/ ноември 2, 2019/ Законодателство, Институции, НПО-ПРОЕКТИ И ФИНАНСИРАНЕ, Статии/ 0 comments

Authors: Hristo Ganchev (Architect) and Dr Marin Ganchev (MD)

It all began with the best of intentions. The state becomes the intermediary between the child and its own family. And as such, the state, represented by Barnevernet, has the right to decide what is best for the child – to stay with its own parents, to live in a foster family or in a welfare institution. The unclear concept of a ‘child at risk’ is introduced, which gives an all-purpose base for the state to intervene in the family to protect the child’s best interests without it being the subject of a crime. And as we know, where there is money, everything turns into business. And if someone still didn’t get it – we are talking about a lot of power and a lot of money.

‘Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra?’[i]

                                                         —Marcus Tullius Cicero


[i] “How Long Will You Abuse Our Patience?” By Mark Tully Cicero for Catiline

On 25September 2008, in Norway, Strand Lobben[i] gives birth to her first child. Due to financial difficulties, she agrees to start raising her child in a ‘family center,’ which is a type of Norwegian sheltered housing. On 14October the medical staff turns to Barnevernet (the state agency of Norway’s Child Protection Services) due to a minimal loss of the child’s weight. Three days after this Mrs. Lobben decides to leave the ‘family center.’ The baby is taken from the mother on the same day and classified as a ‘child at risk’ ten days later. The desperate mother begins a fight for her child but loses and the child is given to a foster family.

The tragedy for the mother doesn’t end with this. On 11 July 2011, Barnevernet starts a termination procedure to revoke the parental rights for the child with the purpose for its adoption. The plea reads as follows: ‘it becomes clear from the reports from the meetings of Strand Lobben and her son that she is still unable to focus on the child’s best interest, but is strongly influenced by her negative opinion of the foster mother and Barnevernet.’ And thus, instead of the mother, Barnevernet decides that it is best for the child to be adopted. After losing in all court instances, Strand Lobben turns to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, which on 10 September 2019[ii] declares that the child was wrongly taken away from the mother.[iii] With this action Norway has breached Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).[iv]

Nevertheless, Norway refuses to return the unlawfully abducted child to its mother. Such cases are, unfortunately, not only a few isolated ones. There are dozens of cases filed in the European Court of Human Rights against Norway’s obviously insane child protection system.


[i] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-178877%22]}

[ii] Curious fact – Bulgaria is also a party to the case

[iii] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-195909%22]}

[iv] Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Right to Respect for Private and Family Life 1. Everyone has the right to privacy, to their home and to their correspondence. 2. The intervention of public authorities in the exercise of this right shall be inadmissible except in the cases provided for by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national and public security or the economic well-being of the country, to prevent disorder or crime, to protect the health and morals or the rights and freedoms of others.

How did everything turn this way? It all began with the best of intentions in 1992, when Barnevernet was founded.

The roots of today’s problems can be summarized as follows:

  • A ‘child-centered’ approach is introduced in the child protection legislation. This is the concept that the interests of the child should be considered separately from the interests of the family/parents. This concept leads to an incredible empowerment of the state apparatus. Up until then, the state only monitored for crimes against children, punished the perpetrators and took care of the victims. Since the adoption of this legislation, the state has become an intermediary between the child and its own family. And as such, the state represented by Barnevernet has the right to decide where the best place for the child is – with its own parents, with a foster family or in an institution.
  • The unclear concept of ‘child at risk’ is introduced which gives universal power to the state to intervene in the family on behalf of the child without it being a subject to a crime.
  • Big financial investments in the child protection sector are made and the social system opens to private social services providers. And as we know, where there is money everything becomes business.[i]

If someone still didn’t get it – we are talking about a lot of money and a lot of power.


[i] In 2017 only, Norway pays € 65 million to private companies to keep children in isolation, sometimes for months (physical punishment is prohibited, so there are obviously other methods of impact), with the cost of a child in isolation per day reaching € 1800.

What is happening in Bulgaria?

For about two decades foreign diplomats, lobbyists and NGOs have been pushing Bulgaria along the path of Norway. Laws have been changed, structures created, and more and more power is granted to NGOs, unnoticeably for society. This process has been developing aside from the public attention, until in the beginning of 2019 when a major part of Bulgarian society stood against the Strategy for the Child 2019–2030 and the recent legal changes.

The main changes in the legislation in the last 10 years are as follows:

  • Extension of the term ‘child at risk,’[i] which is different from ‘victim of violence or exploitation.’[ii]
  • Expanding of the definition of child abuse.
  • The possibility of anonymous reporting (anonymous ‘signal’[iii]) of a ‘child at risk.’

The latest step in this long-term strategy, are the amendments that will take effect on 1 January 2020. They open the doors to private providers of social services.[iv] There is obviously a business component here with the potential to provide hundreds of millions of revenue to domestic and international NGOs.

But there is also something else. The new Child Protection Act provides the creation of a multidisciplinary team, which has the power to take the decision of how to protect a ‘child at risk.’ The law also provides the participation of a ‘representative of a social service provider’ (NGO) in this team.


[i] A “child at risk” according to § 1–11 of the Supplementary Provisions to the Child Protection Law (CPL) is a child who:

“.. is a victim of… violence… in or outside his family…. „;

At the same time, “violence” is defined in the Implementing Regulations of the CPL

§ 1. For the purposes of these Rules:

1. „Violence“ against a child is any act of physical, mental or sexual abuse, neglect … leading to actual or probable harm to the health, life, development or dignity of the child, which may occur in family, school and social environment.

2. „Physical violence“ is…. causing pain or suffering without a health disorder.

3. „Mental abuse“ means all acts, such as: underestimation, mockery, threat, discrimination, rejection or other forms of negative treatment, as well as the inability of the parent, custodian and trustee or person who takes care of the child to provide appropriate supportive environment. … ”

In other words EVERY CHILD is a CHILD at Risk

[ii] Art. 36 (G and D) of the Child Protection Act

[iii] Art. 10. From the Rules for the Implementation of the CPL. (5) Anonymous signals shall not be considered, except in cases related to violence against a child, or at the discretion of the Director of the Social Assistance Directorate.

[iv] Art. 29, 30 and Art. 31 of the Social Services Act

This is an obvious conflict of interest. A representative of a social service provider will participate in a commission, which shall decide whether or not a child needs such a service.

With this text in the law, the work upon the child care privatization which has been running almost two decades has shown its real face; the real face of an ugly creature (like the Hydra of Greek mythology), which officially and legally turns the care of ‘children at risk’ into a business. Once empowered, this monstrous octopus would have the resources to corrupt every national assembly and each politician.

Who then will have the courage to dare stand up to it?

And so, again ‘at five minutes to midnight,’ as in our battle against the Istanbul Convention, our instincts didn’t betray us! Bulgarians, Romas (Gypsies) and Turks; Christians and Muslims felt the totalitarian danger and, holding the national flag, started singing as one our national anthem, ‘Proud Old Mountain’! And they stood against yet another ideological madness!

What shall be done next? The first step is to inform the people.

It is high time for the governing class and the national media to understand that when a nervous official, a staff journalist or a greedy NGO representative says on national television that there is no problem, it is nothing short of a warning signal for the Bulgarian citizen. He immediately understands that it is all about money. And when these PR campaigns continue for more than five days, the Bulgarians already have no doubt that it is a matter of hundreds of millions and even billions.

In this given situation, the only thing that can give the people a sense of reassurance is an authentic debate. While the average Bulgarian is tormented by the thought that ‘he still hasn’t seen through their game,’ his curiosity is not going to end. Only the genuine, frank and public discussion between parents and NGOs/state-bureaucracy can satisfy the created need for information.

On 13October 2019 the Association ‘ROD’ (Parents United for Children[i]), representing a Facebook group with over 200,000 members,[ii] has invited all the political parties represented in the Bulgarian parliament to start a discussion on the topic in which hundreds of thousands of parents are interested. We shall see who will accept the extended hand and who is going to ignore it. However, one thing is for sure: anyone who does not want problems such as the psychosis in the Roma neighborhoods to happen again, should help to initiate an earnest dialogue in the national media and in the political arena.


[i] www.daspasimdecatanabulgaria.org

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKOVTk1mhRTh3oyw5qz9Gow

And thus, why is Norway so corrupt?

During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, a number of studies were conducted on the effect of forced separation of monkey mothers and her children. The most famous are Harry Harlow’s research results at Stanford University. The tool he used to separate mothers from children was called Pit of Despair. The descriptions of the suffering of monkey mothers and small monkeys were so dramatic that he was forbidden to do more such experiments. The results, however, which he and other scientists have published clearly show that maternal deprivation causes irreparable psychological damage to both mother and child.[i] And yet, despite of the stunning videos seen on the Internet,


[i] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217852/

Norway continues with its hard breach of the ECHR taking children from their functional families. Why?

The corruption[i] in a given country has many faces. It starts with the bribe in the municipality, but ends with the total abdication of the country’s administration, which leads to genocide and other crimes against humanity. In Norway no one tries to bribe the traffic policeman. The corruption there is at a different level. What we come across in Norway, though, is familicide. This is a form of corruption, which leads to the intentional destruction of the family in the name of a utopia. The perpetrator is an out-of-control state machine and outrageous social service providers (we call them NGOs in Bulgaria). And everything is legal. Legal, but sick; and immoral; and inhumane.

It is high time for us to reject the social experiments of corrupt countries like Norway. Sooner or later the Vikings will have to face the truth – with a lot of money they had created a monster, which is destroying them. Bulgaria can and must provide the help needed to overcome this apocalypse.[ii]

Do not get us wrong. Bulgaria needs the best legal protection for its children. The penalties for abuse and traffic of children must be the most severe provided by the Criminal Code. The victims of these crimes should receive suitable care and protection. Unfortunately, however, this can’t be achieved with the present legislation.

And the politicians and the media who are inside the club of the NGOs are recognizable by the lack of desire for public debate. Hundreds of thousands of Bulgarian parents have been appealing for months for this public debate.

This won’t continue to work. Not in Bulgaria.


[i] Corruption comes from the Latin word corrumpo, which means corrupt, deprave.

[ii] Apocalypse (Greek Αποκάλυψις – Revelation)

[1] “How Long Will You Abuse Our Patience?” By Mark Tully Cicero for Catiline

[1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-178877%22]}

[1] Curious fact – Bulgaria is also a party to the case

[1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-195909%22]}

[1] Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Right to Respect for Private and Family Life 1. Everyone has the right to privacy, to their home and to their correspondence. 2. The intervention of public authorities in the exercise of this right shall be inadmissible except in the cases provided for by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national and public security or the economic well-being of the country, to prevent disorder or crime, to protect the health and morals or the rights and freedoms of others.

[1] In 2017 only, Norway pays € 65 million to private companies to keep children in isolation, sometimes for months (physical punishment is prohibited, so there are obviously other methods of impact), with the cost of a child in isolation per day reaching € 1800.

[1] A “child at risk” according to § 1–11 of the Supplementary Provisions to the Child Protection Law (CPL) is a child who:

“.. is a victim of… violence… in or outside his family…. „;

At the same time, “violence” is defined in the Implementing Regulations of the CPL

§ 1. For the purposes of these Rules:

1. „Violence“ against a child is any act of physical, mental or sexual abuse, neglect … leading to actual or probable harm to the health, life, development or dignity of the child, which may occur in family, school and social environment.

2. „Physical violence“ is…. causing pain or suffering without a health disorder.

3. „Mental abuse“ means all acts, such as: underestimation, mockery, threat, discrimination, rejection or other forms of negative treatment, as well as the inability of the parent, custodian and trustee or person who takes care of the child to provide appropriate supportive environment. … ”

In other words EVERY CHILD is a CHILD at Risk

[1] Art. 36 (G and D) of the Child Protection Act

[1] Art. 10. From the Rules for the Implementation of the CPL. (5) Anonymous signals shall not be considered, except in cases related to violence against a child, or at the discretion of the Director of the Social Assistance Directorate.

[1] Art. 29, 30 and Art. 31 of the Social Services Act

[1] www.daspasimdecatanabulgaria.org

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKOVTk1mhRTh3oyw5qz9Gow

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217852/

[1] Corruption comes from the Latin word corrumpo, which means corrupt, deprave.

[1] Apocalypse (Greek Αποκάλυψις – Revelation)

http://glasove.com/categories/na-fokus/news/npo-prevzemat-dyrzhavata-ili-zashto-norvegiya-e-tolkova-korupmpirana?fbclid=IwAR2ND4rmnKjJZzZErXPv7EsiKk77ftzZ4ThiBKleMQvzrZQXC2LJKIlwkVk

Share this Post

Leave a Comment