Screen shot. Ebook is linked above at Semper Fi [Link includes for NOOK or PC]
Famous and Infamous Gospel Preachers have Piped Up about most any XXX subject that you can name. BUT Not This One.
Whoops, NOT THAT.
You’ve Been Warned.
Tempus fugit. Once-upon-a-time, at least a year ago, maybe more than two, Cap’n Kidd hoisted his sails on a voyage to rescue Charles Spurgeon from the plank-walking-offense amongst the Reformed of “pacifism.”
The Gospel Coalition’s page on Facebook, which chronicled this voyage, drew many comments. In this irenic give and take, I endeavored to engage others, pointing them to the words on war of C. H. Spurgeon. When I pointed out that Thomas Kidd had misrepresented Charles Spurgeon on war, apparently being unfamiliar with the quotes that I had linked (I think the eye-patch thingy hinders him), my conversations and all links to Spurgeon’s words were deep-sixed.
[Coming Soon! Eye-Patch Thingies in Red, White, and Blue from Reformed Wear https://reformationwear.store/product/tulip-mens-hooded-christian-sweatshirt/ ]
Blimey! They banned this bloke from their facebook page. I cannot even ‘like’ any article. (And I do like most.)
This side of our redemption, let us celebrate the Resurrection following our King. Charles Spurgeon guides us along the Narrow Way.
When the five little ones of a Romanian father and Norwegian mother were seized by Norway ‘s infamous Barnevernet, thousands protested at embassies around the world, and a delegation from the Parliament of Romania went to Norway.
When a baby was wrenched from the arms of her Slovakian mother and Norwegian father, “the Slovak republic . . . intervened in the case and asked the Norwegian court to admit Slovakia as an independent party of the litigation …”
“One case involving a Czech family in Norway . . . led to a major diplomatic row between Norway and the Czech Republic. Czech President Milos Zeman accused Norwegian social workers of acting like Nazis.”
When an Indian child was seized, the Prime Minister of India intervened.
Can we expect Americans to stand up and speak out and hold a candle to the rest of the world?
Call your members of Congress. (It’s not hard to do if you have a pulse.) Ask your church for prayers for Amy and Kevin and their son.
“Personally I feel strongly for the [Bodnariu] family and I believe they are being treated very unjustly. It is a strange thing that this is what the rest of the world seems to believe also, just not in Norway and especially locally. I think most Norwegians are over-confident that Barnevernet does everything in the best interest of children. Everybody – government ministers, diplomats, county governors – rise to tell in complimentary words about the theoretically fantastic child protection set-up we have, without entering into the real world. I hope from my heart that this is what causes their behaviour.
By good fortune the larger newspapers have lately covered several child protection cases around the country, giving us shattering stories. On social media there are also links, to loads of terrible accounts by people in Norway who have experienced Barnevernet on its worst behaviour. Naustdal is hardly alone. It seems to me that proper investigation and renovation are needed, of laws, rules and procedures. It is not enough that an arrangement looks fine on paper. One must see to it that it functions in each individual case. I think there may be great variations between different county committees and not least between those working there.
Everybody can go to social media and see authentic recordings from actions with a family, the police and Barnevernet in action. I guarantee it is not a pleasant experience.
Regarding Naustdal, I understand it to have happened without warning. But from what I have heard, taking children away from their parents is supposed to be a last resort after everything else has been tried? Here, obviously, they have started at the wrong end. And where is it to end?
In addition, the parents have been charged and risk a criminal court case, a paragraph running to 6 years of prison being used. Does it take a month-long court case to get the children home? All this is to happen to a young woman who grew up on a farm in a community in Naustdal municipality, a woman who went to Romania to help street children there, met her husband there, came home and had five children. Together with her husband she has lived for 10 years in their own house on the farm of her parents, where they all lived happily in a large family.
Can such a thing happen only in Naustdal? Are people right abroad? Are these conditions such as we want to live with in Norway?”
This article was written by a resident of Naustdal (same county as the Bodnariu family) and published in the newspaper Firda. Translated by Marianne Skanland.
Please pray & think of a little infant girl, we will call her ‘M’ – a Norwegian-Slovakian girl who was confiscated in Norway at two months old last year in March. The reason Norway’s CPS gave was because the mother was a foster care child and is deaf and there was lack of eye contact. The parents won the case against barnevernet this year (2016) in March, but Norway’s CPS has appealed and the parent’s precious child is still in foster care.
Some background information.
In March 2015, the Norwegian Child Protection Service (Barnevernet) in Lillehammer took away a fully breastfed two and a half months old baby girl from a Norwegian-Slovak couple without any obvious reasons. The reason Barnevernet gave at the time in their written statement was a concern about insufficient eye contact between the mother and her daughter; the mother is deaf since she suffered from encephalitis.
Barnevernet also used the fact that the family refused to be moved into a (Horror) Home for Mothers and they also had concerns that the family could go to Slovakia and it would be hard to find them.
The baby was forcibly taken away from the family just one day before ‘M’s’ grandmother was coming to Norway from Slovakia in order to help the family in response to the previously stated concerns of Barnevernet.
The parents are allowed to see their daughter once every two weeks; the meeting place is kept secret and the meetings can last for one hour only. Only once the mother was allowed to breastfeed her baby. The mother though, still tries to keep her breastmilk. Slovakian representatives have already started an intervention in this case.
Dora Boková, lawyer and member of the Petition Committee commented the case.
“This is another outrageous story out of all the cases we have been monitoring through our international network of contacts. As far as we know, the Norwegian authorities have at least tried to search for some serious reasons to support their decisions within the previous cases; only when they failed, they came up with some alternative reasons. However, in this case Barnevernet basically displayed that when they want to take a child away from a family, they just do it. With no obvious reason, the CPS has taken away a healthy, fully breastfed infant from happy parents who could even get support of a grandmother.”
Pavel Hasenkopf added that the family was cooperating with the authorities since the very beginning. He said:
“We have a detailed list of all regular and previously unannounced visits (even night time ones) barnevernet made to the family. Barnevernet started to harass the family with these meetings right after their baby was born, though the family cooperated based on Barnevernet’s instructions.
It was not necessary for anyone to worry about the neonatal jaundice as the little girl was under medical control with regular check-ups and blood tests. The family refused to be moved to a special centre where families are supposed to be observed, because they did not consider the handicap of the mother a reason and because moving to the centre would force the father to commute to work for some hours. However, they arranged for grandmother to come from Slovakia to help the family.
Barnevernet even used her own childhood against the mother as they raised concerns about mother’s mental health based on the fact she was raised in Norwegian foster care since she was three years old. Barnevernet articulated no other reasons.
The Slovak republic has already intervened in the case and asked the Norwegian court to admit Slovakia as an independent party of the litigation in which an appeal against the original Lilehammer court decision will be arbitrated. “I understand the intervention of the Slovak Centre for International Protection of Children and Youths as a specific way of diplomatic protection, despite the fact it is not a diplomatic protection in its strict legal meaning. I can even see this way as more practical,” Hasenkopf added.