NorwaY’S child SnaTching lawS muST exempT indianS
The agency, Norwegian Child Welfare Services, lacks accountability.
protection”, is anything but that. Established, and regulated, by the Child Welfare Act of 1992, Barnevernet is expected “to ensure that children and youth who live in conditions that may be detrimental to their health and development receive the necessary assistance and care at the right time,” and “to help ensure children and youth grow up in a secure environment”. Strangely, the Norwegian Ministry for Children and Equality washes of its hands saying it has no jurisdiction over individual cases.
Every municipality in Norway is obliged to have Child Welfare Services to do preventive work, investigation, support service, approval of foster families, follow-up of children placed in foster families or institutions duly assisted by the government and County Social Boards at the local level. It is this diminutive Board that functions as tribunals that have to approve of any compulsory measures and care orders including decisions, making parents lose custody of their child. With no responsibility and all authority to intervene for the State, this Board has an autonomous position and of late, is a source of consternation for thousands of Indian families.
The problem is systemic and affects not just im- migrants in Norway. Earlier this week more than one hundred Norwegians wrote to the Indian External Affairs Minister, condemning Barnevernet. An online Norwegian petition demanding reunification of Aryan with his family has crossed 250 persons at the time of writing.
A large part of the problem appears to be that Barnevernet’s actions are hidden from public scrutiny owing to confidentiality laws that were supposed to protect children, but in practice are shielding Barnevernet from accountability. The other factor is inadequate judicial oversight. In many countries in Europe, courts ratify the recommendations of child protection officials to confiscate children, but in Norway, the same County Board orders, executes and ratifies child confiscation decisions in the first instance. Appeals lie to tribunals consisting either of County Board officials or panels made up of lay people. In the Bhattacharya (Abhigyan and Aishwarya) case, for instance, the socalled “District Court” consisted of one judge and two laypersons, one of whom is described simply as “Early Retiree”, and in a later proceeding, “Office Manager.”
Tragically, appeals against all such draconian orders affecting the child and crippling the parents have no usual checks and balances against the misuse of coercive State powers. The proceedings are insulated by confidentiality laws.
Norwegians make this out to be a case of cultural differ- ence, saying that in Norway violence against the child is not permitted. But in which culture is child abuse “permitted”? But is such devilish act of forcibly snatching a toddler from his or her loving parents on mere suspicion and anonymous complaints “culturally” justified?
State intervention can be justified if investigation is made by due process of law and in genuine cases the child is settled in a homelike surrounding, allowing the child and the parents to undergo psychological therapy. What is happening now is cruel state sponsored child snatching, to say the least.
The cruelty is compounded when children are separated and contact with parents permitted only two to four times a year and that too for merely an hour each time. The family is completely destroyed. Can such an extreme response be called “cultured” by any logic? Removing a child forcibly from his or her parents not only destabilises the family, but also makes the child insecure and permanently destroys the child’s present and future. Empirical evidence suggests that children brought up without parental care and thrown out of state care end up as homeless, dropouts, drug addicts and turn to im- moral activities, crime and violence.
To begin with, Indian nationals in Norway and other European countries should be exempted from the provisions of such draconian laws and “child snatching” by the state. No amount of citing “cultural differences” and “local rules” can replace fundamental rights to family and fear free life. Moreover, no state, not even the most oppressive despotic rulers can be pardoned for ruining the life and future of a whole generation by adopting draconian child stealing arrangement.
There can be no two opinions on the need to prevent child abuse, improve parental counselling and sensitise the society on these issues, besides instituting stringent laws for wilful violators. But the lesson for India should be that aping Western laws, institutions and cruel state intervention will do very little in correction and much more damage to children by breaking the traditional family bonding and ties, so integral and unique to our life style for ages. Seshadri Chari is a writer, commentator and former editor of Organiser. Suranya Aiyar is a lawyer and mother who advises and supports pro bono families facing confiscation of their children abroad by child protection authorities.