The Case of Bodnariu Family – A Further Norwegian Perspective

Bodnariu children

Note: As you can see below, my Norwegian friend has followed closely the conversation here on this case and is offering a further (and final) perspective on this matter.

* * *

Dear Danut,

We certainly entered a wasps nest (or maybe a rats nest) engaging in this discussion. I have read all the postings you have sent me, and I have followed up the different links and watched the taped interviews with interest.

Before I make my comments, I want to make it perfectly clear that yes, errors are made, and every error is one too many, and that I am all for continued improvement of the organization and the routines of the Child Welfare Service. (I prefer to use the official name even if some call it the Child Protection service.)

BUT if you want to change a system you cannot do it based on anecdotal evidence. If you look it up, you will find a lot of definitions and descriptions of “anecdotal evidence”, but here is one from Wikipedia:

“Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances, for example the use of case studies in medicine.”

If we look at what has been presented in this case, it is anecdotal evidence. Even if we assume that the stories presented are true examples of wrongdoings on the part of the Child Welfare Service, what do we have? Less than 10 examples spanning 5 years!

In 2014 the Norwegian Child Welfare Service initiated 41900 investigations. If you multiply this by five years covered by the anecdotal evidence you have around 200000 investigations and 10 examples of wrongdoing. Even if you tenfold or hundredfold the examples, that will still be only a tiny fraction of the cases the Child Welfare Service has been engaged in. Based on the flimsiest of flimsy “evidence” the entire Child Welfare Service is depicted as insensitive, incompetent and self-righteous.

The whole discussion started with what has happened to the Bodnariu family. Since the Child Welfare Service is organized as a municipal service (Norway has 428 municipalities) it might have been of interest if some of the examples were connected with the Child Welfare Service office in question. None of the examples pertain the Child Welfare Service in Nausdal.

More anecdotal evidence is presented in the 20 min. interview with the psychologist Einar Salvesen on YouTube. He presents some examples of badly managed cases and claims to have knowledge of fare more. He also claims that experts write reports to please the Child Welfare Service in order to be commissioned to write more reports thus making working as an expert a multimillion industry, that the Child Welfare Service boosts cases and “orders” reports to increase their budgets, that the ties between Child Welfare Service and expert in this way get too close, and that he has knowledge of expert reports with detrimental conclusions for the parents based on one single conversation.

Strong accusations, and let us look at the facts. In 2014 there were 53088 children with care from the Child Welfare Service. 43477 received assistant measures (support in the home, free kindergarten, sports activities for the children etc.) and 9611 were under care measures (normally custody of the children). These figures comprise the entire group in the age 1-17 in Norway, which means around 1.4 million children and adolescents. If you break down these figures, 0.76 % of the children in the age group 1-17 (1.4 million) were under care measures while 2,2 % received assistant measures.

If you look at the year 2014 the Child Welfare Service concluded 41000 investigations. In 42 % of these investigations the conclusion was some sort of action from the Child Welfare Service. In 1.5 % of the cases care measures were recommended and the case was sent to the county social welfare board. Care measures are under the Child Welfare Act, Section 4-12 (and section 4-8). All decisions on taking over care for a child and placing it away from its home for upbringing is decided in the county social welfare board. A child can be under care until it is 18 years old.

In 44 % of the investigations the Child Welfare Service concluded that there was no need of any assistance or intervention. 8 % of the cases were closed because the family did not want any help and 5 % were closed because the family had moved. As we see, in less than half of the investigations any measures were taken and in only 1,5 % the Child Welfare Service took custody of the children. The information is from the annual report from Statistics Norway. [See HERE and HERE]

So where is the multimillion industry? The claim was that experts write reports to please the Child Welfare Service in order to be commissioned to write more reports thus making working as an expert a multimillion industry. 1.5 % of the cases concluded with a recommendation of child measures, which demand an expert report. 1.5 % is 615 cases in all of Norway in 2014 out of 41000 is not much of a business deal. In my opinion these figures raise serious doubt about the claim that expert reports are written to comply with wishes from the Child Welfare Service that has a wish boost cases for budged reasons. 615 expert reports spread all over the country is also no basis for a multimillion industry even if only a few experts were involved in all cases. The notion of only a few experts having a countrywide monopoly is also contradicted by the size of the country and the distances involved in travelling between the 428 municipalities. It is just not practically possible.

What about the claim that expert reports with detrimental conclusions for the parents, are based on one conversation? If this is the case, then the reason obviously cannot be making money since the experts are paid by the hour. The reason for such a report might of course be a fatal lack of professional ethics, but in addition the expert would also have to be extremely stupid. Being stupid would also apply to the Child Welfare Service trying to use such a report. Obviously this is anecdotal evidence; at best a singular case, and such “evidence” cannot be applied to a whole group of professionals without further substantiating evidence.

Finally, the accusation that the ties between the experts and the Child Welfare Service are too close, and that the Child Welfare Service has undue influence on the decision to take custody of a child. There are two reasons why this is hard to believe.

All decisions on taking over care for a child and placing it away from its home for upbringing is decided in the county social welfare board. County and municipality are separate administrative levels with no overlaps. Even if such ties should exist at the municipal level the effect of these ties will disappear on the next administrative level (county). The proof often offered for the existence of these ties is that even if there is no formal connection, the same people sit on both sides of the table and that there are too close ties between the professionals (mostly psychologists).

The second reason why the existence of an unholy alliance between experts and the Child Welfare Service is unlikely is that the system is very transparent (in spite of the claims of the opposite).

In 2014 the Ministry for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion issued a set of rules regulating the activity of professional experts. The intention behind these rules is to provide greater transparency about the relationship between the expert and the commissioning authority and the authority responsible for making decisions. In addition the rules should heighten the consciousness about legal competence.

Every professional expert is obliged to submit a written statement detailing the number of expert reports, consultations, supervisions etc. the expert has had for the employer of his/her services. In addition the statement must include information about previous work as expert county board member and/or duty as assistant judge during the last two years. In addition the professional expert must submit a CV detailing professional education, specialization, fields of employment, research and employer/employers. If the employing agency is large, the expert must also supply information about the executive officer/officers he/she has been working for or has cooperated with. The statement and the CV shall follow the expert report in all instances and at all levels where the expert report is submitted. [See HERE]

In 2010 the government also established the Expert Commission on Children to quality assure all reports submitted by experts in child welfare cases “whether these (reports) have been ordered by the child welfare service, the county social welfare board, the courts or the private parties. It is only once a report has been reviewed by the commission that it can form the basis for measures in accordance with chapter 4 of the Child Welfare Act. An expert report that forms the basis for the child welfare service not implementing measures must also be submitted to the commission. 

The Expert Commission on Children consists of a chair and 15 commission members who are appointed by the King in Council for a period of three years. The current commission has been appointed for the period from 25 January 2013 until 31 December 2015. The commission’s secretariat shares premises with the Norwegian Civil Affairs Authority in Oslo.” [See HERE]

The work of the commission has had its critics (more anecdotal evidence), but it is an important step in the direction of assuring the quality of expert reports in the Child Welfare Service.

Given these provisions you really have to be into conspiracy theory to believe that unholy alliances between professional experts and employing agency can go undetected.

So far we have looked at claims pertaining alleged misdoings by the Child Welfare Service and the professionals they employ. The focus has been on possible wrongdoing of an overzealous Service intent on destroying families by removing children from the care of their parents. The picture presented is of a public service staffed by incompetent and money hungry people, intent on destroying families. People associated with the Child Welfare Service (experts, members of the county social welfare board) are also incompetent and lack ethical standards and professional integrity and everybody is part of a multimillion industry. In my opinion the evidence presented is anecdotal and does not support the conclusions. Frankly, if this evidence and these conclusions had been presented in a thesis, even at the bachelor level of a decent university, the student would have flunked.

Still anecdotal evidence is not without merit if it is used properly. Anecdotal evidence is a good starting point for asking questions in an evaluation of the service. When starting with anecdotal evidence you must however have an open mind. It is of course important to check if the stories are true, but more important is to check if the stories are representative of what goes on in the service. I would have no problem finding at least 20 stories – anecdotal evidence- depicting a well-functioning Child Welfare Service, staffed by competent dedicated people working with families who accept unpopular and painful decisions because they see that at this point they are necessary. But that would only “prove” that different people have different experiences with the Child Welfare Service.

My contention is that any change based on either set of anecdotal evidence would be wrong. In the construction business they have a saying: “Ask before you start digging”. “Dig first and ask later“ is not a responsible approach.

I therefore commend the group of more than 100 professional who signed a petition to the government expressing their concern for the situation in the Child Welfare Service. The Minister for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion has respondent positively and she has invited representatives of the group to a meeting where she hoped she would get concrete suggestions for possible changes.

There is one claim I find especially absurd and insulting to the group of Norwegian foster parents. It is the claim that being a foster parent is a lucrative business. To support the claim, figures of yearly salary of NOK 430000, paid vacations and other benefits are presented. The figures are correct, but are not the whole truth; actually they are relevant for only a small number of foster homes. As Hitlers propaganda minster, Goebels, said: “When telling a lie, add some of the truth. In that way you make the lie credible”. If however one wants the truth, one needs the whole picture.

Being a foster parent is in Norway regarded as a job and all foster parents are paid compensation. The compensation consists of two parts, salary and expenses. The salary is taxed and money for expenses will cover extra food, clothes, hobbies, sports activities etc. Mostly being a foster parent will be a part time job, but sometimes it will also be a full time job. Part time or full time is decided by the needs of the foster child. If for some reason connected to the needs of the foster child one of the foster parents has to stay at home, a compensation for lost income from work will be paid (taxable).

In some cases the needs of the child are so great that they need the support of a foster home with additional support measures. Foster homes with additional support represent a minor part of the foster homes in Norway. In a foster home with additional support measures, one of the foster parents will be engaged as a full time foster parent. In these cases a salary of NOK 430000 may be paid. This is not an excessive salary in Norway and corresponds to what a normal teacher might earn. Paid vacation is no big deal. All Norwegians who are working have 5 weeks of paid vacation per year. Actually you pay your own vacation because for 11 months your employer withholds 10.2 % of your salary and during you holidays this sum is paid back to you. Sometimes the foster child might have special needs and special adaptations in the foster home might be needed. If, for example the foster child is physically challenged, there might be a need for alterations in the home, and this will be compensated. It is however always the needs of the child that are the basis of extra compensation.

That being a foster parent is regarded as a job is one of the strong points of the system. It is not charity, and when you pay a salary and have a contract you can demand that people do a proper job.

The claim that being a foster parent is a lucrative business is also contradicted by the fact that there is a serious shortage of foster homes in all parts of the country.


Finally back to where the whole story started, the Bodnariu family. The last information supplied by the father´s brother is interesting. As I have mentioned, in Norway it is by law forbidden for parents to use physical punishment. The Child Welfare Service is also by law obliged to check reports of physical punishment. What really sets of all alarms in the Child Welfare Service are reports of babies being manhandled. I do not know if you have heard of “Shaken Baby Syndrome”, but this is a set of serious injuries resulting from uncontrolled shaking of babies.

In this case the description was “shaken like a rag”, and even if the father contends this, the Child Welfare Service has to check the child and make sure that it has not received any injuries. As I understand neurological examinations have been made, and luckily no injuries were detected. The Child Welfare Service is obliged to react in the reported incidents, but what is more debatable is the severity of the reaction. I understand that the school director did not support taking custody of the two oldest children by fetching them in school (even if the director sent a message of concern to the Child Welfare Service). I also understand that the father has been actively engaged in social activities in the community and has been a member of the board of the local school. On the negative side is the mention that the grandmother (the mother´s mother) is a strongly religious lady with views on physical punishment not in accord with Norwegian law. (I often wish that some religious movements paid more attention to the scripture´s message of love, grace and forgiveness.) Engaging in a discussion will only lead to an escalation of the conflict. He should not give the Child Welfare Service a picture of a quarrelsome and uncooperative father. The baby has no injuries and he must try to negotiate the return of the children, if necessary with close follow up by the Child Welfare Service for a period. He might have overstepped, but he is a loving responsible father. He should try to get the support of the school director since the director can give a positive picture of him and the family. If it is not possible to get reach an acceptable agreement with the Child Welfare Service, try to find a moderator (Forum 18?) and if that is not accepted, get a good lawyer, run out the ‘big guns’ and pray for the best.

Author: DanutM

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

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

  1. […] censored comment
    What do you know about fighting the Securitate? I’ll tell you: nothing.
    Do not bother to return. There is not place here for people of your kind.


  2. My dear, in ALL these cases, it seems, parents spamked their children, which, again, is ILLEGAL in Norway. Period. The rest is unessential.
    I wish you well in bringing democracy to Norway. I m sure that is a apiece of cak. And, when you finish, hopefully, you may also bring to to Hungary, and Romania, for that matter.


  3. I’ve heard that argument, and it’s cheap. The truth is the truth, no matter who holds it, be that the devil himself. And an illegality is an illegality, no matter who does it.
    If you do not understrand that, you do not understand anything.


  4. […] censored comment
    Response: I do not use to talk with cowards, who hide behind annonymity. You are not welcome here. Farewell!


  5. I guess the autoritarian way of Orban Viktor might look different from closer, like the authoriarian way of Barnevernet, if you do not take a close look only, and you do not need to be his supporter for that.
    However, this comment has even no details at all — unlike the Bodnariu family’s case… — so it is completely impossible to react.

    I assume the major critics to the Norwegian childcare system is that there is no effective legal remedy against an interim decision of the Children Welfare Services for splitting the family.
    Such legal remedy should not take months and could save lots of issues with international relations (as far as I remember, Czech Republic, Lithuania and India had been involved.). And it could also help Norway to fulfill its international commitments.


  6. I wonder if your reaction would have been so careless if you grand kids were taken by CPS in Scotland. Who knows it may happen…


  7. As I said, Barnevernet is accountable to the courts.
    And, by the way, I see that you, like many Romanian evangelicals, are very concerned about Norway as a sate of law.
    I hope that you are as concerned about the authoritarian way Viktor Orban in managing Hungary these days. Otherwise, your concern for Norway may sound quite hypocritical.
    And, by the way, I invuite you to sign your messages, as I do, or our dialogue will stop here.
    I utterly dislike the cowardice of anonymous commentators.


  8. I wonder who decides which is the most important aspect and who decides that, based on what.
    Leaving this behind,
    I am afraid you have to look elsewhere for details about Norwegian legislation on child welfare. I am a theologian. \Legal matters are not my specialty. Nevertheless, as much as I know, the final decision of child placements with foster families is done in court. Since there has not been a hearing yet in Bodnariu’s case, that is still in the cooking.


  9. One more comment: I am not interested at this stage in any detailed information about the case in process. I am more interested in the legal processes of Children Welfare Services, any kind of legal warranties of a due process, any court to oversee the decisions of the Children Welfare Service Board, any public hearings, confrontation if necessary and so on.

    This topic is completely independent of confidential personal information so these questions could be answered in the public.

    Otherwise Children Welgare Services are not accountable legally, they can be above laws. Not a good idea and a potential breeding ground for abuses by the Child Welfare Services.


  10. Dear Danut,

    I understand your friends arguments. However, he is not reacting on the most important aspect:

    I would not like to join the absurd accusations of the Child Welfare Services. Many of them are crazy. However I am more concerned about the child care law and the processes in Norway which seem to be flawed.

    Are the decisions of the municipal Child Welfare Service and the decisions of the Service Board subject to legal remedies in Norway? As far as I understand there is no effective legal remedy against them as it is treated as a kind of expert/scientific question and not a legal topic.
    However their decisions could easily violate fundamental rights, as per UN Convention for Child Care as well as European Convention for Human Rights… the right for family, right for liberty (children’s freedom to go back to their parents) could have been violated.

    Hence the diagnosis could be a matter where there is no place for a judical review or legal remedy, however any actual measures (like separating a child from the family either temporarily or permanently) should be subject to legal remedy.

    The flawed process could lead to a blinkered approach of child care, not recognizing any other fundamental rights and leading to a disproportionate restriction of some of them. At the moment my understanding is that probably this is what are we seeing to happen.

    I agree, each case has to be investigated separately. However there have been a few cases, and they all seem to point to lack of fair / due processes, mainly due to the lack of national legal remedies.


  11. Draga doamna/domnisoara,
    Adevarul este o povara grea pentru firile plapinde. Asa cum erste si gindirea. UNeori, daca gindesti prea mult, risti sa te doara capul. Va sfatuiesc sa dati rar pe aici. S-ar putea sa va ‘cauzeze’.


  12. Rusine pt gazduirea acestui postari. Nu ma intereseaza replica la comentariul meu si nici publicarea comentariului. Ma revolta postarea d-voastra. Nu vreau sa cred ca facem parte din aceeasi fam. de credinta.


  13. I was drawn into reading about this case when I noticed a facebook post about Romanians organizing a protest in front of the Norwegian Embassy in Washington DC. Upon seeing some of the pictures from the event I must admit I was intrigued to find out why children were being wrongfully “abducted” from their parents in a society that is often applauded for being so progressive in human rights matters. Up until that facebook post, I had never heard of this issue before. I decided to do a little googling of my own and was surprised to see almost every article I came across was from some Christian newspaper or blog and titled something like “Children seized from Christian family”. As if the the inclusion of “christian family” in the title was supposed to make the readers gasp in horror – surely Christians could never do anything to deserve that! My spidey senses kicked in at this point but I decided to go ahead and read some of these articles anyway. The child abuse aspect of the case was seemingly, pushed to the side and made more important was the fact that “religious indoctrination” was the cause of the children’s removal from their family.So, what does the Norwegian government have to gain from removing 5 children from their religious home?

    I decided in order to form a more informed opinion, I should get the other side of the story, but quickly found that there really isn’t one! The CP agency has not commented or released information on this case at least as far as I could tell from my various google searches. This site is the closest I’ve come to seeing “the other side” of the story and based on the vague information provided here, an informed opinion still cannot be made of whether the actions taken in this case were right or wrong. So here are my lingering questions – Who is the CP agency protecting with their silence? The public’s quick judgement of the situation is obviously escalating all around the world and with their silence, the pressure will continue for them to return the children. Let’s assume the agency really does have good reason to suspect physical abuse, would they allow these children to go back to their parents knowing it’s an abusive environment just because they want to protect the children’s confidentiality? This seems absurd and not at all in the best interest of the children! Maybe they are just waiting to get all the facts, but it seems that if they have already sent the children into separate foster homes and denied the family’s appeal, they must know something pretty serious that the rest of us don’t – of course assuming this statement is true since as far as I know it has not been confirmed. After all, what would they gain in separating this family for no wrongdoing other than their religious beliefs? My questions may be shortsighted as I am not a lawyer or public worker and don’t live in Norway.


  14. I got your point, you’re having fun too! 😀

    Well, if I’m wrong (chance which is possible exactly the same as being right), I would owe some apologies to your Norwegian friend, it’s nothing wrong in that. The only real problem in sending them would be that I don’t know to whom to send to. It might be cheap but I can’t buy it even if I want to, isn’t it?
    Anyway, to cut it short, where do you see cowardice, here or at your anonymous friend? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not writing through delegates.

    Since you mentioned cheap stuff, take a look at some cheap stuff here:
    ” Finally, the accusation that the ties between the experts and the Child Welfare Service are too close, and that the Child Welfare Service has undue influence on the decision to take custody of a child. There are two reasons why this is hard to believe.

    All decisions on taking over care for a child and placing it away from its home for upbringing is decided in the county social welfare board. County and municipality are separate administrative levels with no overlaps. Even if such ties should exist at the municipal level the effect of these ties will disappear on the next administrative level (county). The proof often offered for the existence of these ties is that even if there is no formal connection, the same people sit on both sides of the table and that there are too close ties between the professionals (mostly psychologists).

    The second reason why the existence of an unholy alliance between experts and the Child Welfare Service is unlikely is that the system is very transparent (in spite of the claims of the opposite).”

    The second reason is a statement. No argument in its favour. Not even something like the system is very transparent because it’s made out of glass. Cheers! Wait, what about the confidentiality thing? Ah, rumors…
    On the first reason, definitely there is no overlap, but the administrative units are hiring the same people, obviously not in the same time. Oh, wait, those are the experts! Meaning the guys that sits at the foundation of the decisions made by CPS and the board. But of course this should exist. Mr Norwegian friend, will you trust a trial where the prosecutor and the judge is the same guy? If so, then you should send a CV at Inquisition AS, 12-16 century AD, Europe. If you didn’t got it, kindly review the CPS director comment on NRK.

    Still there are a lot of precious things in your friend’s comment, one of them is the mentioning of mr. Bodnariu being involved in the community activities and being member of the school board, but on the negative side the grandmother (the mother’s mother) being a fervent religious person. That’s somehow close to “What did the Romans ever do for us”, pretty good sketch of the fabulous Monty Pythons. Or like, for instance, me going to an interview for an engineer job and being evaluated as not good because my father didn’t had a Bachelors degree… Imagine such thing is used as evidence by CPS experts. This definitely won’t be anecdotal evidence but an expert proof.


  15. I wonder what are you going to say when, let us imagine, you will be proven totally wrong. The way I ‘read’ you now, may wrongly, is that you will cowardly refuse to admit and you will find some cheap excuses. Let us wait and see.


  16. Definitely! Sometimes discussing about Norwegian CPS is better than Monty Python surrealism. Obviously it’s not about the actions and their result, but the people involved in discussions around the subject. Look at what your Norwegian anonymous friend is writing. All stories, manipulation on internet, there is nothing wrong with CPS except maybe some isolated human errors, picking up only the bright side of the situation, or at least what he considers is bright. That in the context of Norwegian politicians and the heads of CPS offices having some serious itches with what the system became lately, not to mention the international frictions between Norway and various states on this subject.

    Take a close look at this and try to figure out how funny is this argument of your friend:
    “So far we have looked at claims pertaining alleged misdoings by the Child Welfare Service and the professionals they employ. The focus has been on possible wrongdoing of an overzealous Service intent on destroying families by removing children from the care of their parents. The picture presented is of a public service staffed by incompetent and money hungry people, intent on destroying families. People associated with the Child Welfare Service (experts, members of the county social welfare board) are also incompetent and lack ethical standards and professional integrity and everybody is part of a multimillion industry. In my opinion the evidence presented is anecdotal and does not support the conclusions. Frankly, if this evidence and these conclusions had been presented in a thesis, even at the bachelor level of a decent university, the student would have flunked.”

    when standing next to comment of a CPS head of office:
    “We have a clear understanding and experience with the private players will easily be able to run a process in which it is generated further work for the consultant / firm.”
    Absolutely priceless!


  17. I enjoy when discussion is relaxed, having fun and talking about anecdotes and evidence that raise a large smile on your face :D.
    Definitely the CPS referred as becoming an industry is a nice anecdote and its spread by malicious people. Those people say that lately the CPS budget exceeded 10bln NOK (I think the number was 12, but let’s keep it round). Roughly 250000 NOK / child in CPS care. This is indeed an anecdote since those money are going in places we don’t know, but it seems that certain private entities have a far better understanding of money flow since they’ve caught an opportunity in doing business with a part of them. At least that’s what some mean people said at NRK, Norway’s national television
    There are very interesting comments at the bottom of the article given by CPS directors and one of them is saying pretty clear what’s going on: “We have a clear understanding and experience with the private players will easily be able to run a process in which it is generated further work for the consultant / firm.” – A director of CPS is making anecdotes about this business. Definitely is an anecdote since the guy confuses charity with making good money. O course it is one person saying that, but the others didn’t looked too happy about it and most of them complains that this is a bit expensive for the commune.
    Nevertheless that 430000 NOK/year + vacation + benefits is somewhere a little above of medium gross wage in Norway and without questioning the fact that there are a lot of people that does foster because they consider doing a good thing, very few having higher income will do it, that because the medium income always has a higher number at the bottom, besides that, being foster parent is a 24/7 job and not a 8hrs job enjoying free weekends. I can afford to be mean here and say that most of it is done by families that are having the income way below this. That might explain anecdotic rumors about mistreatment in foster homes and sometimes even sexual abuse which is very nasty. Why is that? Well, because they are so skilled that they couldn’t get a better paid job I guess, and the sexual abuse can’t be other than irrational.
    But on a little more serious note, based on the numbers shown by the government, there are insufficient foster homes and there are insufficient experts, then how in Heaven people believe that CPS is doing a good job by removing poor kids from their families? Either experts have suggested unrealistic standards (then why do we call them experts and not lunatics?), or people in Norway is just not able to raise their children properly (can’t be that different from other ethnics statistically speaking), or… somebody is doing good business here. Don’t think that the somebody is a person, is a group and ultimately is the state itself which grabs my money and pays somebody else to learn how to teach me to raise my children. And everybody is happy having a job which most of us don’t actually need but whatever, we do say anecdotes and have fun. Still the way the situation is now shows a bit autistic perspective of the decision factors that might be well intended but they don’t have the means to achieve their goals (other than money, but money is useless when you have nothing to buy). Anecdotic or not, even statistics shows a fall between intention and execution and that excludes any human errors intended or not, is just an overview of the industry.

    When it comes to particular cases, indeed there is a lot of room for interpretation or misinterpretation. Since the law regulating CPS whereabouts is veeeeeery lose, it’s a bit hard to say who is right and who is wrong. From the point of view of intention, the state has given a powerful instrument in hands of CPS, the confidentiality law. That ends any debate from the very beginning since CPS “is not allowed by law” to say anything in public. More than that, you are not allowed to say anything in public either, or at least that’s the interpretation of the CPS and it is stated before any discussion with them. This leads to the anecdotic situation where the state protects you from yourself even if you don’t want that to happen and makes some of us wonder what for because in the end if your child is adopted, then there will be no trace of names or persons for public and the only person that is exposed is only you as a parent and you want to be exposed to the public. I mean if the CPS judgement is right… otherwise, CPS should really reconsider not taking harsh measures unless they are really necessary to avoid this kind of complications for the child.

    A real anecdote in the end, hopefully will remain just a joke, if the CPS continues this way, I believe that when somebody will shout in the crowd “I have called Barnevernet” will give a panic attack to all parents with kids up to 18 yo similar with what now is happening when shouting “A bomb”.


  18. On the other hand, I think that using physical abuse to “discipline” your children is “scandalous and should revolt any normal person”. I know this is hard to grasp for some Romanians who have heard all their lives that the beating comes from heaven, especially those with a religious upbringing (after all, whoever spares the rod hates their children, right?).
    I’m disappointed by this over-emotionally driven response from a part of the Romanian evangelical community and I see as a manipulation the attempt to downplay the children’s testimony and make this a religious freedom issue. I’m sorry, but for me the family’s explanation: “they’re children, they make up stuff” is not good enough. The CPS should be allowed to investigate and we should wait for the findings. Using legal means to get back your kids, I can understand. Devising conspiracy theories, launching a media campaign to derail the investigation and making crazy accusations about the authorities, not so much. That’s at least questionable, if not downright suspicious.


  19. Gabriel:
    Solutia nu este in institutiile europene. Problema norvegiana nu e una izolata. Normele europene sunt bune in materie de poluare, siguranta circulatiei, etc. Ele nu trebuiesc idolatirizate. Problema norvegiana e si europeana si americana. Guvernele noastre- dupa model vestic- au ajuns sa dicteze in probleme de constiinta. Oameni ce n-au avut copii -in afara de cei pe care i-au avortat- impun modelul lor de crestere al copilului/educare; sunt cei mai mari si unicii experti. Extremisti sexuali si scelerati sunt experti consultanit guvernaentali. Ideea lor de familie e impusa nu doar societatii dar tot mai mult si bisericilor. Avem de-a face c-o dictatura secularizata. Un ex. din UE. O familie din Germania e in process cu USA pt emigrare. Expulzata din America unde s-a refugiat. Motivul? Ei fac scolarizare la domiciliu in Germania (sunt nemti) si e legal dar nu vor sa-si trimita copiii la cursul de educatie sexuala obligatoriu si pt cei ce se scolarizeaza la domiciliu. Germania e mai blinda decit Norvegia nu le ia copiii ci doar le baga parintii la zdup (tot e mai bine). Am 59 de ani si 2 copii mici in USA. Legea de-aici te lasa sa vezi ce le arata copiilor… m-am dus sa vad… si ma abtin. Nadejdea nu e in UE. Familia germana a cerut ajutor USA -refuzata de UE- si degeaba in ambele cazuri. Problema e ca noi -ca cetateni UE sau USA- lasam guvernele sa devina detinatoarele adevarurilor ultime si proprietarul de drept al copiilor nostril. La asta ne incurajeaza bisericile PoMo si teologii crestini, educati in vest, care confera toata autoritatea guvenelor secularizate si paginizate de la care asteptam “lumina”. “Normele” nu pot fi contestate! Daca noi faceam asta in communism, nu mai era biserica. E Craciun si Mintuitorul a venit intr-o lume ostila si ne-a chemat sa fim cetateni ai unei imparatii ce nu-i din lumea asta…. Problema nu e daca Bodnariu si-a urecheat copiii si nici ca i-a indoctrinat crestineste (cum am facut si noi in comunism ) problema e ca guvernele au ajuns sa aiba ultimul cuvint in materie de probleme familale; nimic nu mai e in afara controlului lor. E un Craciun extrem de trist. Dumenzeu n-a lasat asta la intimplare. Poate ne vom trezi! Altfel, viitorul e dupa modelul norvegian.


  20. Cand am scris “this topic” ma gandeam la “Barnevernet si abuzurile sale”.

    Nu am spus ca ma retrag de la a urmari sau comenta pe blogul Dvs., desi poate ca nu este o idee rea.

    Imi cer scuze pentru ca nu am fost suficient de clar in exprimare.

    Si, daca tot am ultimul cuvant, va doresc Sarbatori fericite !


  21. Vali, subiectul acestor discutii nu este legitimitatea unei legi, Desigur, daca vrei putem discuta si asta, desi pe mine subiectul nu ma intereseaza.
    Subiectul este faptul ca, din cite se pare, caci nu stiu inca faptele. dincolo de orice indoiala, familia Bodnariu a incalcat legea si acum copiii lor sunt victimele acestei decizii iresponsabile.
    Sper din toata inima ca, in cele din urma, ei vor pricepe ce au facut, vor recunoaste, vor decide sa traiasca intre limitele legii si ca, in cele din urma, copiii se vor intoarce acolo unde le este locul, in familia lor naturala.


  22. Era o simpla cugetare, fara legatura cu cazul Bodnariu si a carei aplicabilitate depaseste persoana Domniei voastre.

    Iar daca ati adus vorba de buna cuviinta, eu v-am respectat de la bun inceput in postarile mele. Dumneavoastra ati raspuns cu mistocareli. Inteleg din asta ca doar mie mi se aplica regulile bunului simt.

    Si da, cunosc semnificatiile lui “rude” in engleza si franceza. Ceea ce a scris prietenul Dumneavoastra este foarte nepoliticos fata de oamenii ale caror familii au fost distruse de Barnevernet.


  23. Danut, daca discutarea legii care le-a luat copiii nu e importanta, atunci ce mai inseamna ‘important’ in discutia noastra? Ambasadoarea Norvegiei spune ca legile in Norvegia sunt aspre. Parerea unora (inclusiv a mea) e ca ele sunt barbare. Evident familia Bodnariu nu este una din acelea care isi schingiueste sau tortureaza copiii – cazuri in care este intr-adevar absolut legitim sa li-i iei. Familia isi disciplineaza copiii asa cum a facut-o omenirea dintotdeauna pana la aceste legi noi. In plus, ei cred ca Biblia este de acord cu ideea. Sa inteleg ca legile din Norvegia lutheran liberala sau in orice caz, lutheran nominala (doar doua procente din ei mai trec pe la biserica) se vor a fi o lectie (si) pentru conservatorii literalisti (probabil nu intamplator sunt acuzati de ‘crestnism extrem’ in context)? Banuiesc ca familia respectiva nu accepta hermeneutica biblica a bisericii norvegiene de stat. Ideea nu e ca puteau sa nu se mute in Norvegia: sotia era norvegiana, dintr-o familie de crestini norvegieni conservatori care nu sunt de acord cu legea si n-au fost niciodata intrebati prin vot sau referendum daca sunt sau nu de acord cu ea. Cand legea a fost prima data impusa in Suedia, sondajele aratau ca mai mult de jumatate din suedezi se opun legii. Si chiar in privinta hermeneuticii moderne (crestine sau necrestine) exista o gama larga de optiuni – de la Derrida pana la Hirsch jr). Care sunt bazele stiintifice serioase din spatele acestei legi, descoperirile psihologice care demonstreaza ca o corectie fizica usoara are efecte distructive radicale, criminale, asupra psihicului copilului?


  24. Danut, eu nu discut despre cazul Bodnariu aici ci despre o lege, care mie mi se pare incredibil de abuziva pentru o lume care a scapat de comunism. Acest maniheism imanent de genul bunii care nu dau palme la fund versus raii care o mai fac am mai intalnit in Franta iacobina, unde cea mai mica miscare in front in fata noului regim se pedepsea cu decapitarea. Am intalnit si in Germania cazuri parinti-copii asemanatoare cu cel din Norvegia: dar autoritatile de aici sunt ceva mai umane: au luat copiii parintilor doar pentru 6 luni, dupa care i-au dat copiilor inapoi. Nu pot exista si in Norvegia legi ceva mai umane? Nu se poate incerca si o recuperare a parintilor (in sensul legii norvegiene) si o salvare a familiei? Se spune ca dreptul copiilor are prioritate asupra dreptului parintilor. Si cine stabileste dreptul copiilor: copiii insisi sau asistentii sociali care ‘stiu ei mai bine’? Pentru ca daca ai intreba copiii, dincolo de bataile pe care le-au primit, ei ar vrea sa se intoarca acasa, la mama si tata. Nu este si acesta dorinta un drept al lor? A calca aceasta lege cu pricina in Norvegia pare a fi echivalent cu pacatul impotriva Duhului Sfant. Asta eu nu pot sa inteleg, ca om modern care traieste (cica) intr-o lume moderna.


  25. Parca spuneati ca va retrageti. Sau v-ati razgindit? Ori mai aveati de dat o lectie?
    A propos, de cind ne tutuim? Nu cred ca am pascut impreuna bobocii pe imas.
    Invatati buna cuviinta. Va poate fi de folos in viata.


  26. My friend, you being prone to conspiracy theories is so obvious that anybody can see. The fact that you deny it is itself a proof of that.Now, you may do that. It’s a free world. But you cannot have the cake and eat it too.


  27. Vali, simpla palma la fund este ilegala in Norvegia, orice am crede noi despre asta. Si asta este singurul lucru care conteaza in acest caz. Restul sunt speculatii ieftine si inutile. daca parintii nu-si loveau copiii, acestia era probabil acum pinga ei.


  28. My dear, you PRESUPPOSE (as you have no way of really knowing) what proof, if any, Barnevernet have for their action.
    This kind of attitude too is an expression of the afore mentioned hysteria.


  29. My dear, you PRESUPPOSE (as you have no way of really knowing) what proof, if any, Barnevernet have for their action.
    This kind of attitude too is an expression of the afore mentioned hysteria.


  30. Alteritas, what you call ‘ocean of hysteria’ is a normal human reaction to the abuse done by CPS in Norway. To kidnap 5 children from a family is scandalous and should revolt any normal person. The CPS did cannot prove any of the accusations of child abuse done by Bondariu family. The fact that CPS helped in many other cases is nothing heroic about this, this should be the purpose of CPS, but no matter how much good it does, it cannot compensate for the abuses and mistake it did.
    These children even if returned to their family could be emotionally scared for the rests of their life.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. E greu sa dai inapoi, sa recunosti ca ai gresit si sa ceri iertare. Dar doar in felul acesta se poate recastiga respectul celor din jur. Ascunderea capului in nisip nu ajuta.


  32. Dear Mr. Manastireanu,

    I never said that they are uncivilized and don’t see the link with our topic.
    People from Nordic countries (not your friend, of course) recognize that they do not speak up against the consensus.
    The consensus is that the state is always right and this is what I called “a cultural issue”.

    Some meetings were organized in Norway, but the system makes all it can to keep the information away from the crowds.
    Nevertheless, the information is available for those who want to find it. You can start here

    and here

    You accused me that I am rude, but how rude could be your friend to write that “Even if you tenfold or hundredfold the examples, that will still be only a tiny fraction of the cases.” ?
    Would he write the same if he would be part of this “tiny fraction” ?

    I know Romanian Evangelical Christians who think that persecutions during the communism period were not as bad as it is reported. This is just because they never had persecutions in their community.
    Marius Bodnariu, who works for the Child Welfare Service, didn’t imagine his colleagues as kidnapers. He always thought they do right things until they kidnaped his children and discovered their real face.

    If we continue your friend’s idea, it should be acceptable to destroy some families, because this is insignificant compared to thousands of “saved” children. Awful …

    The report also mentions that “Many lawyers who work to promote Human Rights in Sweden are harassed by the administrative courts even today.”
    It is the same in Norway. The parents of the kidnaped children are not allowed to go at the court with their own lawyers. They have to accept the lawyers imposed by the system and who are payed by the Child Welfare Service. Can your friend explain how this lawyers will help the parents ?

    Your friend asks “So where is the multimillion industry?” He can start with the link below.

    I will stop here my interventions on this topic. You and your friend have all it is necessary to find the truth, but you also need some willingness. I hope you will find it.

    Best regards,
    Gabriel CIMUCA


  33. The report is about “Child Removal Cases in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden”.
    Same abusive practices are present in all Nordic countries because “the system for child protection in the Nordic countries is built on the Swedish system”.
    This is the reason to mention Sweden more than the others, but Norway is also mentioned with facts not only suppositions.

    Among the 40 signatures on this report, 6 are from Norway.
    One of them recently posted on his Facebook page a very recent petition that shows 38 cases of abusive interventions of the Norwegian Barnevernet “despite the fact that they have no evidence of any mistreatment. They have no evidence of anything illegal being done to our children.”

    Another clear abuse is presented at the link below. After one year of fights with the authorities from Kongsberg, Norway, a woman succeeded to make a record which demonstrates the lies of the social workers and convinced the Police to start an official investigation.

    There are a lot of evidences for those who want to see. Unfortunately, there are many people “who have eyes to see but do not see, ears to hear but do not hear”.


  34. Danut,

    Can you discuss without putting labels or being ironic? I know you, and I am sure that you can. Please digg a little bit more profound and you will convince yourself.


  35. Mi-e teama, domnule Gabriel, ca daca in numele unui asa-zis umanism luminat suntem gata sa despartim niste copii de parintii lor pentru o simpla palma data la fund, atunci ne-am pierdut omenia.


  36. Sir, it is a great difference between hitting yout wife and spanking your children. If this Norvegian law seems to you normal, than the question if wether you are thinking normally Sir, or rather are brainwashed.


  37. @Gaby, I doubt it (a problem with the Nordic countries)! More likely a problem with NOrway not being part of EU and thus its citizens having a “limited” support from European (EU) institution.

    Doesn’t this seem more plausible?!?


  38. @Gaby, I doubt it (a problem with the Nordic countries)! More likely a problem with NOrway not being part of EU and thus its citizens having a “limited” support from European (EU) institution.

    Doesn’t this seem more plausible.

    ALSO, if you look at the signatories on that document, I noticed that in Denmark there were ONLY 2 persons, both … lawyers. Go figure. Also did you look into the history, founding and mission of this NGO ? … Fishy territory … AGAIN.


  39. @Andrei Ivan,

    If Norway is such a hellish place, why did this family or others Romanians decide or continue to live there ?!?

    I do not know the country as well as you do Andrei, and have never visited there. But something does not ring right: “you know that in Norway is normal for primary school kids to make yoga, but is forbidden to teach Christianity?” Makes no sense since the State Church of Norway is “Lutheran” in name, and all children have to take Christianity and Religion in school.

    Religion and Christianity (not to mention Confirmation classes at State Church) taught in school is exactly OPPOSITE with your statement Andrei.

    So my question to you is: “Who is telling a lie here ?”


  40. @Valentin, stimat domn. Ati spus ” it is normal the existence of a law which takes you away immediately the children for this reason?”

    In the Nordic countries it IS NORMAL. Because the Child Services have or should have the interest of the children in mind. And if the children are abused (aka hit or physically punished/corporal punishment), it would be ABNORMAL not to protect these children. I am by no means excusing Norsk Barnevernet or their methods or proceedings in this case or others. I am trying to make a case for the welfare of children who are hit physically by their parents.

    When was the last time that you tried to act “normal” and hit your spouse, girlfriend, or best friend when they did not do what you wanted them to do, sir ?


  41. “If the report is right, why are Norwegians not applying for support from European institutions?”

    Please read the report and you will find the answer.
    It seems to be a cultural issue in the Nordic countries.


  42. If the report is right, why are Norwegians not applying for support from European institutions?
    I find your evaluation of my Norwegian friend’s letter particularly rude, especially as addressed to someone whose character and credentials you do not know.
    As to Cristi Ionescu, I do not know him personally, nor do I care to. Fundamentalists are dangerous crazy people. May God bless them and keep them far away from me. He is a man without scruples, who is ready to pervert the gospel, in order to pursue his debased purposes. He would be the last person in this world to influence me in my opinions about one thing or another, either in a positive or a negative way. I prefer to use as references people who are sane and of character. May God have mercy of his troubled soul. And also of the Bodnarius, children first, and also the parents.


  43. Dear Mr. Manastireanu,

    There is a report made by 40 Nordic Law professionals from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. It is very well documented and clearly shows that, even if the laws seem to be ok, what happens in reality is completely different.,-finland,-norway-and-Sweden

    Only one excerpt from the report: “Despite the verdicts delivered by the ECHR against Sweden the practices have not changed. On the contrary, they seem to have become more draconian.
    The European Court has found Norway and Finland, too, guilty of violations of children’s and their parents’ Human Rights.”

    After reading the long letter from your friend, I can only think to the letters that we were asked to write about the Romanian communism. It is very difficult for me to understand why someone, who knows very well this dark period of our history, can accept so easily this idealistic description of the Child Welfare Service from Norway.

    Please think more and don’t allow your personal conflicts with C. Ionescu to blind your mind.

    Best regards,
    Gabriel CIMUCA


  44. A needed debate, indeed.
    And, I would add, your typically Western individualistic view needs to be counterbalanced by a more communitarian view, rooted in a Trinitarian understanding of the divine.


  45. Still, leaving this case aside, a debate would be needed about how much freedom one must give away in order that society at large be in a supposedly better order. What is the fine line between individual freedom (to raise their child the way they can e.g. even risking the shaken baby syndrome) and collective wisdom? Few died for “a better system” but many died for the freedom of the individual! After all, the Creator risked a lot granting us that free will.

    So I think people are naturally reacting with animosity regardles the story is fabricated or not because it definitely is a metanarrative of our times!


  46. George: and if they really hit the child, do you believe it is normal the existence of a law which takes you away immediately the children for this reason? It is not more normal to that the law should give you firstly a fine, or a punishment of a similar type? If you don’t respect the car speed on the highway, you may receive in the beggining a fine; in the worst case you can loose your driving paper or go some years in prison. But they cannot take you away the car…To do that is a bit too much, don’t you believe? In the same way I guess we should judge this case…
    You said you have now another opinion about the right of hitting your children (as disciplination for their misdeeds). But what opinion would you have had if, in your ‘ignorant’ years, someone would have taken your children for, let’s say, your slapping them? I was slapped as a child by my parents: but I do not believe that this caused me any trauma, or that I did not deserve their discipline, or that for this motive the authorities had a legitimate reason to take me out from my parents… Such a situation seems to me absurd, absolute Kafkian. And about the ‘hysteria’ of the mother to which you referred, the situation is a lot more complicated (as you suggest); also regarding their willingness to take a lawyer you seem to me misinformed: see in this respect this interview with Cristi Tepes who inquired the situation here:


  47. And you pretend that with ONE visit there you understand things better than someone born in Norway? I am sorry, but this sounds ridiculous.


  48. Danut,

    What I have told above are from my discussions with Norvegians or Romanians who are living there. I have visited Norway so that I think that I have first hand knowledge of the things. You can put any stamp you want, facts are facts.


  49. This is obsessive. You seem quite prone to conspiracy theories. You are free, of course. Some people just love that. It makes them feel persecutred and, somehow, important.
    I wonder, however, if you will have the strength of character to admit, if proven wrong?
    I hope so, though, to be fair, I am not sure.


    See below a part of this article with its english translation:
    Barnevernet – i sin nåværende form en anomali i internasjonal sammenheng – har tidligere blitt felt for brudd på Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjon (EMK) artikkel 8, som angår retten til respekt for privatliv og familieliv. I denne bestemte saken kan også religionsfriheten ha blitt krenket. La oss heller ikke glemme lovverket mot etnisk diskriminering, om man tar høyde for praksisens selektive natur.
    CPS – in its present form an anomaly in an international context – has previously been convicted for violations of the ECHR (ECHR) Article 8, concerning the right to respect for private and family life. In this particular case can also religious freedom have been violated. Let us also not forget the legislation against ethnic discrimination, if one takes into account your practice selective nature.


  51. Danut,

    I like this statistical way to kill a subject!
    Please ask details for this case and you will see these:
    – Barnevernet did not passed through all the steps that Norvegian law is affirming, but got directly to take the kids when they did not bother to make some steps to corect the parents
    – the 3 month baby was taken, but usually this is happening just in cases like drugs, violence, etc.
    – the religious accusations has been part of the starting of this process
    Some background information about Norway – first hand info
    – you know that in Norway is normal for primary school kids to make yoga, but is forbidden to teach Christianity?
    – you know that Barnevernet can take your kids if you punish him by not going outside the house? – I know a specific case
    – you know that in the high school they teach teenagers about having sex, give them preservatives and ask them not to say to their parents?
    – you know that not giving your kid at the kindergarten when he is 1 year old is something weird?
    My conclusion: Norway direct the parents to take care of the “hardware” of the kid when the business of the state is to put the “software”.


  52. They admitted they did, but, it seems,they donot think it is so serious. Well, legally (and morally, I would say) it is, no matter what they think. And now not only they are paying for it, but also children. Sad.


  53. When I came to Denmark 7 years ago, the authorities made me SIGN a paper that I respect the Danish laws. All “resident permit” holders coming from foreign countries have to sign this document, which among the 12 stipulations, says that I will NOT hit my wife or children under ANY circumstances.

    Having a Roumanian upbringing, I was ON THE FENCE when it came to corporal punishment. After many long conversations with my wife, I became convinced that there are other and better methods than hitting the child.

    If I do not like the behavior of an adult or friend, I would NEVER think of hitting him/her, …. so WHY would I do it to a child ? … Also, the adult has the power … while the child doesn’t.

    Anyways, if this family did HIT their children, then they are in big, bIG trouble.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. What surprises me is that the parents (highly or well-paid profesisonals, he is working in IT and she in nursing) DID NOT think of contacting a lawyer and “calmly” taking the case thru the legal system and using “cool heads”. One of the reason why the police came back the next day after the 5th child, the baby, WAS because of the hysterical or emotional way the mom was behaving. I understand the emotions and motherly love. BUT I also understand the Scandinavian system … and when one looses his/her temper, shows flashes of emotions, and hysteria … the Scandinavians get scared and afraid about the “mental balance” of the person. Does it make sense ?

    I understand both sides, but the responsibility IS on the shoulders of the parents. These two professionals (& Roumanians) DECIDED to live in a different culture and country, and should adjust to the new expectations and climate … acoordingly, imho.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. My friend commented already on this matter, and all the other (rater raetorical questions you have), but you do not seem to care about understanding the facts, but on making the same irrational concpiraacy point spread be fanatics like Cristian Ionescu.


  56. What your friend “forgets” to mention is that the Child Protective Services employees have their own interest to produce as many cases as possible to “stay in business”. I hope this gentleman would not argue the fact that CPS would have the same number of employees regardless of number of cases they are handling. If in Norway would be fewer and fewer cases of child abuse their jobs would be in jeapordy. Also, if I hope you would not have the audicity to tell us that the managerial team of CPS have the same salaries regardless the number of employees they have under them. Therefore, if CPS receives a call from somebody denouncing a “possible child abuse case”, CPS would most likely make efforts to convey it in an “child abuse case”. Also, I don’t buy what he says that CPS is not allowed to give any information about the case for it’s confidential. That’s a joke. In what way would they affect the children’s well being if they would inform us how many times was Bodnariu’s family warned by them before they took the children? If they “are not allowed to speak anything about there casese” that means they don’t care about media (tax payers’ opinion) because they are not obligated /allowed to respond. In my opinion, any government agency must be obligated to respond to public acusations. There are many government agencies that would probably do abuses if they would not be afraid of media. In this case, CPS is not allowed to respond to any accusations… By the way, who controls them directly? Who is above them and who verify them? Since they are paid from public funds, they should be ultimatally accountable to the people, the tax payers. So, by telling us how many times the family has been warned and when (what months), they would not break any confidential agreement.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Thank you for this drop of sanity in the ocean of hysteria around this case. Not sure if it will make a difference, or even if it’s worth the effort. But reason, unbiased approach and fact-checking are so hard to find these days on the (romanian evangelical) blogosphere, that any encounter is refreshing.

    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: