Other post on the subject.
Martin and Karoline
On the 22.oct, we got a letter from the child welfare office saying that they no longer had any basis for further investigation into Martin. So, the nightmare is over.
It has been emotionally very stressful for us, and it has cost a lot of time and money. Time we will never get back. We asked for the child welfare office to cover the cost of our lawyer, which they accepted, so we will get that money back at least.
We had a final meeting with them last Monday, where they read parts of their final report. They concluded that everything the woman claimed in the letter of concern had been completely disproven. In fact, the opposite of what she claimed is true. They suspected that the letter of concern was written due to different value sets between us and her.
It is crazy that this sort of thing can happen. Even if you adhere to the law, you may be suspicious for some people.
It has become apparent to us that we have to be careful what we say when we talk. We never know who might be listening.
During lunch in the open kindergarten three years ago (Martin was 2), Anita mentioned that home schooling is an alternative to public school (state run school), and that this was something we were considering for Martin. These remarks were picked up and written down by the leader of the open kindergarten, and used against us three years later in her letter of concern to the child welfare office.
Anita got chills and got associations to stories that her mother told of living in Hungary during communism. Then you had to take care of what you said, because it could be picked up, written down and reported to the authorities / party, who could use it against you. Anita could not believe that this is the case in Norway in 2017.
It is alarming that the society we live in is such that we must to be careful what we say when we talk. That we cannot speak freely, in the event that someone does not like what they hear and instead of going within themselves and coping with other opinions, they feel so triggered that they must use the power of the state against those who think differently. The worst part is that she probably thinks she did a good thing.
In principle, we oppose that someone has the power to force us to act against our own voluntary choices. It is in violation of our core values and it is deeply offensive. The non-aggression principle with respect for private property are the foundation stones of our ethical and moral values. We distance ourselves from fraud, use of or threat of violence, or physical power against a person, or a person's property. As a person, you have the right to defend yourself and your property against aggressors. You own yourself, the consequences of your actions and the fruits of your labor. Nobody has the moral right to force you into something you do not want or to take away your property.
We wrote a 16-page reply letter to the child welfare office. In the letter, we pointed out that the choice of school / home schooling is in the future (Martin is only 5 years old) and that it is unreasonable for them to demand that we explain ourselves about a question, on which we have not yet made a final decision.
The child welfare representatives wanted to do an assessment of the family in our home. They would only be there to observe the family dynamic. We said no. It would be unnatural for us to let them in. They are not welcome and we cannot pretend that they are and then it would become a tense mood. Martin has an expectation of how we meet people who come to visit us. He always involves them in play and talk to them. It would be incomprehensible for him that he is not to involve visitors. Martin feels safe at home and we do not want him to experience that anyone can invade his home without our approval.
We wrote to them and said that their routines must give way for what is best for us and for Martin. Their desire for a home visit is exaggerated and is a violation of the family sphere we simply cannot allow.
In our letter, we asked why homeschooling was a part of the case all the time it is not child neglect to choose home education for the children.
We also wondered which benchmark they would use to make an objective decision in our case. We found that the child welfare representative was not objective. She mixed in her own opinions in the case. She was questioning whether a 5 year old is able to choose what he wants to learn.
It is strange that people who work with children do not know that children learn from the moment they are borne. In fact, they learn from before they are born. It is an unstoppable process. No authority is needed to tell children what to learn and when. Learning is a natural forever-ongoing part of life.
We did not expect any reasonable response to any of these questions, and during our meeting last Monday, they did not mention them. We are waiting for all their documents, and maybe they did give an answer, but it is highly unlikely.
We have had some thoughts about how intolerant the society is. We ended up in this situation because we choose differently. We spend a lot of time reading up on the latest info on various topics and it is obvious to us, that people with obsolete information are attacking us.
It is horrible that the actions of a woman who did not get acceptance for her views and who did not get her will, can lead to such awful consequences.
We often hear that diversity is a strength and that we as society must be tolerant of other cultures and values than we ourselves have. Often, the same people proclaiming this are the ones who are the most intolerant to those who think and act differently. The community is incredibly intolerant towards people who want to do home schooling. The intolerance often comes from employees in the municipality and from the people working in the school system. There are many examples of this in the Norwegian Home Education Association (NHUF). People, who do not know the law, reporting families to the child welfare authorities, for the most outrageous things, disguised as "for the good of the children".
It is a relief that it is over, but it never should have been a case in the first place.
Thank you for reading .
