Date: 19 February 2007 08:18 Charlotte Halvorsen I, a blind law-student, have had the girl in question living with me for 5 months prior to birth. She has maturely and conscientiously worked very hard to take care of her pregnancy and to prepare for motherhood. This blind girl is a victim of discrimination, and almost as sadly: There are no qualified people to evaluate, train and assist blind parents to become good parents in Norway. My intention with this letter is to draw national and international attention to the three following issues: 1. Discrimination against the disabled is legal in Norway. 2. There is no system or skilled people in place anywhere in Norway to help blind people with becoming parents, or with assisting the social services with fitness evaluations in a responsible and competent manner when necessary. 3. As a function of the two above, a mother and child have senselessly and brutally been torn apart, as is described below. The blind born mother is 18 years old. She was raped and chose to have her baby against the tremendous pressure her father and local social services put on her to have an abortion. The baby is 10 weeks old. The social services believe that he has not developed sufficiently in his mother's care, even though they cannot produce any facts of neglect on the mother's part. After birth the mother and child were placed in a social services' institution with no accommodation or competency regarding the blind or even disabled people in general. The mother has received very little practical training, and only two hours of mobility by a teacher with relevant skills. Some modest accommodations were made over the evaluation period of two months after repeated requests, but most of the main problems remained unchanged. On Tuesday the 6th of February there was a meeting with the girl, the institution and the social services. The institution reported that they were very concerned. They did not think that the baby had developed as much as he should, and they believed this was the mother's fault. The baby was crying some more than babies in average, and his legs were too tense. The crying and tension had taken a negative direction during their stay in the institution. The girl's and my own observations are that the tension and crying seem to occur randomly, also when the baby is being held or when he is sound asleep. The crying reaches a desperate level very quickly, and nobody can calm him down easily. The mother is no better or worse at calming the baby than anybody else, but the institution claims that she should be better at it than everybody else. The institution has taken a long time to agree to a medical evaluation of the baby, which they simply believe is unnecessary. The evaluation has not yet happened. The girl was told that she needed to turn the situation around, and three days later they gave her a plan of "sensitive caring" which she was to follow. This plan included that in practice the baby could never be left alone at all, and his needs always should be met before he began crying. Therefore, the girl asked that I moved in to assist her on a temporary basis. The institution complained that the girl was unable to interact with her son, and that he was not making enough sounds. The girl and I strongly disputed that any of this was the case, and we were challenged to video-tape our view of reality. And so I taped the girl and the baby during the next week both at home and at the institution. The girl and baby were allowed to stay at home overnight once during the week, and all of the following weekend with just me present, as had been the case several times before. Monday, the 12th of February, the social services and the girl signed a plan regarding the evaluation, which among other things stated that the evaluation in the institution was going to last until the 1st of March. Other points were for instance that the girl was to receive guidance, training and help in a controlled and accommodated environment. Well, these goals were hardly met! Thursday, the 15th of February, there was another meeting. The institution started out with talking about how positively they thought the baby and the interaction between the mother and child had developed over the last week. They assumed that this had to be because the girl received much help from me with caring for the baby. We disputed this and explained that I only babysat short whiles when the mother was in the bathroom, eating and such, and that he slept in my arms for a few hours at night while his mother got some sleep, too. Other than that, I was there to give psychological support and to take care of other practical things such as cleaning and cooking. Next the institution surprisingly said that they had concluded their evaluation, and that they recommended that the soon 10 weeks old baby went into foster care soon. The following was their reasoning: The girl lacked a "mother's intuition" because she 1. Did not ask the staff enough questions about the baby, and therefore she had to be uninterested in him. 2. Was able to describe her background in detail and with passion, while she was unable to describe how she had imagined her baby to be before birth, or describe his detailed personality at 4 weeks! Based on this, they believed that the girl was unable to care for her baby in a mature way. 3. Was holding the baby in an "unloving way". If she did have a mother's intuition, she would have known automatically how to hold her baby correctly. The girl argued that she had never learned or seen how sighted people held their babies, and just because she held her baby in a strange looking way, this did not mean that she did not love him very much. She was simply holding her baby close to her in a safe way, and in a way which she felt that the baby was all right with. 4. Was stroking the baby mechanically. Again, the girl claimed that the way her caresses of her baby looked was a function of her blindness, and not of lack of love. Other than this, the institution and the social services did not care to point out any faults on the girl's part. They simply said that the baby's condition was their object of measurement, and his discomfort had to be his mother's fault. The girl asked if she at least could remain with her child in the institution until the 1st of March as planned. The social services seemed interested in at least using this time to find better solutions than taking custody, but I guess they were playing games. They wanted a meeting the next day, and at this meeting they presented an emergency order to immediately remove custody from the mother. They would not discuss their reasons, other than referring to yesterday's meeting. And so, about one hour later, a 10 weeks old, breastfeeding baby was taken from his mother's arms to be placed with complete strangers while he was crying desperately. No neglect was proven, the institution believed the mother and child had developed positively lately. Just a few days earlier the baby and his mother had spent an entire, unsupervised weekend at home without any problems. The girl still had half a month's stay in the institution to prove herself. The baby was better, not worse than before, and they took him away as a matter of urgency! The only problem is: They never really explained why this situation constituted an emergency. Also questionable, in the social services' urgency decision, they lied stating that the child had been medically evaluated, which he has not been! I believe that the social services generally has a crucial, necessary and commendable function in our society. I could never support any parent at their child's expense. But I who have seen this mother and child together more than anybody else, have to say that I am in a state of shock and disbelief of this abuse of power used against this poor baby who needs his mother's love and breastfeeding more than anything else at his tender age. And it truly breaks my heart that this mother whom I have only seen behave compassionately, lovingly and kindly towards her son, is being portrayed as described above. No matter how little she has slept or how hard her baby has been crying, she has never raised her voice to him or walked away from him. Instead she has held him, fed, carried and changed him while talking sweetly and compassionately to him. The girl who only seconds after birth begged to hold her son, who now tries so hard to extract breast-milk to give to the foster-parents and who bravely fought for her baby's survival under the most extreme circumstances and pressure, is not somebody who lacks a mother's intuition. And I will continue to challenge such ignorant and cruel accusations until somebody actually comes up with some real arguments to prove their case in this regard! I urge everybody who reads this to do what they can to support this family, and fight for their right to a fair evaluation where the mother does get the practical training and assistance she needs from relevantly skilled people! We do not ask that the mother gets her child back without any help or supervision, we simply ask that she and her son get a fair chance to stay together!
Vennlig hilsen/With best regards Charlotte Halvorsen Adresse: Olav M. Troviksvei 2 h1116 0864 OSLO NORWAY Tel: +47 22 95 27 08 Mobil: +47 95 48 45 99/+47 93 06 50 78 Universitetet: +47 22 85 01 61 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: CH To: patricia robertson ; Gareth Davies Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:16 AM Subject: Urgent: Norwegian blind mother's child taken away without sound reasons! I, a blind law-student, have had the girl in question living with me for 5 months prior to birth. She has maturely and conscientiously worked very hard to take care of her pregnancy and to prepare for motherhood. This blind girl is a victim of discrimination, and almost as sadly: There are no qualified people to evaluate, train and assist blind parents to become good parents in Norway. My intention with this letter is to draw national and international attention to the three following issues: 1. Discrimination against the disabled is legal in Norway. 2. There is no system or skilled people in place anywhere in Norway to help blind people with becoming parents, or with assisting the social services with fitness evaluations in a responsible and competent manner when necessary. 3. As a function of the two above, a mother and child have senselessly and brutally been torn apart, as is described below. The blind born mother is 18 years old. She was raped and chose to have her baby against the tremendous pressure her father and local social services put on her to have an abortion. The baby is 10 weeks old. The social services believe that he has not developed sufficiently in his mother�s care, even though they cannot produce any facts of neglect on the mother�s part. After birth the mother and child were placed in a social services� institution with no accommodation or competency regarding the blind or even disabled people in general. The mother has received very little practical training, and only two hours of mobility by a teacher with relevant skills. Some modest accommodations were made over the evaluation period of two months after repeated requests, but most of the main problems remained unchanged. On Tuesday the 6th of February there was a meeting with the girl, the institution and the social services. The institution reported that they were very concerned. They did not think that the baby had developed as much as he should, and they believed this was the mother�s fault. The baby was crying some more than babies in average, and his legs were too tense. The crying and tension had taken a negative direction during their stay in the institution. The girl�s and my own observations are that the tension and crying seem to occur randomly, also when the baby is being held or when he is sound asleep. The crying reaches a desperate level very quickly, and nobody can calm him down easily. The mother is no better or worse at calming the baby than anybody else, but the institution claims that she should be better at it than everybody else. The institution has taken a long time to agree to a medical evaluation of the baby, which they simply believe is unnecessary. The evaluation has not yet happened. The girl was told that she needed to turn the situation around, and three days later they gave her a plan of �sensitive caring� which she was to follow. This plan included that in practice the baby could never be left alone at all, and his needs always should be met before he began crying. Therefore, the girl asked that I moved in to assist her on a temporary basis. The institution complained that the girl was unable to interact with her son, and that he was not making enough sounds. The girl and I strongly disputed that any of this was the case, and we were challenged to video-tape our view of reality. And so I taped the girl and the baby during the next week both at home and at the institution. The girl and baby were allowed to stay at home overnight once during the week, and all of the following weekend with just me present, as had been the case several times before. Monday, the 12th of February, the social services and the girl signed a plan regarding the evaluation, which among other things stated that the evaluation in the institution was going to last until the 1st of March. Other points were for instance that the girl was to receive guidance, training and help in a controlled and accommodated environment. Well, these goals were hardly met! Thursday, the 15th of February, there was another meeting. The institution started out with talking about how positively they thought the baby and the interaction between the mother and child had developed over the last week. They assumed that this had to be because the girl received much help from me with caring for the baby. We disputed this and explained that I only babysat short whiles when the mother was in the bathroom, eating and such, and that he slept in my arms for a few hours at night while his mother got some sleep, too. Other than that, I was there to give psychological support and to take care of other practical things such as cleaning and cooking. Next the institution surprisingly said that they had concluded their evaluation, and that they recommended that the soon 10 weeks old baby went into foster care soon. The following was their reasoning: The girl lacked a �mother�s intuition� because she 1. Did not ask the staff enough questions about the baby, and therefore she had to be uninterested in him. 2. Was able to describe her background in detail and with passion, while she was unable to describe how she had imagined her baby to be before birth, or describe his detailed personality at 4 weeks! Based on this, they believed that the girl was unable to care for her baby in a mature way. 3. Was holding the baby in an �unloving way�. If she did have a mother�s intuition, she would have known automatically how to hold her baby correctly. The girl argued that she had never learned or seen how sighted people held their babies, and just because she held her baby in a strange looking way, this did not mean that she did not love him very much. She was simply holding her baby close to her in a safe way, and in a way which she felt that the baby was all right with. 4. Was stroking the baby mechanically. Again, the girl claimed that the way her caresses of her baby looked was a function of her blindness, and not of lack of love. Other than this, the institution and the social services did not care to point out any faults on the girl�s part. They simply said that the baby�s condition was their object of measurement, and his discomfort had to be his mother�s fault. The girl asked if she at least could remain with her child in the institution until the 1st of March as planned. The social services seemed interested in at least using this time to find better solutions than taking custody, but I guess they were playing games. They wanted a meeting the next day, and at this meeting they presented an emergency order to immediately remove custody from the mother. They would not discuss their reasons, other than referring to yesterday�s meeting. And so, about one hour later, a 10 weeks old, breastfeeding baby was taken from his mother�s arms to be placed with complete strangers while he was crying desperately. No neglect was proven, the institution believed the mother and child had developed positively lately. Just a few days earlier the baby and his mother had spent an entire, unsupervised weekend at home without any problems. The girl still had half a month�s stay in the institution to prove herself. The baby was better, not worse than before, and they took him away as a matter of urgency! The only problem is: They never really explained why this situation constituted an emergency. Also questionable, in the social services� urgency decision, they lied stating that the child had been medically evaluated, which he has not been! I believe that the social services generally has a crucial, necessary and commendable function in our society. I could never support any parent at their child�s expense. But I who have seen this mother and child together more than anybody else, have to say that I am in a state of shock and disbelief of this abuse of power used against this poor baby who needs his mother�s love and breastfeeding more than anything else at his tender age. And it truly breaks my heart that this mother whom I have only seen behave compassionately, lovingly and kindly towards her son, is being portrayed as described above. No matter how little she has slept or how hard her baby has been crying, she has never raised her voice to him or walked away from him. Instead she has held him, fed, carried and changed him while talking sweetly and compassionately to him. The girl who only seconds after birth begged to hold her son, who now tries so hard to extract breast-milk to give to the foster-parents and who bravely fought for her baby�s survival under the most extreme circumstances and pressure, is not somebody who lacks a mother�s intuition. And I will continue to challenge such ignorant and cruel accusations until somebody actually comes up with some real arguments to prove their case in this regard! I urge everybody who reads this to do what they can to support this family, and fight for their right to a fair evaluation where the mother does get the practical training and assistance she needs from relevantly skilled people! We do not ask that the mother gets her child back without any help or supervision, we simply ask that she and her son get a fair chance to stay together! Vennlig hilsen/With best regards Charlotte Halvorsen Adresse: Olav M. Troviksvei 2 h1116 0864 OSLO NORWAY Tel: +47 22 95 27 08 Mobil: +47 95 48 45 99/+47 93 06 50 78 Universitetet: +47 22 85 01 61 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
