutumele sociale domeniul educational? Ce argument are guvernul si pina unde el se amesteca in constiinta/viata si morala individuala? In afara de aspectul inversiunilor sexuale in toate celelalte domenii controlul guvernamental al individului a crescut (nu suntem departe de filmul 1984).
    Tendinta PoMo de-a accepta cu bucurie dictatura am vazut-o in multe privinte.
    Citeva aspecte juridice:
    -desi legislatiile din vest difera, exista principii de jurisprudenta recunoscute. De-a lungul anilor, s-au dat legi care sa limiteze puterea politiei si a procuraturilor. Arestarile pot fi apelate imediat la judecatori, dreptul la aparare din prima faza, etc. Judecatile sunt publice. Mai nou, deciziile si informatii despre procese sunt date online. Exista drepturi ale societatii civile de-a afla tot felul de secrete guvernamentale.
    -au aparut in schimb tot felul de organe specializate care au puteri sa aresteze , sa sechestreze, fara a se justifica; au disparut –in cazul acesta- prezumtiile de nevinovatie. Cei asupra carora se exercita au mari dificultati de-a face apel. Aceste “organe” pot construi “cazul” mult timp fara control judecatoresc. Sub pretextul protejarii intimitatii persoanelor, nu se dau niciun fel de informatii. Exemple de astfel de organe? Cele de protejarea copilului, cele ce lupta contra coruptiei in Ro, organele de emigrare din USA, etc. De multe ori, functionarii acestora au autoritate de judecatori pina se ajuinge la un tribunal public. Un criminal de rind, un terorist musulman sunt mult mai protejati de jurispurdenta internationala decit un tata banuit ca-si bate copiii sau un popa care tuna si fulgera pe homosexualism. Surpriza mea nu e ca se-ntimpla astea ci ca societatea noastra le accepta cu bucurie. Chiar si crestinii.
    Am citit ca in Danemarca sunt pedepsiti popii care nu cununa homsexuali. Nu m-as mira sa fie adevarat, Danemarca fiind singura tara nordica ce-am vizitat-o. Crestinii au toate motivele sa fie ingrijorati de restrictionarea libertatii religioase/de constiinta mai mutl decit evidenta in vest. Sunt vinovati acesti parinti? N-avem de unde sti. Ma surprinde insa ca dvs a priori va-ncredeti in organisme pe care nu le cunoasteti si sunteti dispus s-acceptati abuzurile guvernamentale necenzurate. Este un mod foarte subtil in care guvernele noastre au dobindit puteri mai mari decit multe dictaturi comuniste in anumite domenii. Penticostalii romani nu sunt secta lui Moon. Ei traiesc printre noi. Isi iubeau/bateau copii la fel ca baptistii, ortodocsii sau ateii tineretii mele. Ca si crestin, imi este suspecta filozofia lumii in general. Ce m-ar face sa cred ca cea norvegiana e usa de biserica? Neavind de unde sa stim ce se-ntimpla in “dormitorul Bodnariu” trebuie sa raminem la principii. Ce argumente se pot aduce pt ca guvernul sa aibe puteri discretionare necenzurate in domeniul vietii noastre private? Dac-ar fi rezonabila legea din N ar da copii –in astfel de cazuri- unora din familia extinsa –sub control lucratorilor sociali. Tota lumea recunoaste ca e mai bine pt copii intr-un mediu familial decit unul institutional. Aici e insa vorba de extensia puterii guvernamentale necenzurate.
    PS- Recent, presa Americana a ramas socata. Studentii de la Yale au cerut –fara success- renuntarea la dreptului constitutional al libertatii cuvintului. Daca au dreptul la sex necenzurat, droguri legale, alcool si scolarizare gratuita, dictatura guvernamentala e perfecta. Dar noi suntem mai batrini….


  38. Am ascultat o data un interviu cu d-voastra realizat de Alina Ilioi. Mi-ati plăcut, un om atât de educat, cald , si crestin , ce frumos !
    Ce dezamăgire acum când citesc comentariile d-voastra . Atât de rece și insensibil mi-ati părut.


  39. domnule, parafrazandu-l pe floyd mayweather jr, iti pot spune ca ” you know shit about barnevernet”. marius iutes ti-a explicat destul de multe despre bvt. te-ar ajuta daca ai face o cautare pe net. prietenul norvegian ti-a prezentat bvt intr-o lumina foarte favorabila, ceea ce e departe de realitate. uite un link


  40. Va poftesc sa lasati deoparte mistocareala asta de doi bani, ori va poftexc sa nu mai dati pe aici.
    daca nu puteti discuta civilizat, rezervati-va pentru haznaua lui Ionescu. Axolo e permis orice.


  41. domnule DanutM, se pare ca in timp ce dvs filozofati cu popcornul in brate in fata tastaturii, Lupul sfasie in bucati o oaie dupa ce i-a pus pumnul in gura sa nu strige! Nu va vine sa credeti asa-i?? Oaia e vinovata ca nu apeleaza la pastor?? Cat de spalati pe creier au devenit crestinii acolo?! Sau ati redefinit nu numai familia ci si Biblia? Inteleg din ce spuneti ca lupul are nota zece, si medalii europene! Deci parintii sunt niste monstri care merita ca li s-au luat copiii si merita tot ce li se intampla! Daca sistemul este atat de imaculat cum spuneti, de ce nu este si TRANSPARENT! Daca sistemul este just de ce este RAZBUNATOR? Familia fratelui meu traieste un cosmar, si noi aici pe langa el, iertati-ma daca nu pot fi de acord cu perspectiva dvs norvegiana, Imi pare rau ca nu am timp sa DEZBAT in fata tastaturii cu dvs. si nici Marius sau Ruth nu au avut timp sa va explice ca nu sunt monstri, dar ca nu au voie sa spuna nimic! Ca sunt amenintati sa nu spuna nimic! Daca sunteti crestin mai bine taceti, daca tot nu puteti sa-i ajutati! Var face mai multa cinste!
    Este o cauza crestina?? DA, parintii au vrut sa-si creasca copiii in lumina Cuvantului lui Dumnezeu! Este o infractiune sa-ti disciplinezi copilul?? Atunci sistemul si legea voastra sunt fundamental anticrestine, la fel cum anticrestina este si legea voastra de recunoastere a casatoriilor gay! Unde e biserica lui Hristos, unde era cand s-au dat aceste legi? DOARME, DOARME doar lupul lucreaza linistit pentru ca unii crestini chiar ii dau o mana de ajutor! Imi pare rau ca nu am timp de DEZBATERI PUBLICE, pentru ca intre timp lupul manaca din noi, iar voua nu va vine sa credeti?! Va veti scula vreodata?? Doamne ajuta! nu SISTEMUL este Dumnezeu? Se pare insa ca voi va inchinati SISTEMULUI!

    De ce au stat acolo daca stiau ce se intampla? Pentru ca si asta este o dovada in plus ca ei credeau ca SISTEMUL nu are treaba cu ei daca sunt parinti buni! Daca ar fi fost niste abuzatori, nu cred ca ar fi stat asa linistiti in Norvegia!

    Ma rog ca Dumnezeu sa va ia ceata de pe ochi si dopurile din urechi sa puteti auzi un geamat de durere si un strigat stins de ajutor!


  42. Pai vezi pana unde merge lipsa de informare pe subiect? Norvegia a fost pana acum acuzata de ONU de vreo 2 ori cu privire la incalcari ale drepturilor omului, taman pe tema prestatiei Barnevernet. Care sunt organismele alea internationale care au evaluat ce anume cu note mari? Ca daca tot spui ca judeci pe fapte, intre noi fie vorba, frumos ar fi sa le spui pe nume si prenume, eventual si data nasterii ca sa stim si noi istericii despre ce anume vorbesti, nu? Asta macar de dragul unor pricipii solide enuntate chiar de tine la inceput, mi-am imaginat ca incerci sa fii corect macar cu tine.

    Da, suntem in Europa si e greu de crezut ca poti spera sa ai parte de un tratament legal mai echitabil in jungla amazoniana sau printre canibalii din Samoa. Dar din pacate asa este, te poti trezi tratat mai rau in Norvegia daca esti parinte. Asta cu toate ca daca esti criminal cu pedigree, esti tratat cat se poate de omeneste, chiar daca ai omorat cu sange rece vreo 70 de adolescenti, poti urma cursurile unei universitati si-ti poti face planuri de viitor fiindca Norvegia e o tara omenoasa. Paradoxal, nu?
    Daca ai fi avut curiozitatea sa deschizi Barnvernloven ai fi vazut ca judecata aia de valoare care instraineaza copiii este data de County Council, adica un fel de sfatu comunei, o entitate care n-are nici in clin nici in maneca cu justitia, cel putin nu asa cum o stim noi de la romani incoace.

    Daca ti se pare ca ma plang aici, ori n-ai citit ce-am scris (o fi fost prea lung si plictisitor), ori incerci sa-mi provoci vreo reactie isterica, poate intr-un final ramane cum ai stabilit la inceput: niste isterici dom-le!
    Eu incerc sa te luminez cumva asupra perceptiei extraordinare pe care-o ai despre un loc in care n-ai trait si nici nu ai de gand sa traiesti. Din cate se pare esti destul de refractar la argumente, eviti cu obstinenta sa privesti problema prezentata altfel decat ti-a fost prezentata de catre unica sursa cu care-i pornit toata discutia asta si am impresia ca o iei in nume personal ca indraznim sa avem opinii diferite si cat de cat mai bine argumentate decat ceea cu ce vii tu (asta fiindca observ ca alegi sa combati puternic problema cu alte mojicii).


  43. As they say, there is no free lunch.
    Va marturisesc ca imaginea apocaliptica pe care o prezentati despre Norvegia este greu de acceptat. Daca ar fi asa, acest lucru ar fi greu de ascuns. Caci suntem in Europa, nu in Asia or in ungla amazoniana. Nu spun ca e imposibil, ci doar ca este implauzibil.
    dar daca este asa, ma intreb de ce nu apelati la organismele internationale, care, intre noi fie vorba, au evaluat sistemul norvegian cu note foarte mari. Sat si Uniunea Europeana este parte a acestei conspiratii? Sa fim totusi seriosi.
    Daca nu va place sistemul, schimbati-l. Sau plecati. Daca nu aveti curajul, inghititi-l. Daca va plac banii cu care sunteti platiti, atunci socotiti pretul si alegeti. Dar in acest caz nu mai aveti dreptul de a va plinge.


  44. Copiii au sanse nule sa se intoarca inapoi la familia lor fiindca parintii nu au resursele necesare sa lupte pentru copii lor. Unele guri rele de prin presa norvegiana au observat ca Barnevernet are cazuri care se finalizeaza cu adoptie preponderent din randul celor care nu au posibilitatea financiara dar si intelectuala de a lupta pentru copii lor. Adica oameni saraci si cel mult mediu instruiti.

    Isteria asta pe care-o vezi pe net are printre altele si rolul de-a preveni oamenii cu privire la posibilele probleme pe care le poate avea oricine in tara asta. E o chestie pe care n-o gasesti in presa locala (nu exista presa libera in Norvegia, asta o stie oricine de pe-aici), statul care este prezent in tot si-n toate nu o sa arunce in vecii vecilor cu noroi in propriile institutii (da, statul norvegian a fost etichetat de PM-ul vecinilor suedezi ca fiind ultimul stat comunist din Europa – probabil nu fara motive), norvegienii de rand fie considera ca traiesc in paradis, fie daca au realizat ca paradisul nu e chiar asa de roz, nu au curajul sa vorbeasca, le este frica (mai frica decat le era romanilor sa vorbeasca rau despre regimul comunist inainte de 89).

    Privind nedumerirea asta despre norvegieni stii bine ca si romanii au fost atat de talambi sa inghita societatea multilateral dezvoltata, ba chiar unii zic ca prin anii 70 a fost chiar bine prin Romania. Si-n Norvegia e bine, statul are bani si nu lasa pe nimeni sa moara de foame, ba chiar iti permiti si-o vacanta inafara tarii o data pe an (cum ei obisnuiesc sa spuna, orice este ieftin odata ce-ai trecut granita). Cum noi am fost educati sa credem ca suntem buricul pamantului, asa sunt si norvegienii educati sa creada ca Norvegia e raiul pe pamant si ca norvegienii sunt cei mai frumosi si cei mai destepti. Toata lumea iese pe strazi de 17 Mai, ziua nationala a Norvegiei, imbracati in straie populare sau de sarbatoare, insa sunt destul de multi care habar n-au ce reprezinta exact 17 Mai ala pentru Norvegia. daca e ceva “norsk”, atunci “det er nok” adicatelea orice e norvegian e bun nene, mai bun decat orice produs sau serviciu similar oferit de altii, iar asta merge pana-ntr-acolo incat trece lejer de limita ridicolului. Vorba unui amic, cand spun despre ceva ca e norvegian, se umple vazduhul. Indoctrinarea pe-aici e mai puternica decat a visat vreodata sa fie aia comunista de la noi fiindca statul isi permite sa faca lucrul asta, are cu ce. Norvegienii sunt mandri ca sunt norvegieni, sunt mandri ca pot cumpara orice, ca sunt bogati, se simt importanti fie doar si din perspectiva asta, iar orice chestie care atinge de vreun fel imaginea statului perfect e tratata uneori ca pe-o ofensa personala. In conditiile astea, e imposibil ca sa existe blasfemii de genul nerespectarea drepturilor omului sau a conventiei de la Haga privind drepturile copilului. Increderea in sistem si in buna credinta a oamenilor e atat de mare incat pana si legislatia in ceea ce priveste protectia copilului a fost scrisa neluand in seama ca lipsa mecanismelor de control poate duce la abuzuri incredibile Dar daca tot vrei sa faci pe avocatul diavolului, asa de dragul libertatii de opinie si sa nu cazi in ridicol si nici s-aduci in derizoriu liberatatea de opinie, nu ti-ar strica sa te informezi din ceva mai multe surse, iar sursa tuturor discutiilor pe tema protectiei copilului este chiar legea in baza careia Barnevernet isi face de cap: Barnevernloven –
    Legea e scrisa cu bune intentii, dar e mai nemiloasa decat Dicatul de la Viena fiindca statul norvegian iti poate intra in casa folosind orice pretext si, ce-i mai important, fara consecinte pentru Barnevern. Nu pot sa speculez daca statul o face intentionat, dar stiu ca oamenii mici sunt constienti de asta si nu ezita sa se foloseasca de puterea pe care legea le-o pune in mana, de cele mai multe ori din motive pur personale care nu au de-a face cu copiii, ci pur si simplu de-a face un rau celuilalt lovindu-l unde-l doare mai tare. Nu e sistemul de vina, de vina sunt oamenii mici si peste masura de ranchiunosi.

    Despre partea cu “eu nu locuiesc in Norvegia … si nici nu intentionez sa locuiesc”, respectiv care-i treaba cu noi romanii pe-aici sa ne intelegem clar, e o mojicie. La asemenea chestii nu exista decat un singur raspuns: pentru ca putem. E un fapt, palpabil, masurabil si care reflecta 100% realitatea fie ca asta convine, fie ca nu. De ce insista romanii sa vina aici? Pai fiindca salarii mari! Mai mari decat oriunde mai ales pentru mana de lucru calificata si cu studii medii (adica majoritatea). Si munca nu te rupe, e mai lejer, ca sa nu spun ca de multe ori se taie frunza la caini. Daca ai ocazia, trebuie sa fii prost sa n-o faci.


  45. Domnule Iutes,
    Eu nu traiesc in Norvegia si nu cunosc din experienta directa experientele despre care vorbiti. De aceea, intr-un spatiu virtual dominat de isterie in aceasta problema, cred ca este dedatoria mea sa reflect diverse puncte de vedere. De aceea perspectiva dvs. este si ea binevenita, sa cum a fost si aceea a prietenului meu norvegian.
    Un lucru nu inteleg totusi. Daca sistemul norvegian este atit de opresiv, de ce vor romanii sa traisca in acea tara. Doar pamintul e mare.
    Si, din nou, daca e asa, de ce nu se revolta norvegienii? Nu-mi vine sa cred ca toti norvegienii sunt atit de talimbi sa inghita nemestecat un sistem birocratic opresiv. Doar nu sunt romani.
    Dar, cum eu nu intentionez sa traiesc in Norvegia, va las pe dvs. sa va bateti capul cu aceste chestiuni.
    Aud ca, din pacate, lucrurile se complica cu familia Bodnariu, si acestia risca ca copiii lor sa fie dati spre adoptie.
    Dumnezeu sa aiba mila si de parinti si de copii.


  46. Vai draga domnule, cat de incorect e sa judeci ceva fara sa vezi faptele prezentate in detaliu… nimic mai adevarat si sunt de acord cu dumneavoastra in privinta asta. Problema apare cand o institutie a unui stat face exact acelasi lucru. Nu-ti prezint o opinie personala ci o insiruire de evenimente ca sa poti judeca dupa cum te duce capul:
    a)- gradinita trimite o scrisoare de ingrijorare catre Barnevernet in care spune cu fraze pompoase ca e o problema pentru copil faptul ca parintii au prea multa grija fata de el
    b)- la intalnirea cu gradinita, ni se spune ca de fapt ei au vrut sa transmita un semnal cum ca trebuie sa aducem copilul de dimineata la gradinita fiindca asa si pe dincolo, diverse motive pentru a se sti acoperiti la testele de limba. Ni s-a promis ca vor trimite o nota la Barnevernet cum ca situatia s-a schimbat intre timp si ei sunt multumiti de schimbare.
    c)- Barnevernet ne spune clar la prima sedinta ca ei sunt alfa si omega. Ni se mai spune inainte de orice ca trebuie pastrata tacerea in ceea ce priveste investigatia, fara media, fara cunostinte, vecini sau altele de genul asta, fiindca asa e legea. Sedinta e stabilita intr-o zi libera si prima intrebare a fost daca am adus copilul cu noi. Am citit dezamagire cand le-am spus ca e cu niste amici sarbi, dar masura asta a fost aprobata puternic. La intrearea noastra cu ce ocazie pe la ei, care-s motivele pentru care stam de vorba, raspunsul a fost scurt: legea ne obliga sa dam curs unei astfel de scrisori de la gradinita. O icercare notabila a Barnevernet este cea de-a obtine cu acordul nstru date despre noi in ceea ce priveste situatia medicala si financiara a familiei, incercare esuata fiindca i-am intrebat care-i relevanta unr astfel de informatii cu caracter personal, iar la raspunsul ca le iau din diverse locuri am devenit brusc mujic si le-am spus sa nu ne jignesca inteligenta, in acelasi timp taraganand lucrurile si facand o promisiune de-a semna ulterior dupa ce suntem in cunostina de cauza. Am intrebat daca gradinita a mai trimis ulterior scrisorii de ingrijorare si ni s-a raspuns negativ
    d)- intre timp gradinita continua sa ne linisteasca cum ca totul va fi bine, desi lucrurile nu aratau deloc asa, adica au facut niste teste de limba pe genunchi, fara acordul nostru, doar copilului nstru, teste din care reiesea ca lucrurile involueaza.
    e)- vazand ca oamenii ne mint si legand sedintele anterioare scrisorii de ingrijorare cu actuala investigatie, am realizat ca ei de fapt au inceput sa construiasca un caz cu vreo 2-3 luni inaintea trimiterii scrisorii de ingrijorare catre Barnevernet, prin urmare am luat decizia de-a scoate copilul din tara cat mai repede cu putinta.
    f)- singur si fara stresul de-a fi santajat cu masuri dure in ceea ce priveste familia mea, m-am hotarat sa fac ceva lumina in toata afacerea asta si-am chemat partile implicate la o noua sedinta: eu, Barnevernet, gradinita. Aici am incercat sa aflu in detaliu care sunt motivele care-au stat in spatele trimiterii scrisori de ingrijorare, chestiile palpabile pentru care-a fost creat atata taraboi. Am aflat din gura lor ca Barnevernet nu considera sanatatea copilului o problema care tine de competenta lor, ca gradinita poate lua decizii peste recomandarile medicilor, ca eu daca trimit o scrisoare de ingrijorare nu este tratata decat cu indiferenta de catre Barnevernet, ca gradinita este ca o extensie a protectiei copilului si ca e rar sau chiar imposibil ca ei sa poarte vreo raspundere (vezi ignorarea sfatului medicului, scrisa si cu stampila, respectiv reactia barnevernet), si-am mai aflat ca acuzatiile sunt sustinute doar fiindca gradinita “a simtit asta”, fara nimic masurabil, palpabil in spate. bineinteles ca mi s-a ridicat sangele in cap si am cerut un raport al investigatiei fiindca mi s-a spus ca ei tocmai ce au incheiat cazul, considerand ca nu au niciun motiv sa faca vreo ceva. De la deschiderea cazului pana la inchiderea lui au trecut aproape 3 luni, de la inchiderea cazului pna la primirea raportului au trecut 6 luni.
    g)- Am urmat sfatul Barnevernet si am facut o plangere la municipalitate imediat dupa incheierea investigatiei. Pana ca cineva sa ma asculte am vorbit cu nu mai putin de 7 persoane, iar persoana care mi-a raspuns nu a aflat care-i problema mea de la mine direct ci de la colegii cu care vorbisem anterior. Motivul real, palpabil si masurabil care-a stat la baza deschiderii investigatiei a fost dupa parerea lor o litera de lege, alta decat cea invocata de barnevernet. Ca superiori ai gradinitei au incercat sa ma trimita pe mine sa gasesc persoana potrivita pentru a afla raspuns la intrebarile mele, lucru pe care l-am refuzat la limita politetii legale si am reusit sa obtin alte raspunsuri fata de cele primite in sita cu Barnevernet. Motivarea trimiterii scrisorii a ramas fara raspuns isa.
    h)- la inceperea scolii am fost sunat de catre o asistenta medicala de la scoala care a fost nepoliticos de indiscreta in ceea ce priveste treburile mele ersonale, prin urmare s-a trezit ca-si ia o mumu prin telefon cand a insistat desi i-a fost adus in vedere politicos ca sunt chestii personale si nu doresc sa discut astfel de chestii cu oricine prin telefon. Ulterior am aflat ca la dosarul de la barnevernet a fost adaugata o nota de ingrijorare in ceea ce priveste situatia copilului, atentie mare, la vreo 3 luni dupa ce barnevernet mi-a comuncat verbal ca au inchis cazul.
    i)- Dupa insistente saptamanale, la vreo 5 luni dupa inchiderea cazului am primit un draft al raportului investigatiei Barnevernet. Aici era si nota suplimentara de ingrijorare din partea scolii
    j)- Dupa inca aproximativ o luna am primit raportul final si am avut o conversatie cu alte 2 persoane (nu cu cele care au facut investigatia), ci cu un angajat relativ nou si persoana responsabila de caz. Bineinteles ca n-au avut alta justificare asupra notei de ingrijrare din draft decat un o alta litera de lege. Raportul final a fost diferit de draftul primit de mine cu o luna inainte, diferenta notabila fiind nota de ingrijorare de la scoala.
    k)- Am contactat 3 avocati, primii 2 luandu-mi banii degeaba, al 3-lea dandu-se bolnav cand a ascultat cateva pasaje din inregistrarile sedintelor cu gradinita si cu Barnevernet. Singurul lucru folositor a fost faptul ca inregistrarile sunt legale si pot fi folosite ca proba intr-un eventual proces.
    l)- am stat de vorba cu un jdecator care m-a ascultat cu atentie vreun sfert de ora si care mi-a prezentat realst ce alternative am in cazul unui proces si ce trebuie sa fac pentru a ajunge la un proces.
    m)- urmand sfatul judecatorului am contactat prefectura (fylke), in prima instanta fiind sunat la mai putin de 2 ore de catre o angajata care a incercat sa ma convinga de faptul ca asa e legea si asa merg treburile in Norvegia, ba chiar facandu-ma capos prin telefon. Can i-am zis sa si scrie ce-mi zice la telefon a refuzat categoric sa-mi dea vreo adresa de mail, ba char a refuzat sa spuna din nou cum o cheama. Intr-un final am primit un flit de la fylke, conform legii trebuie sa ma adresez municipalitatii.
    n)- am rafinat cererile si am pus problema clar a nerespectarii drepturilor omului, atat ale mela ca arinte cat si ale copilului meu, al 2-lea raspuns al prefecturii a fost ca trebuie sa discut cu avocatul poporului.
    o)- Cititnd codul penal, am ajuns la concluzia ca ca treuie sa trec si pe la politie sa fac o plangere penala pentru fals si uz de fals in dcumente oficiale, abuz de putere, acuzatii adresata direct gradinitei, Barnevernet fiind complice. Inspectorul cu care-am stat de vorba a incercat vreo juma de ora sa ma coviga sa nu depun o astfel de cerere fiindca sunt ocupati cu criminalitate oraganizata, trafic de droguri, spargeri si chestia asta e pierdere de timp. A refuzat categoric sa primeasca o astfel de cerere.

    Toate astea au luat pana acum vreo 15 luni si vreo cateva mii de coroane norvegiene. Inca nu am aflat motivul real al inceperii circului, atata doar ca mi-a fost sugerat de catre municipalitate, prefectura si politie sa renunt la un astfel de demers. Atitudinea avocatilor a fost suficienta sa-mi dau seama ca e o chestie formala pentru ei, avocatul care s-a dat bolnav facandu-ma sa ma gandesc ca nu e doar o chestie formala ci reprezinta un pericol pana si pentru ei daca iau lucrurile in serios si fac ceva in privinta asta. Judecatorul m-a avertizat ca o sa am nevoie de cateva sute de mii de coroane pentru a putea duce pana la capat un proces din asta.

    Prin urmare lucrurile in cateva cuvinte stau cam asa:
    statul norvegian prin institutiile lui incearca sa intre in viata mea fara sa aiba vreo dovada ca miscarea asta este necesara, doar in baza unei scrisori in care un individ incearca sa-mi impuna vointa lui pentru a-mi arata ca poate, iar eu in tot acest timp trebuia sa fac doar ce mi se zice ca altfel nu era bine. Curat democratie monser!

    Acum despre cazul pe care-l tratezi cu atata corectitudine, faptele n-o sa le afli niciodata fiindca nici celor in cauza nu prea se obisnuieste sa li se spuna in fata ci doar prin terti si trunchiat, se vorbeste numai in litere de lege. Familia Bodnariu lucreaza sau lucra in sistem, stiau foarte bine ce pot si ce nu pot face ca sa aia parte de-o viata linstita si fara supravegherea expertilor Barnevernet. O masura de genul luarii copiilor in custodie se practica legal doar daca integritatea lor fizica sau psihica este intr-un real pericol si sunt si dovezi solide in privinta asta, ori un anunt de la scoala e foarte departe de-a prezenta asfel de dovezi. Odata luati copiii ai o familie intr-o situatie extrema de stres si judecata psihologilor fara a tine cont de asa ceva este egala cu zero. Foarte putini stiu ca judecata in prima instanta in cazuri de genul asta se face la nvel local, membrii asazisei curti, expertii, sunt persoane care au legaturi stranse intre ele si care au tangente cu banii invartiti prin barnevernet. Ca sa intelegi despre ce judecata este vorba, cel mai bun exemplu care este apropiat de asa ceva este circul cu incuviintarea in parlament a urmaririi penale sau a arestarii preventive a unui parlamentar. e un simulacru de justitie. In cazuri de genul asta dai cu ochii de justitia adevarata dupa cel putin 6 luni de cand esti lasat fara copii si dupa ce in prealabil faci recurs tot la aceeasi curte care-a dat si primul verdict. E prea tarziu in peste 95% din cazuri fiindca, statistic vorbind, doar 2% si-au recuperat copiii procedand astfel. Basca faptul ca odata luati copiii, acestora li se interzice orice legatura cu identitatea lor anterioara, fiind crescuti ca norvegieni si interzicandu-li-se contactul cu rude sau vorbitul in limba materna.

    Netul e mare si plin de tot felul de chestii, uite-te si tu si intreaba-te, oare guverne ale Indiei, tarilor baltice, Poloniei, Cehiei si Turciei isi permit sa reactioneze atat de vehement impotriva actiunilor unei agentii guvernamentale norvegiene, cu repercursiuni la nivel de stat, doar pe baza unor zvonuri si a prezentarii problemei numai de catre una din parti? Din cate-am citit despre astea, nici vorba, e vorba despre incalcari grave ale drepturilor omului comise de catre statul norvegian si afectand cetateni ai acestor tari.


  47. Hope this will have a happy ending with the parents getting help to realise their mistakes and truly change their way of parenting.
    When I read the story I felt pain for the children. I grew up in a strict christian home and it was no fun.
    I am totally against any form of physical punishment or correction for children.
    Many studies show that this will cause long lasting emotional damages in children.


  48. Dear Daniel,
    I imagined it would be so. No ofence.
    I sent you the file.
    I hope you have seen the new comment from my Norwegian friend.


  49. I haven’t been following your activity, just reading hear and there. I am grateful for your offer to send the book in the pdf format. I am sure it will be most enlightening. Please forward at your own convenience. Regards, Daniela


  50. Stimata doamna,
    Asa cum ati citit deja in postarea mea, legea norvegiana solicita ca actiunea de preluare a copiilor sa fie precedata de o serie d averyizari si discutii cu parintii. Daca aceasta nu s-a intimplat (ceea ce nu cred ca este cazul), atunci ce s-a intimplat este o incalcare a legii. Ce inteleg eu este insa ca parintii au fost incitati la scoala pentru o discutie si avertizati ca felul in care isi educa copii miroase a extremism religios (ceea ce, cunoscind inclinatiile inerente ale pentecostalismului nu este deloc greu de imaginat), si ca tatal a reactionat xtrem de vehement si a refuzat orice cooperare. Daca acest lucru este adevarat, nu ma mir ca Barnevernet a actionat ca atare.
    Sigur, o lege poate fi nedreapta. Si, daca e asa, cetatenii ar trebui sa faca presiuni si s-o schimbe, prin mecanismele normale ale democratiei. Dar atita vreme cit ea exista, ea e obligatorie. Iar daca, ppricare ar fi motivul, decidem s-o incalcam, atunci trebuie sa fi gata sa suportam consecintele si sa nu ne plingem.
    Sa va dau un exemplu. Legea comunista prevedea ca cetatenii romani trebuie sa raporteze la securitate ORICE contact cu un strain, indiferent de mlrivuk contactului, oricit de banal ar fi fost acesta. Evident, o lege nerealista – si ei nici nu se asteptau sa fie respectata in totalitate, ci era doar un mijloc de manipulare si o baza de actiune, daca doreau sa se folsoeasca de ea. Eu am refuzat intotdeauna sa dac curs acestei legi si le-am spus securistilor, in anchete, ca n-am de gind sa-mi tradez fratii si ca, daca nu le place, pot sa-mi faca ce vor. Nu mi-au facut nimic, dar daca o faceau, erau indreptatiti de lege s-o faca. Si eu nu ma puteam plinge.
    Nu e aici locul sa discutam nici hermeneutica textelor biblice – aceasta este une dintre specialitatile mele teologica, si nu cred ca va va fi usor cu mine intr-o asemenea discutie, si nci felul in care se face transferul de la ceea ce poate face Dumnezeu, la ceea ce pot face oamenii, o chestiune complicata de teologie dogmatica in care, din nou spatiul si specificul blogului nu ne permite sa intram. Deci, va propus sa lasam astra la oparte, si sa raminem la ce am afirmat, amindoi, cum ca respingem violenta fizica, as adauga eu, sub orice forma si grad, fata de copii. Dar si asra este irelevant, atita vreme cit legea o interzice.
    In final, recunoasterea faptelor – lucru care, dupa mine, s-a intimplat in foarte mica masura si mai degraba formal; nu l-am auzit pe tata afirmind ca a decis sa renunte complet la disciplinarea fizica a copiilor, ceea ce, pe drept cuvint, asteapta sa auda autoritatile – poate constitui o circumstanta care sa conduca la atenuarea pedepsei, dar NICIDECUM la anularea acesteia. Acesta este punctul meu de vedere si il consider compatibil cu dreptatea lui Dumnezeu. De axemplu, daca un barbat incalca porunca biblica a fidelitatii conjugale si contracta HIV, daca el se caieste sincer, Dumnezeu ilva ierta – daca-l va ietrta si necasta, asta este alta treaba – dar va ramine cu boala. Sper ca e mai clar acyum.
    Va doresc o zi binecuvintata.


  51. Dear Daniela,
    If you have followed in the least what I am writing, you may be able to accuse me of many things, including of being a feminist (which I admit, at least in certain senses of this word), but certainly npt of being a sexist or a misogynist. Since the comment was not signed, and we do not know each other so well, I wondered if it was really you who wrote, or George used your email to write this comment. I have to confess that I remember fondly our debates in Oradea and I miss talking to him, even if, as I gather, we may not share the same convictions on some issues. Nor do we have to. Now, back to the discusson topic.
    I totally agree with you on the responsibility of citizens to keep their government accountable for their actions. I am convinced, as I guess you are, that nnot only communism and fascism – which are inherently oppressive, but also secularism (or any forma of government inspired by religipon, be that Christian, Muslim or otherwise) are prone to become authoritarian (I have written a 100 pp little book on a Christuian view of (post)totalitarianism for my World Vision colleagues; if you are interested, I could send you a PDF copy). That si why all government needs checks and balances. But, as I said already in my previous comment, even if our hunches may be right, I don’t think we are qualified to pass easy judgement on other nations, that we do not sufficiently know.
    Like you, I deplore the pain the BOdnariu children primarily, but also the parents themselves are going through. I also feel, likw you, that the reaction of Barnevernmet was too harsh. Unlike you, however, although I do not exclude that government agencies can and do make mistakes, I am afraid parents bought this upon themselves and, consequently exposed their children to this painm, by ignoring Norwerian laws (good or bad, as they may be). Knowing Pentecostals quite well, in and out (although I am an Anglican, since there is no such church in the place where Ilive, I worship in a Pentecostal church – though an quite unusual liturgical one), I am keenly aware of a certain degree of religious fanaticism that is inerent to this tradition. This being the case, and from what I read about his case, I am afraid parents are part of the problem.
    Nevertheless, like you, I hope in a normal resolution of the problem, with parents coming to their senses, and children being returned to their normal environment. May God have mercy on us all!


  52. Dear Mr. Danut Manastireanu (and/or Mrs. Manastireanu ☺) thank you for your gracious answer, although truth be told I had quite a difficulty overlooking your opening line. As a forward looking man, you surely couldn’t have implied that a woman cannot be trusted to her own opinions, or worse, that a man has been sheepishly hiding behind his wife’s identity? I can assure you that George has nothing to do with this or the previous comment since he prefers face-to-face conversations and the most he can handle of the “latest” technology is the telephone ☺. Nevertheless good wishes have been passed on and they are wholeheartedly returned. I do not wish to further retain your attention to the issue at hand, since there are myriad of other important ones and only so much time. All the same, it is good that the people continue the conversation with civility, in public forums, and that they (us) also act in such a way to uphold what is morally just not only for those involved in this particular case but for others, who find themselves in vulnerable situations. Just as a final clarification my attention has been recently captivated by Norway, not through the story of this family, but through a children’s story written by the celebrated couple Ingri and Parin D’Audlaire. In it, though briefly mentioned, the injustice done to the Sami children who were ripped apart from their families not so long ago and segregated in residential schools to “norwegianize” them as we later learned, so shocked my kids that we decided to further investigate. Meanwhile the Bodnariu children were taken and as we continued to read, this same argument seemed to resurface from more and more afflicted families today through their interaction with Barnevernet. Now, here in Canada, the burden of guilt is publicly and heavily laid on the population for not speaking up when similar injustices have been done to the Native Indian families whose children were taken and locked into residential schools on account of parental inadequacy (alcoholism, poverty etc.). Hence my insistence that the onus should be on the Norwegians to keep their government in check. There is also the case of the Norwegian so called “war children” documented here by the BBC that yet again seems to paint an image of control. Now, as per your question, I still maintain that even in the extreme example that you brought up (which obviously does not apply in the Bodnariu case) when parents are criminals, yes the children are being punished when they are removed from their grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins, their language and faith community, and most off all from their siblings. After all isn’t this what the infamous residential schools have been doing? And finally, yes, I am aware of Richard Wurmbrant’s ransom arrangements, this is why I wrote that the Norwegian government allowed not participated in the exchange, by sanctioning an internal organization’s dealings with a foreign state and offering legal entrance and stay. May God intervene for the good of His people, the protection of the children and the restoration of this family. Best wishes.


  53. Stimate domn,
    Cred ca o lege care permite luarea tuturor copiilor pentru acte de disciplinare usoara, fara a li se da avertismente si a li se oferi o sansa de indreptare a lucrurilor, este draconica. In plus, sugarul de 3 luni nu trebuia despartit de mama lui, caci ii afecteaza grav formarea unui atasament securizant. Si daca numai unul dintre parinti i-a disciplinat, ar trebui emis un ordin de restrictie impotriva aceluia, fara sa sufere si celalalt parinte.

    Faptul ca exista o lege anume intr-o tara, nu inseamna ca e neaparat si dreapta, iar cetatenii unei tari ar trebui sa poata protesta impotriva legilor nedrepte. Nu asta s-a intamplat si in Romania intr-un decembrie? Nu e oare periculos sa gandim ca trebuie sa ne supunem orbeste oricaror legi fara sa le trecem prin filtrul ratiunii sa vedem daca sunt bune sau nu?

    In ceea ce priveste tolerarea disciplinarii fizice, cum comentati versetul acesta: “Caci Domnul pedepseste pe cine-l iubeste si bate cu nuiaua pe orice fiu pe care-l primeste.” (Evr.12:6)

    Ii toleram lui Dumnezeu disciplinarea fizica sau nu? Batutul cu nuiaua face referire tot la o disciplinare fizica, chiar daca nu e vorba efectiv de o nuia cu care sa-si bata Dumnezeu copiii, ci mai degraba de un echivalent al ei. Oricum, imaginea creata de metafora aleasa de apostol este cea a unui Dumnezeu in postura unui parinte care-si disciplineaza fizic copiii. Cum vedeti acest verset?

    Constat ca avem un tel comun: si eu lupt impotriva ideilor periculoase si stupide, dar, spre deosebire de dvs., prefer sa aduc argumente posesorilor lor astfel incat sa deduca singuri ca sunt asa si nu sa-i abordez aruncandu-le in fata etichetari cum ca ideile lor sunt stupide si mai stiu eu cum, fara sa imi sustin punctul de vedere.

    Chiar sunt curioasa ce argumente aduceti dvs. in favoarea sustinerii lipsei de toleranta fata de o gresala recunoscuta. Daca sunt rationale, promit sa le iau in calcul si sa devin mai…intoleranta. Chiar si legea e mai blanda cu persoanele care isi admit calcarile de lege (exemplu, violatorii din Vaslui care si-au recunoscut vinovatia au primit mai putin ani de inchisoare decat cei care nu si-au recunoscut fapta), de ce un crestin ar trebui sa fie mai aspru si neiertator?


  54. Stimata doamna,
    Aceasta este formularea legii norvegiene. Banuiesc ca aici este vorba de confidentialitatea copiilor, dar se poate sa ma insel. SDe poate ca noua sa nu ne placa legea aceasta (sincer, si eu consider ca aceasta este o prevedere stranie), dar legea este lege si este obligatorie, pina se scimba.


  55. Stimate domn,
    Cu siguranta nu am imaginea de ansamblu dar sunt curioasa despre cine e vorba cand se mentioneaza “they are bound by client confidentiality”. Cine e acel client mai important decat un copil caruia i s-a rapit dreptul daca s-a lovit sa o cheme pe mama sa, sa ii aline durerea. Suna atat de nepotrivit “client confidentiality” in acest context. Si inuman.

    Dear Mr.,
    Surelly I don´t have the whole image but I am curios whom are they calling client – client´s confidentiality? Who is that client more important than a child to whom is taken away the right of calling his mother when he is in pain? It sounds so unappropriate in the given context. And also not human!

    Sehr geehrte Herr,
    Ich bin mir sicher dass ich das ganze Bild nicht komplett sehe aber ich bin neugierig zu wissen wer in den Fall ist Kunde genannt? Welche Kunde ist wichtiger als ein Kind zu wem das Recht seiner Mutter zu rufen wenn ihn was weh tut weggenommen würde? In den Fall finde ich den Begriff “Client confidentiality” total unmenschlich!
    Corina Chiorean


  56. Dear Daniel (and/or George),
    Thanks for your thorough comment. You might be surprised to find out that, in fact, we agree on the essentials. Childen’s God-given, normal development context is given by their natural parents. This being the case, the separation of the Bodnariu children from their parents is really a tragedy. Neither me, nor you would like to be in their case. We also agree that, since we live in a fallen world, both parents and state agencies can make mistakes. That is why citizens and government need checks and balances.
    However, we part ways where you think you are entitled to judge Norwegians in toto. It is absolutely legitimate to ask why are Norwegian citizens, and the media react to this tragedy. Yet, there can be many reasons for that and I doubt an outsider can really presuppose they really know the real reasons for this silence. Of course, when one starts from a certain ideological platform, be it a left wing one, or, on the right, as it seems you are doing it is easy to (mis)interpret the facts and come to a (false) sense of certainty.
    Also, I believe your idea that by this decision Barnevernet is implicitly punishing children is self defeating. Are then also implicitly pu sequences nished the children separated by their parents who are criminals? If not, why not? As you know from the Bible, our deeds have consequences, for us and for others. Parents should have thought about that when they decided to disobey the Norwegian law against physically disciplining children.
    Finally, the rensom for Wurmbrand was not paid by the government of Norwey, but my a missionary organisation.
    Let us pray that this tragic situation will be solved, that the parents will learn from it what they need to learn, and that children will, in the end, returned to their natural family. May God have mercy!
    I wish you all the best.


  57. Please remove if duplicate

    One commendable virtue of this posting is that it attracted a visitor such as Mr. DCT from Norway. I only wish that the information he provided were more readily available, especially in English. Since in a free society no democratic institution should be beyond public inquiry and given the multiple domestic and international complaints against Barnevernet, it is desirable that Norway’s own populace would demand a proper investigation. Unfortunately, from the lack of homespun reactions as well as from your owns friend response, which could perhaps be considered typical, one could easily conclude that Norway’s long record of such practices has succeeded in producing an apathetic generation, completely insensitive to the plight of the other.

    Of course they could say ” But we care about the children!” as if punishing them for the mistakes of their parents (who supposedly have broken the law) is justifiable in any other universe but their own. Yes, punishing a child by uprooting and severing all his familiar and familial ties, the very bonds that make up his identity, is considered in this upside down country, against all shared human experience, an act of compassion.

    Decidedly, there are extreme situations when separation from a threatening environment, when a family is in a real, not imaginary crisis, is warranted, until the restoration of the family is achieved. Even then, all efforts should be made to keep the children in their extended family and community, if possible, and always together with his siblings. See below that such commendable initiatives do exist and are happening right now.

    Another perplexing idea, to put it mildly, is that we could somehow, as fallen human beings, create a lab like, controlled environment under government regulations, where children will never be harmed. Children are imperfect beings born to imperfect parents, and no amount of state interventionism will remove from them the mark of their imperfect humanity. I wonder in this sense how many foster “families’ have been investigated and have had their children removed compared with natural families. My 12 years old son said ” They are not and they will never be. They are pups raised by pigs ” alluding of course to the plight of the mother dog who has had her children taken from her on account of her implied motherly inadequacy, as described in the all telling Orwellian Animal Farm saga.

    In the end, if the Bodnariu family and extended family should hang on any humanly warranted hope to get their children back, they should better start putting a price on them. The government of Norway did not think it is beyond its practices to allow the ransoming of a man who was breaking the law in another country (Richard Wurmbrant); it does not think it is beyond its practices now (see how India has bought back the stolen children by suspending the license of a Norwegian telephone company). It is the only way to grab the attention of the modern man and his manmade institutions. It’s all about the money! I know, stupid, right?

    Liked by 1 person

  58. In fact, the practices of Barnevern do not only worry Russians and Indians. There is a deep rooted skepticism among local groups towards an increased use of home based measures. A report prepared by Gruppen til Familiens Selvstendige Rett (GFSR), Redd Våre Barn (RVB) and BarnasRett concludes that current practices in the Norwegian Child Protection system are not compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Arild Holta, as an activist against children’s segregation from their parents asks for an urgent need to re-evaluate the fundamental principles along which the Child Protection system works in Norway. Familiestiftelsen is a foundation run based on similar concerns by a group of parents and grandparents. They feel upset at the lack of respect for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child with regard to the protection of children against mental and physical abuse and separation from parents and grandparents.
    Professor of linguistics at the University of Bergen, Marianne Haslev Skånland points out another problematic dimension of the child welfare system. According to Skånland, it is turning into an industry, which pays incredible amounts, especially to psychologists, for “reports” and to foster “parents”. They advertise for people to be foster parents and announce a yearly pay of, say, NOK 430.000 (€ 30.000) plus paid holidays and regular “time off” from the foster children plus allowances for building their house or buying an extra car plus pension entitlement. The business also, of course, provides extra income and extra jobs for social workers, writes Skånland. She also notes that child care cases often rely on information from anonymous sources. She thinks one never knows who the sources are, and whether the sources are reliable. Or whether the sources possess first hand information, or are pure rumors.


  59. Stimata doamna, observ ca va displace profund disciplinatea fizica a copiilor, dar sunteti gata s-o tolerati in acest caz, de vreme ce familia a recunoscut ca se face vinovata de asta. Cu alte cuvinte, daca cineva omoara pe altul si recunoaste, ar trebui absolvit? Sa fin seriosi.
    In ce priveste legile norvegiene, evident, eu ma refeream la normalitate, nu la exemplele extreme pe care le oferiti, pentru a devia discutia. Norvegienii au scos in afara legii disciplinarea fizica. E dreptul lor si foarte bine ca au facut-o. Daca cuiva nu-i place asta, nu are decit sa nu stea in Norvegia.
    Cit despre eleganta, daca sunt gata sa va tratez pe dvs in mod decent ca perrsoana, nu sunt dispus sa fac acelasi lucru cu ideile pe care le socotesc periculoase sau stupide. Aici nu discutam numai noi doi, ci asista la discutie si altii, care s-ar putea simti. De aceea nu am nicio intentie de a tolera ceea ce poate face rau altora, inclusiv acelei familii. De asemenea, sunt atit de satul de revarsarea de ura si prostie din mediul evanghelic, incit, dupa ce am inghitit ani de zile o multime de mizerii, am decis sa anu te mai tolerez. Se poate sa nu va placa asta. E dreptul dvs. Dar si al meu de a actiona conform constiintei.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. Nu banuiti bine, imi displace disciplinarea fizica profund. Am apreciat sinceritatea parintilor in a admite cum au procedat, dar asta nu inseamna deloc ca i-am si aprobat. Dar daca au spus adevarul in acest punct sensibil pentru ei, e o dovada in plus ca spun adevarul si in celelalte, aceasta era ideea mea in mesajul anterior.

    Iar conceptia potrivit careia “e tara lor si fac ce vor cu ea” o aplicati fiecarei tari in parte? Sau sunteti selectiv? Asa trebuie sa gandim si despre tarile comuniste si cele care incalca grav drepturile omului? Am gasit articole ca si Norvegia ar incalca drepturile omului, ce ziceti despre asta?

    Si inca ceva: daca ar fi fost adevarat ca “my friend” era doar o forma eleganta de adresare, tot mesajul dvs. anterior ar fi trebuit sa fie elegant, atat in forma, cat si in fond.

    Cat despre simtit in spatiul dvs. virtual…nu e un loc prea primitor, e adevarat, dar asta nu e un motiv sa nu pot purta un dialog decent, indiferent de cum sunt tratata de interlocutor. Totusi, un om politicos face tot posibilul sa te simti bine pe situl lui si, chiar daca are opinii contrare, le exprima alegandu-si cu grija cuvintele sa nu fie ofensator ( apropos de rubbish si foolishly, de exemplu, nu prea va fac cinste, dar alegerea cuvintelor potrivite tine si de educatie, e adevarat) si in niciun caz nu-ti spune “nu reveniti”.
    Toate cele bune!


  61. sincer, doamna, nici eu nu doresc sa fim prieteni; a fost doar o forma eleganta de adresare
    dvs aveti dreptul sa credeti ce doriti si sper ca-mi lasati si mie aceeasi libertate; in rest, sa auzim numai de bine
    si, a propos, ORICE FORMA de disciplinare fizica este COMPLET INTERZISA in Norvegia; banuiesc ca nu va place asta, dar nu are nicio importanta, pentru ca e tara lor si fac ce vor cu ea; restul sunt vorbe
    sa fiti sanatoasa; nu reveniti daca nu va simtiti bine aici; nu va obliga nimeni

    Liked by 1 person

  62. […] comentariu cretin, cenzurat

    raspuns: tovarasu’ vizitiu, poate aveti de lucru si noi va retinem; vedeti ca va asteapta latrina lui Cristian Ionescu; acolo se poate voma orice; aici pastram curatenie si fugarim prostii

    Liked by 2 people

  63. In general, it is not good to hear only one part in a disagreement, especially when there are such high stakes as children, and in this case 5 of them. But this should also be blamed on the government which does not make it possible for the public to get to know the facts. In fact, this is one of the criticism which is brought against the norwegian government, that it is not transparent in matters of CP.

    There is, for instance this case where a swed’s child has been taken in custody. She moved back to sweden and brought the matter to the attention of the swedish CP. They asked the norwegian CP to bring the child back the mother in Sweden, as they (the swedish CP) will take over the case. The norwegian CP would not do it. Why? Do we have any reason to believe that the norwegian CP is more competent than the swedish CP? Authorities from other countries have complaints against Norwegian CP, as well. Please read for yourself, as this article happens to be in English:

    There are other examples as well. The national TV (NRK) broadcasted a dokumentary about a 4 month year old girl, Amalie, who was taken from her Family by the CP. Only because of this did the authorities began to see what really happened. I quote from the article what the four experts which were asked to investigate concluded:

    CP claims that the parents lack caring abilities: not documented.
    CP claims that the child was harmed due to lacking interaction With the parents: not dokumented.
    CP moved the child to stangers without investigating if anyone else in the Family could take care of the child: this is probably a violation of human rights
    CP deleted the documentation of this case: violation of Norwegian Law and of human rights.

    The four experts are as follows:

    Mons Oppedal, professor of Law and expert in children’s rights. Has a PHD in legistation for acute handlings within the norwegian children’s Law.

    Willy-Tore Mørch professor of children’s psychology. He was one of the experts who in a 2012 repprt recommended the government that CP must react more quickly in cases involving infants. (nevertheless, he supported the conclusions mentioned above in this case!!!)

    Annika Melinger, professor of developement psychology. She has worked for many Boards and commisions of the courts of law.

    Marit Skivenes, professor in administration and organizational Sciences. She researches on the CP’s interpretations and documentation used for displacing a child from home.

    Here is the whole article:

    I did not find any traces that this issue has been resolved in the favor of the family. As a matter of fact this follow up article mentions that once an infant is removed from a family there is almost no way back. It’s gone about three years now, and the child is emotionally bound to her forster tamily now. They say, that the mistake has already been commited and children’s rights must be taken care for before the decision to remove the child is reached and not after.

    The thing is, it seems to me that there is no one to go to who can really help. If you are so unlucky as to be subjected to wrong doings on the hands of the CP, there is no one who can help before it is too late for you as a parent anyways.

    Liked by 1 person

  64. Si totusi… sunt publicatii importante din Occident care au preluat stirea (,,, si lista poate continua).. Cum se face ca publicatiile [crestine macar] din Norvegia sunt atat indiferente fata de un caz care se refera la propria tara? Nu ar fi fost normal ca acestia sa se sesizeze intr-un anume fel? Sunt foarte putine site-uri din norvegia care trateaza subiectul.. Un exemplu ar fi:

    Liked by 1 person

  65. Am sa va raspund in romana, fiindca vad ca si altii au facut-o si pot sa ma exprim mai bine.
    Nu sunt si nu doresc sa fiu prietena dvs., imi cer scuze daca va suna cumva ofensator (eu sper sa nu), dar am criterii clare si precise cu privire la alegerea prietenilor. Desigur, nu va pot interzice sa va adresati cum vreti, doar am precizat ca nu va pot intoarce prietenia implicita din adresarea dvs. (“My friend”).

    Desigur ca este problema mea dezamagirea cu privire la faptul ca nu toti crestinii aleg sa acorde credit spuselor unui alt crestin, dar asta nu inseamna ca nu sunt libera sa mi-o exprim. Apreciez ca mi-ati aprobat comentariul, va pot asigura ca va voi aproba si eu comentariile atunci cand voi decide sa scriu pe acest subiect pe unul sau mai multe dintre siturile mele (daca veti vrea sa comentati, desigur).

    Atunci cand spunem ceva, mesajele noastre au o componenta explicita si una implicita. Cand prietenul dvs. afirma ca avem doar varianta parintilor suparati/ furiosi, ravasiti, frustrati si ca trebuie sa tinem cont de asta, implicitul este ca nu trebuie sa acordam 100 % valoare de adevar spuselor lor, fiindca ei sunt…suparati/furiosi, frustrati si ca ar trebui sa stim ce spune Barnevernetu ca sa stim adevarul a ce s-a intamplat acolo. Dar Barnevernetul nici nu a fost prezent in casa lor, asa ca ceea ce stiu, stiu doar din interviurile copiilor, interviuri luate nu stim in ce conditii. Ups. Cred ca am facut o observatie de bun simt cand am afirmat ca un om frustrat nu este neaparat un mincinos, iar daca mai este si credincios, avem si mai multe motive sa credem ca lucrurile stau chiar asa cum ni le-a prezentat. De altminteri, famlia nu s-a sfiit sa precizeze ca si-au disciplinat intr-adevar copiii, doar ca nu la modul in care exagereaza Barnevernet. E o dovada de onestitate.

    “As my Norwegian friend said, you are not helping at all the Bodnarius in this manner.”

    Cred ca numai Dumnezeu poate decide daca ajutam vreunul prin ceea ce facem si spunem, fiindca numai el poate vedea clar consecintele pe termen lung ale faptelor noastre. Datoria noastra este sa nu mintim si sa nu aruncam umbre de indoiala asupra fratilor nostri fara sa avem un motiv intemeiat. Iar decizia mea este sa nu ma raportez la judecata dvs. (sau a prietenului dvs.), atunci cand spuneti ca vorbesc “foolishly”), ci la cea a lui Dumnezeu, imi cer scuze iarasi daca asta va suna ofensator (sper ca nu).


  66. My friend, please do not waste my time with this kind of rubbish. Your illusionary disappointment is your problem. As to Christian love, you are holding to a fake kind of it. Shape up, man, and face the facts, if you dare.
    And, if you want to comment something, have the decency to read and understand what is said. Spare me, please, with you ridiculous presuppositions.
    If not, just pray, and do not muddle the waters with your nonsense. As my Norwegian friend said, you are not helping at all the Bodnarius in this manner. You should better pray, rather than to speak foolishly. Who knows, maybe you yourself will be enlightened.

    Liked by 1 person

  67. Thank you, Sir, for your contribution to this discussion. The case is complex, we certainly do not know enough about the bare facts and, as you said yourself, the jury is still out for a verdict.
    There is something I do not understand. Why did not the parents involve the Pentecostal denmination in Norway? That is fishy.
    Furthermore, the fact that the recent appeal was rejected is not at all a good sign. We shall see.
    In the mean time, let us pray for the family and especially for thethe children affected.


  68. mă tot întrebam ce va face haita de experți, avocați și alți specialiști ce au tot examinat căile de intervenție în favoarea opăritului, marelui, singurului și celui mai unic apărător al dreptății, învingătorului balaurului de orice fel, orice culoare politică, religioasă, iconomică, soțială și… ciclopedică, care va să zică, după cum îl știm de la 48 pe ionescu cristiansen mare pastor internațional, extraterestru, extragalactic, reprezentantul dumnezeului său pe această planetă ce pălește în importanță față de persoana și misiunea sa?

    fac chetă pentru soclul statui marelui personaj. io dau 5 lei. cine dă mai mult?


  69. “The parents are angry and troubled (and that is understandable) and have their version supporting their frustration.The Child Welfare Service has said nothing and will not be allowed to say anything because they are bound by client confidentiality and we must remember that the information we have about what the Child Welfare Service has said and done is from the frustrated parents.”

    Do you mean that parents are not telling the true?
    Looks like they have been honest and told all the accusations against them and also provided some explanations of the episode when the father was accused of shaken the baby.
    He knows better, doesn’t he? You weren’t there, I wasn’t there, but he was there! Why shouldn’t I believe him? Just because he is frustrated does not mean he is a liar.
    I am disappointed a Christian does not believe another Christian and would rather believe an institution which took away a 3 months baby from her mother.This is not Christian love!


  70. Hello,

    I am a romanian who has lived in Norway 24 years now. I would describe myself as well integrated into this country and well able to follow the press here. In terms of these “qualifications”, here is my oppinions on this matter.

    I am perplexed by this case. I do agree with you, and your norwegian friend, that we do lack the explanations of the other side. All we know is what the family says. This is most unfortunate. The Child Protection (CP) services can not divulge their case, indeed, and this paralizes me. I want to know the truth, but the CP’s version is not available.

    This is a disturbing situation, as the public is hold hostage to the existig regulations.

    I find your norwegian friend’s analysis good, but not too enlightening. I do not consider him to be ill intended, but, as he says himself, he can not really dig into this, because nobody would give him the relevant information. His search in the media has not resulted to anything, but I do know somebody who has contacted several newspapers and asked them to cover the story, and they did not chose to do so. So I do not agree with him that the norwegian press is really very keen to carry such stories, as he considers they are. By the way, if he really thinks that the nnorwegian press is so up to the task, maybe he should choose to try to convince some norwegian press to start looking into this now.

    I do agree though, that some of the allegations against the CP are so wild that nobody would take them seriously. Therefore, for everyone who really wants to improve how the CP works in Norway, please refrain from wild stories and present only facts which you know to be true and which you can rightfully require to be checked and corrected. In presenting fantasies as complaints you will only strengthen the position of the CP and the government behind the CP, as they will easily dismiss the critics as unserious.

    The search done by your norwegian friend has missed some important facts concerning the CP in Norway. I largely agree with him, but his analysis is probably giving too positive a report of the CP. What I would like to add to his analysis is the following:

    1) Professionals working with and for the CP (psychologists, lawyers, etc.) have published at least one or two reports in which they are criticizing th CP for great wrongs in some of their handling of some cases. The reports have been given to the government, which is trying to analyze them and improve the CP. However, this is going to take time (understandably) and the traumas caused in the case of the CP wrong handling will probably never be repairable. For instance if the CP will still keep the small baby of the Bodnariu family in custody, and it will take 2 – 3 years to battle the CP in courts, by the time the family would presumably win their case, the little child would have forgotten his biological parents and developed emotional bonding to his new care takers. Then it would be in the best interest of the child to remain in custody, because uprooting him again would be detrimental to the child. So the parents will not stand a chance to get the child back, because the well being of the child is regarded as more important than the rights of the parents.

    The above mentioned profesionals make themselves claims that the CP is sometimes grossly incompetent, that it is a money making machine, especially for psychologists, that the courts do not take into account the reports of other psycologists representing the families, etc. Please read the following article in Aftenposten (in Norwegian)

    Also please watch this interview with Einar Salvesen, one of the psychologists behind the afore mentioned article (in Norwegian)

    While it is true, as mentioned by your norwegian friend, that the government is trying to improve the CP (he quotes the minister of children in presenting how they work on it, and, yes, there is such a minister in Norway) they are very slow in making changes, while the consequences are enormous for those involved in mistakes. Think about a surgeon making a mistake while operating…

    Because most children needing help from CP are not taken from christian families on the bases of “christian indoctrination” (as it is alleged in this case) but rather from families where there is some kind of abuse og gross neglect, there is a certain trend lately here in Norway that in the meeting with the CP, adults have to accept being investigated for allegations of abuse of some kind (trod on their toes) and fight to prove themselves not guilty, so that as many as possible of the really suffering children will be helped. I do not agree with this way of thinking, but this is what one influential CP-representative affirms in her debate contributions, please see this article (in norwegian again)—-Voksne-ma-tale-a-bli-trakket-pa-tarne-8038801.html

    In my oppinion she is expressing a somewhat sickely version of “the goal justifies the means” idiom. As such I consider her to be unqualified to work for the CP and she might be the cause of why some CP employees sometimes might get carried away with enthusiasm in doing their job.

    If this has happened in the Bodnariu case or not, I do not know. And, sadly, I do not know how to find out. But I do hope that the truth will surface, and that quickly.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: