www.bbc.co.uk Open in urlscan Pro
151.101.192.81  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://search.bbc.co.uk/search

<form class="b-f" id="orb-search-form" role="search" method="get" action="https://search.bbc.co.uk/search" accept-charset="utf-8">
  <div><label for="orb-search-q">Search the BBC</label><input id="orb-search-q" type="text" autocomplete="off" autocorrect="off" autocapitalize="off" spellcheck="false" maxlength="100" name="q" placeholder="Search"><button id="orb-search-button"
      class="orb-search__button">Search the BBC</button><input type="hidden" name="suggid" id="orb-search-suggid"></div>
</form>

Text Content

WE'VE UPDATED OUR PRIVACY AND COOKIES POLICY

We've made some important changes to our Privacy and Cookies Policy and we want
you to know what this means for you and your data.

 * OK
 * Find out what's changed


LET US KNOW YOU AGREE TO COOKIES LET US KNOW YOU AGREE TO COOKIES

We use cookies to give you the best online experience.

We and our partners use cookies to give you the best online experience,
including to personalise advertising and content. Data about your interaction
with this site and the ads shown to you may be shared with companies involved in
the delivery and/or personalisation of ads on this site and elsewhere online.

Please let us know if you agree to all of these cookies.

Please let us know if you agree.

 * Yes, I agree Yes, I agree
 * No, take me to settings No, take me to settings



Homepage


ACCESSIBILITY LINKS

 * Skip to content
 * Accessibility Help

Sign in
Notifications


 * Home
 * News
 * Sport
 * Reel
 * Worklife
 * Travel
 * Future
 * Culture
 * Music
 * TV
 * Weather
 * Sounds
 * More

Search
Search the BBCSearch the BBC


MORE

 * Home
 * News
 * Sport
 * Reel
 * Worklife
 * Travel
 * Future
 * Culture
 * Music
 * TV
 * Weather
 * Sounds


NORWAY’S HIDDEN SCANDAL




By Tim Whewell


The UN rates Norway one of the best countries for a child to grow up in. And yet
too many children, according to a large number of Norwegian experts, are taken
into care without good reason. The conviction of a top psychiatrist in the child
protection system for downloading child abuse images is now raising further
serious questions.



It was a winter’s day, some years ago, when two child welfare specialists – a
female psychologist and a male psychiatrist – knocked on the door of a small
modern wooden house on the edge of the Norwegian capital, Oslo.

A lively little girl opened the door and greeted the strangers warmly.

But the girl’s mother, Cecilie – who understood the purpose of their visit – was
much less pleased to see them.

“I was very scared. I didn’t want them in my house in the first place,” she
says, remembering that day.

“I was really nervous that they will find something wrong. I know this is how
the Child Protection Services take away children.”

The experts had been appointed to write a report for a family court hearing
which would decide the little girl’s future.

Their visit followed years of concern by the Child Protection Service that
Cecilie - a single mother - wasn’t looking after her daughter properly, and had
rejected offers of help.

That day, she was right to be nervous.




The experts were highly critical of what they observed at her home.

They wrote in their report that “there was no natural flow to the interaction”
between mother and daughter.

They said Cecilie struggled to keep the house in order. And they commented on
other details that Cecilie believes they misinterpreted.

“Everything is twisted in a negative way,” she says.

“This was not so long after Christmas, and in the local store I had found some
gingerbread which they were selling really cheap, for one Norwegian krone. So I
bought it just for fun, so that my daughter and I could make some gingerbread
men together as an activity.

“But apparently they thought my financial situation was very bad, because I had
bought it after Christmas… How can you say a person is poor just because they
buy cheap gingerbread?

“When I saw the report, I was so devastated. It was just all this negativity -
negative, negative, negative. There was nothing positive at all.”



The experts’ report – based on information from many health and childcare
professionals as well as their own observations – concluded that the little
girl’s “development would be limited” if she remained with her mother.

The report said: “This is because the mother does not recognise her daughter’s
basic needs and does not perceive the mental harm she may have suffered” while
in her mother’s care.

Since then, Cecilie – a lean, anxious-looking, blonde woman now in her 50s - has
only seen her daughter seven times.

“I have not been able to follow her development,” she says. “I just lost my
daughter’s childhood. I don’t expect really to see her until she’s an adult.”

The recommendation to put the girl into long-term foster care was approved at
Oslo District Court. The report’s co-authors attended as witnesses.



Fast forward to April this year, and one of those two experts – the male
psychiatrist - reappeared in the same courthouse.

This time, though, he wasn’t in the witness stand.

He was in the dock.

He was sentenced to 22 months in jail - after admitting he had downloaded nearly
200,000 images, and more than 12,000 videos, showing the sexual abuse or
sexualisation of children.

The court heard that some appeared to show infants being raped.

Norwegian police were initially tipped off that the man was downloading illegal
child abuse images in 2015.

But it wasn’t until early 2017 – a year and a half later – that they
investigated and then arrested him.

He confessed that he had been viewing such material for 20 years.

The expert hasn’t been named in the Norwegian media – to protect the privacy of
his own children.

But until his arrest he played a key role at various levels in Norway’s child
protection system - as an expert witness in individual cases such as Cecilie’s,
and more recently as a member of the prestigious Child Expert Commission, which
evaluates all independent protection reports.

His conviction puts the spotlight back on a system which has been heavily
criticised by some parents – and by leading Norwegian professionals in the
childcare field – for being too quick to put children into care, splitting
families unnecessarily.

The disgraced psychiatrist has had his professional licence revoked, meaning he
cannot work in the same field again.

But parents who’ve lost custody of children in cases he was involved in believe
all his previous decisions should be reviewed.

“What he was saying isn’t valid, because of what he has done. His judgement
cannot be trusted,” Cecilie says.

> If he had told the judge (in earlier cases, when he was an expert witness)
> that he had been downloading child pornography for years, of course he would
> never have been appointed as an expert.”




The local child protection agency which handled Cecilie’s case points out that
he was only one of two specialists who wrote the report, that their
recommendation was approved by a court, and that their observations were only
part of the justification for putting her daughter into care.

But Cecilie and other parents say his crime shows he was unable to empathise
with children.

The presiding judge in the case, Nini Ring, commented in her judgement that he
appeared not to understand the suffering involved in the material he enjoyed
viewing.

She said: “The accused has taken exception to the most serious material, which
he claims not to have downloaded consciously. The Court finds, however, that the
accused to a certain extent trivialises his own actions.”

The judge continued: “The defendant appears remorseful, but reflection seems to
have come only after he was caught out. In court he has explained that he
considered he was not harming children, since he did not take part in the
production (of the images)… The Court finds it serious for somebody with his
special expertise on children to express that only now has it struck him that he
has subjected these children to grave violation.

“The Court furthermore sees it as serious that a professional who is supposed to
be the 'protector' of children and young people has placed his own satisfaction
and desires first in this manner.”



Among many other child protection cases the disgraced expert was involved in is
one in the south of Norway, where a large family has now been split up for
nearly five years.

Inez - a warm, round-faced woman - is the mother of eight children.

Four are grown-up. The younger four were suddenly taken away by the Child
Protection Service, or Barnevernet, in September 2013. She was arrested and put
into a police holding cell.




“It was so strange to find myself in a cell and I just remember being so
scared,” Inez says, trying hard not to cry as she recalls that day.

“The walls were coming closer and closer and it was becoming so difficult to
breathe. It was like the air was becoming less and less… I never ever thought
that I would be accused of something illegal.

“At one point I was thinking if I was mad, if I had in my madness been doing
things I wasn’t supposed to do, had I harmed my family without really knowing
it?”

There had been an allegation that Inez had used physical force on her children,
which is outlawed in Norway.

She says she was obliged to act to protect one child from another, who refused
to stop biting his sibling.

“I gave him the smack in order for him to let go of his sibling. It wasn't right
of me to give a smack like that. But I was just saying that there was a sibling
in pain.”



A criminal court acquitted Inez of the charges against her in 2016.



Inez doesn’t criticise the authorities for following up the initial allegation
of violence. But she says they didn’t then listen properly to what the children
were saying.

“The problem was that every question was a leading question,” says Inez’s
lawyer, Victoria Holmen.

“And when you analyse the reports of what the children actually said, if you
count up how many times they said ‘My mother was violent against me,’ it’s zero.



“An example is that they were not satisfied with the answer that the youngest
daughter gave them when they asked: ‘Has your mother been violent to you?’ She
said: ‘No, never. She never hit me.’ But they followed by saying, ‘How many
times did your mother hit you?’ And that was when they went totally wrong.

“They had already formed their opinion of what this case was about. And then
they questioned the children so that they would have the answer that would match
their opinions.”

The child protection office that handled Inez’s case has been unavailable to
comment on this. But the same point – that investigators put words into the
children’s mouths – was made by the Appeal Court when it acquitted Inez.

Soon after that verdict, two of Inez’s children were returned.

But the youngest two are still in foster care more than two years later. This is
despite an independent psychological report that praised Inez’s parenting skills
and recommended that the family be reunited.

It said: “The experts find it impossible to believe that so carefree, positive
and undisruptive children can come from the home described in the accounts that
form the basis of the child protection and police actions.”

That report was disregarded, however, after it was sharply criticised by the
supervisory body, the Child Expert Commission.

The Commission said the report was “explicitly biased” in the parents’ favour.

One of the two Commission members who made that comment was the now-disgraced
psychiatrist who was also involved in Cecilie’s case.

The positive report he and his colleague rubbished was co-authored by two very
eminent psychologists – one of them Reidar Hjermann, a former Children’s
Ombudsman, the independent official responsible for safeguarding children’s
interests throughout the country.

When I meet Hjermann, he tells me this accusation of bias made him very angry.




But I discover he doesn’t know that the expert who made the accusation has been
convicted – because he hasn’t been publicly named.

When I tell him, he’s shocked. “When bad things like this happen, it’s important
to look at what kind of responsibilities a person has had - and see if his way
of misbehaving has been having an influence on the important job he or she has
had.”

But there is no sign that the Norwegian authorities are planning any general
review of cases the convicted expert was involved in – or that they believe his
disgrace has any wider implications for the system.

The Child Expert Commission told me they have looked into the reports he did for
them – only part of his work – and could find no evidence that he had shown too
little, or too much, empathy with children in his judgments.

But the Board of Health Supervision, the body which has now withdrawn his
licence, said it was not planning to investigate his professional practice. It
says there is no information that the convicted expert had committed any crimes
in his work, or any medical malpractice.

Other agencies – local and national – that employed him have said the same.

But for Inez, those reactions are just proof of the lack of accountability in a
system that needs thorough reform.

She says she’s now been assured by Child Protection that they now regard her as
a “good enough” parent, and that her two youngest children will soon be returned
to her.

But losing them for five years has been a devastating experience for her and her
husband, Knut.

Initially, she was only allowed to see them four times a year. And each parent
could speak to each child on the phone for just 15 minutes once a month.



“The house was so quiet,” she says. “And you know how parents usually want the
kids to be a bit quiet? It was so strange to be on the other side: I just want
lots of noise, bickering.”

She blames the negative comments co-authored by the disgraced psychiatrist for
keeping her family divided until now – and, like Cecilie, she also says his past
judgements should be reviewed.



“It's like constructing a building which has a major flaw in their foundation.
Do you let the building stand with a big flaw, knowing that at any moment it
will collapse? Or do you try to rebuild it and make it correct?

“And in cases like this, they should do it, because the outcome is a tragedy
when the decision is to separate children and parents.”





The criticisms of the Norwegian Child Protection Service date back some years.
Two years ago I reported on the case of Ruth and Marius Bodnariu, evangelical
Christians who were accused in 2015 of breaking the law by smacking their
children. Their five children – including a small baby – were put into emergency
care, prompting demonstrations by sympathisers around the world.

The children were eventually returned to their parents – but the family then
decided to leave Norway. They now live in Marius’s home country, Romania.



In the same year, 2015, more than 140 professionals in the childcare field –
lawyers, psychologists and social workers, wrote a National Notice of Concern to
the government. They said that “a long list of children – the actual number is
not known by anyone – are exposed to serious failures of understanding and
infringements of their rights.”

They added that “when expert witnesses submit their reports and give evidence in
court, we often see that the observational basis upon which they report is very
weak.”

That open letter has now been signed by a further 120 specialists. Meanwhile, a
family involved in a custody battle with the state has won a rare legal victory,
gaining the right to have its case heard later this year at the highest level of
the European Court of Human Rights.

And, increasing the international pressure still more on Norway, several
families from the country have sought refuge in Poland to avoid the threat of
care orders by the child protection service.

They believe Poland places more emphasis on keeping families together.

Among those now in Poland is Leen, the 14-year-old daughter of Palestinian
parents who were given asylum in Norway.

Her father, Talab, a journalist, had served five years in jail in Syria, much of
it in solitary confinement, for criticising the regime there.

Talab and his older daughter, Hiba, are still in Norway, while his wife and Leen
are in Poland where they are now seeking asylum for a second time.

Hiba, who works as a nurse, explains what happened to her younger sister: “One
day she went to school and she didn’t come back. And my family, my parents and
brother were looking for hours as her phone was turned off, going everywhere,
looking like crazy on the street and we couldn’t find her.




“Then, hours later, we had two child protection officers at the door and they
said Leen is with them. They asked for her belongings, because she was taken
under an emergency care order. She had told the school nurse that she had been
physically abused at home.”

Leen was taken first to a foster home, then to another care institution, then to
a hospital. Eventually – a year after she was first put into care – she ran
away. She met up with her mother, who took her to Poland, where they have lived
for the past year.

Speaking from Poland, she says the original allegation of abuse was made by
another child at her school, where she was being bullied. Then at her foster
home, she became depressed and started self-harming. She was treated with
anti-psychotic drugs – and then other medication for the side-effects, which she
says made her increasingly physically ill.



But medical certificates issued following tests in Poland do not confirm all the
diagnoses made in Norway. Doctors there say she is physically fit and suffering
only from stress caused by her experiences over the past two years.

“When we came to Norway, we thought that this was where we would live in peace
and we would forget all the traumatic and sad events,” Hiba says, referring to
the family’s escape from Syria. “But we have all lived this trauma again.”

“I didn’t see the growing-up of my older children when I was imprisoned in
Syria,” Talab says. “So when Leen was born here in Norway, it was a God-given
present for us. How could we have mistreated her? It is a very silly joke to
hear this from the Child Protection Service.

“They behave above regulations, and you can’t win any case against them in the
courts, even if you bring witnesses with you. It is as in Syria – the verdict is
written beforehand.

It is unbelievable in Norway, something very strange in a welfare state – a
Scandinavian state.”



The family says Leen was never physically punished – and they believe the
allegation of violence was taken particularly seriously because they were
immigrants to Norway.

“If you’re from the Middle East you’re automatically deemed to be abusive and
backward,” Hiba says.

The Child Protection office dealing with the case said it could not comment in
detail. But it said it did not agree with the family’s version of events, and it
denied treating children from immigrant families more strictly than others.

One journalist has calculated, however, that children with a foreign mother are
four times more likely than other children in Norway to be forcibly taken from
their families.

Reidar Hjermann, the former Children’s Ombudsman, says no-one should be judged
to be violent without evidence. But he also says: “When a family comes to Norway
with a mother and father who have themselves been brought up with violence, then
I think we should assume that we need to go to help this family to understand
that where they come from, physical punishment is rather common, but in Norway
it is absolutely forbidden.”

He believes “the Norwegian system should do something about its reputation” by
improving professional competence in a system that he thinks is currently too
decentralised.

And he adds: “One of the absolutely overarching strategies is to help children
in families. To remove a child from a family is something you try not to do at
all.”

Katrin Koch, the head of the Child Expert Commission which the disgraced
psychiatrist was a member of, says one reason for the disproportionately high
number of immigrant families affected by care orders might be that Norway is
“quite a conformist country in many ways.”

She says: “It might be that the child protection services are not aware enough
that there are many ways of raising children.

“Another point would be that Norway is a rich country – and the richer you are,
the less consideration you have to give to survival issues, and the more
consideration you can give to an optimalisation of how children are to be
raised.”

Child welfare guidelines in Norway, as in some other countries, specify that
parenting does not have to be “good” - only “good enough.”

But Katrin Koch says: “Maybe the level for ‘good enough’ in Norway is different
from other countries.”

The Ministry of Children says it’s bringing in legal changes that will
strengthen children’s and family rights. It’s reviewing some care orders –
though there’s no suggestion that’s linked to the conviction of the expert
psychiatrist.

Like other agencies in the child protection system, the Ministry won’t comment
at all on his case at all.

But Inez – who’s now become a campaigner for family rights – regards the silence
over the convicted psychiatrist as a cover-up.

She and other parents who’ve lost children are also surprised by a family court
decision that the disgraced expert can keep custody of his own young children.

“I’m at a loss for words, for the outrage,” she says, “knowing other parents who
have had lesser allegations and have lost children.”

Thore Langfeldt, a psychologist who works with sex offenders, and who gave
testimony as an independent expert in the case of the convicted psychiatrist,
regards that reaction as “moral outrage”.

He says there is no evidence to suggest that people who download child
pornography are more likely than anyone else to commit other offences against
children.

“Sometimes moral panic takes over and empirical psychological data vanish on
us,” he says.

But Inez, who has been active in her community as a local politician and lay
judge, says the case has changed the way she views her own country.

“Before 2013 I considered Norway as the best country in the world. And in many
aspects it still is a good country. But if the system is closed and there is no
transparency, then it is so much easier to sweep things under the carpet when
things go wrong,” she says.

“There has to be a willingness to fix things, because it ensures that people can
trust the system.”





CREDITS

Author Tim Whewell Photography & Video Tony Jolliffe Producer James Percy Editor
Stephen Mulvey 3 August 2018

Built with Shorthand


MORE FROM BBC STORIES

 * The secret in my blood
 * How I'm feeling after my MS ‘body reboot'
 * Tales from the far-flung Faroes


EXPLORE THE BBC

 * Home
 * News
 * Sport
 * Reel
 * Worklife
 * Travel
 * Future
 * Culture
 * Music
 * TV
 * Weather
 * Sounds

 * Terms of Use
 * About the BBC
 * Privacy Policy
 * Cookies
 * Accessibility Help
 * Parental Guidance
 * Contact the BBC
 * Get Personalised Newsletters
 * Advertise with us
 * AdChoices / Do Not Sell My Info

Copyright © 2020 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external
sites. Read about our approach to external linking.