DENMARK: Ranada van Kralingen shared a link . March 10 No Faith in Dutch Family law Criticism on the work of the Dutch Child Protection Services The many contacts with both the Dutch Childcare Services organisations and the Court, which organisations are intermingled and seem to make up a closed system, have been a horrifying, traumatic experience to many families in the Netherlands. These organisations violate and intrude in ones personal life in such a way that ones family life is going to be litterally emotionally and financially destroyed. In the end, one is left with little dignity and little reason to live. Ones pain (the pain of the victim, the parents and siblings and other family members goes as deep as if losing a family member or a loved one by death). The days to come which one was supposed to spend with the lost child(ren) are stolen forever and will never come back. For your benefit: The names of the Child Care Service Organisations are as follows: PLEEGZORG = FOSTER PARENTS GUIDANCE BOARD GEZINSVOOGD = FAMILY GUARDIAN (the one who should implement the job of OTS by working together AT HOME with both the parents and the child(ren) JEUGDZORG = YOUTHCARE RAAD VOOR DE KINDERBESCHERMING = CHILDCARE AND PROTECTION BOARD (CCPB) MELDPUNT KINDERMISHANDELING = ADVISORY BODY FOR CHILD ABUSE (AMK) KINDERMISHANDELING = ILL TREATMENT/CHILDABUSE ONDERTOEZICHTSTELLING (OTS) = GUIDANCE BY JUDICIAL SUPERVISION ZITTING RECHTBANK = COURT CASE SESSION Big money flows in Dutch Child Protection Services Every research (second opinion) costs time and time will be in favour of the permanent placement of the child outside the birth familys home. The child is not being placed first, as a temporay solution, in the home of an extended family member. Most research is done by or in order of the childcare organisation itself and thus subjective, which in reality means: negative to the parents. There is a big money flow to all the organisations, the research centers, the court system and the foster institutions the children live in ( € 4 billion a year). Foster parents receive a minimum of €500 per child per month The money foster parents receive for 2 foster children a month is a comparable amount to that of a minimum income in my country and on top of that they receive a higher pay for an urgent placement, tax benefits, other benefits and child support. The younger the child, the more money will be received in time and as the child grows older so does the received amount of monthly money. The biological parents still have to pay The parents themselves loose all their rights to certain benefits, every month they have to spend a lot of money themselves (even if they have no income!) for alimony to: A. the LBIO, (LANDELIJK BUREAU ONDERHOUDSBIJDRAGEN = NATIONAL BODY COLLECTION FOR MAINTENANCE CONTRIBUTION) B. for their attorney, C. for the court system, D. for research, E. for paperwork and phonecalls, F. for visiting their children (if they are allowed to) and more. Besides: The amount of times we had to show up in court in person is about twentyfive. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Because the parents are allowed to be with their child only a little time under supervision of the family guardian, the parents cannot take away any doubts about how they would function in their own environment as parents on a full time base. Because the parents and the children barely get to know eachother under such circumstances and are under pressure forbidden to bring up or share anything personal with their child, the family bond is slowly but surely crushed and also brothers and sisters are seperated from eachother for a long time. Even if the court orders longer visits with the parents to see if the child can be placed back home, this is often sabotaged in many different ways by Youthcare and the Foster Parents Guidance Board. Trauma is created An example: the child is upset and cries for the parents after a (guided) visit with them, is angry and distant towards the foster parents and throws his toys through the room, has nightmares and wakes up crying. The welfare of the child is mostly used as an excuse to get their way in court and the parents are at fault. Whereas this behaviour of a child shows symptoms of his grief about being separated again from his parents after such a visit and the repeat of the trauma of the separation of his parents in the first place, when having been taken away from them as a breastfed baby, in the stage of forming a symbiotic bond with his mum. When the case comes to court again, at least half a year has passed. The organisations tell the judge the child is doing much better since the visits have been reduced, using their own reports with subjective wordplay such as it could be and it looks like as their reference. Judges blindly believe Youth care The judges sometimes blindly believe what has been written down by the organisations involved. They dont see the children and they dont do their own research, sometimes they know people from the organisations personally and they are often prejudiced about the parents. The inspection nor the political parties take on individual cases. The organisations even admit that they are not searching for the truth, they leave their research to institutions that are being payed by the same money sources. The majority of their facts are often based on opinions, insinuations, assumptions, libel, prejudism, subjective wordplay, quotes of incidents in a different context, repetitions. Snatching children for adoption In Great Britain a case worker admitted that they have to make the cases to appear more severe than they are to get the case (= make profits = outplace the children from their families = reach their yearly quota - being able by doing so to ask the government for more money and subsidy at the end). No Faith in Dutch Family law Razzia by Youth Care Netherlands jeugdzorg-darkhorse.blogspot.nl/2012/03/hartverscheurend-politie-en-jeugdzorg.html Also over time we as parents lost our faith in cooperating with the organisations who had lied so much and had driven us in a corner we couldnt get out of by ourselves. What happened in our case, also happened in Jelena Antonova her case, Jordy and Yunus case and in many other cases: the parents started to look for their own confidents, for people who could help them because of their profession. In court the help of all these different professionals was being overruled as unwanted and their research and recommendations were being overruled as being subjective. Hearring on the 20th of february 2013 in Brussels - EuroParliament (english audio/video) Jeugdzorg Dark horse
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:09:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015