Russians have a large finnish authorities unjustly took away the the child

Russian woman Viktoria Medvedeva does not understand the reasons why local authorities took away all three children in the town of Seinäjoki in Finland, she told TASS.

“There were no reasons for withdrawal, they do not say anything to me.” They say they are investigating, but nothing is known about the prospects for returning the children, “Medvedev said.

According to the Russian woman, she is allowed to see her children only three times a week. She added that she is in Finland on a working visa, she has been living in the country since 2011, and there have never been any similar incidents before.

Medvedev also indicated that appeals to representatives of the Russian authorities to resolve the situation have not yet helped.

As Finnish human rights defender Johan Beckmann said earlier, two children – twins – were taken from the kindergarten, and the eldest daughter was taken from the house and placed in a shelter.

Finnish experience: Ombudsman Kuznetsova protects children with juvenile

On May 15, 2017, the Russian president’s authorized representative for the rights of the child, Anna Kuznetsova, told reporters: “There are not officially recorded violations (on the illegal seizure of children from families – TASS commentary). Their units, these are officially identified violations by the prosecutor’s office. ” This statement was made on the eve of the preparation of the report to the President of the Russian Federation, which instructed the commissioner to analyze the practice of taking minors out of the family from the point of view of undue interference (following a press conference of December 23, 2016).

This calming statement could not remain without the most rapid response from the public, as it does not correspond to the real situation in this area.

“Illegal seizures” is, on the one hand, a terminological term that requires legitimate state recognition. But on the other hand – “illegal seizures” – that category, which is determined by the moral criterion, the concept of man about justice, about good and evil. And from this point of view, which is lawful on the part of officials, it can be illegal and inhuman on the part of the “little man” and the whole society. And when hundreds of such examples are already a serious sign, on which the authorities have no right to close their eyes, evidence of the urgency of changing the law, sowing injustice and conflict.

Such a huge difference between “officially identified single violations” and really illegal seizures of children from families (only according to data known to me from public organizations, in Russia illegally seized from the families of more than two hundred children – note Elena Timoshina) only emphasizes the scale of injustice and misunderstanding , the depth of the gap between the society and the authorities. And an official who states such things as truth does not have anything to be proud of.

And not even in every county Russian city, Antonov Antonovich, Ammos Fedorovich and Artemy Filippovichi, brilliantly described by NV Gogol, are passionately afraid of all sorts of checks from the capital and, probably, will do their best to hide the abuses and lawlessness. Therefore, if an authorized representative to protect the rights of children in search of truth applies only to the powers that be, eliminating from personal contact with the people, it will be very difficult for her to find it.

Analysis of cases of illegal seizure of children from families in Russia today, prepared by public organizations, showed that, in the overwhelming majority, it is a material criterion for poor families or families where parents differ from ordinary people, for example, due to health (the case with a hard-of-hearing mother) which do not correspond to certain standards in the eyes of officials, but who are the same as everyone and have the right to live, love, give birth and bring up children. They, according to the ridiculous whims of officials, were classified as “second-rate” people, so they considered it possible to deprive a part of the rights, including the most precious thing a person has, the right to be a parent. This is an extremely dangerous situation, since this was the beginning of the juvenile terror that seized today “civilized countries”.

Unwillingness to recognize reality, listen to the public who collected the facts about children illegally withdrawn from the families, speaks of a weak position – unwillingness to enter into confrontation with the authorities, with the defects of the system, to get rid of the latter.

Who will intercede for the rights of the family and child in it in addition to public organizations? We thought that this would be our new commissioner. But, apparently, they were mistaken.

In May 2017, during a business trip, the Russian ombudsman signed a memorandum of understanding on the protection of the rights and interests of the child with the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Finland. It is unfortunate that this document is not posted on the official website of the authorized person. We believe that the society, including the Public Council, has the right to know about the content of such important documents that have all chances to become fatal for our families. I would also like to know: in what way does our Ombudsman agree with Finnish?

Only some details of this meeting are known from the media. In particular, the objectives of the trip were: “detailed acquaintance with the Finnish aspects of child protection and the specifics of solving family issues”, “development of cooperation, preparation of seminars with the participation of specialists, exchange of experience and dialogue.”

At the same time, it is well known how aggressive the Finnish model of juvenile justice is and how many seizures of children from blood families have been carried out under the most incredible, untenable grounds. For example: the unjustified punishment of the child by the parents or his criticism in the court, the sick legs of the mother (which allegedly creates obstacles to take the child to a remote kindergarten), radiculitis (which does not allow the mother to sit in the sandbox together with the child), “healing the child” (when the mother with minor signs of a minor’s cold often seek help from a doctor), coercion of the child to unnecessary hygienic procedures (the child is forced to brush his teeth), and much more.

Back in 2013, Russian mothers living in Finland prepared an open letter to the Russian president asking them to raise the issue of non-observance of the international law of children for family ties in that country, and also asked to talk about large-scale seizures of children from positive families in all senses, the country of Suomi is silently silent. They also provided statistics: from the number of all seized children only 7% are returned to blood parents.

While studying crime in relation to children, in order to collect factual material for scientific purposes several years ago, I deliberately visited Finland. I devoted my trip to the study of “Finnish aspects of child protection and family issues”. Only these aspects were not covered by officials not to “LaStensuoel”, but ordinary people, whose children were confiscated. I’ve met dozens of people. And, by the way, among them there was not a single alcoholic, a drug addict or a parent evading parenting. All of them were the most ordinary people, quite intelligent and educated enough. It was hard even to believe that they were officially recognized as unworthy to raise their own children and deprived of the rights of custody of them. And all of them passionately dreamed of returning their children, and some, driven to despair, even dared to go against the Finnish laws, declaring the illegal seizure of their children in the media (which in Finland is considered a most dangerous offense and is punishable by a complete ban on those rare encounters with your child per year, which are granted to parents after withdrawal). I saw tears in my mother’s eyes, despair and resentment in the eyes of grandmothers, who “in the best interests of children” are not allowed to establish custody of their own grandchildren.

From the very first mouth I learned that social workers in Finland actively use the sources of anonymous informers, one message from which is enough to get a secret affair on the family and begin to “choke” it with checks, or even simply take the child out of school or kindergarten without warning parents, so that without their “pressure” they can try to get the whole truth out of the child about family relationships. And parents can wait for weeks at least some document explaining the reasons for the seizure and not knowing where their child is. But there is often a scenario involving the police and breaking doors, in which children just get out of the hands of their parents (yes, just as in the days of the fascist occupation, when blue-eyed blond angels were taken from mothers for departure to Germany or “for experiments “), And their crying and calling mothers are carried away and put in a car and taken to a secret address.

In addition, in the country of the “progressive model of juvenile justice”, where our commissioner left to gain experience, practice in absentia makes decisions on depriving parents of custody of children, and judges draw conclusions solely on the basis of reports prepared by social services employees. Thus, parents, with their justifications, can not even appear in the face of justice, and children are denied the opportunity to tell the truth about how they are loved in a blood family and that they do not want to be separated from their relatives. And if the parents are still present at the hearing, the judge believes them in much the same way as repentant repeat offenders. Thus, the “internationally recognized principles of humanism and equality of the parties in the course of judicial proceedings are completely flouted in the” advanced “issue of the protection of children’s rights in Finland in the field of” solving family issues “.

Many private children’s homes, where children are sent after their removal from families, are financed from the state budget (the costs of their maintenance are comparable only with the content of the military complex) and are considered a very profitable business. Perhaps, that is why among their owners there are many same judges and social workers who took fateful part in the fate of the seized children.

Equally popular form of confiscated children in Finland are foster families, among which homosexual couples are not the last. This is also a very successful enterprise, as the monetary reward is paid for each child admitted to the family. However, it is possible to call this family with great difficulty – as a rule, a minor withdrawn from his parents during his life changes a lot of foster families, so he never gets true affection, a love atmosphere and a real family. Why this happens – nobody explained to me and could not, the decision to change the foster family is made by a social worker for no apparent reason.

Drawing attention to the fact that in a country where any punishment of a child by parents is prohibited, any kind of psychological and moral violence, in foster families and orphanages, certain types of physical punishment or ill-treatment are not prohibited as “extreme measures of influence on a difficult child” ( for some reason, all seized children are considered a priori as such).

In my memory, a case was struck with a girl from a completely Finnish family who was in an orphanage. Let’s call her Ida. I must say that this was actually a “difficult” girl, corrupted by liberal freedoms, brought up on the postulate that “children have rights regardless of their parents.” And Ida realized all these rights in full: she boycotted her studies, started smoking early, drank, used drugs and lived sexually. Blood parents struggled to get her back on the path of true, but how to do it, when prohibitions and edifications are evaluated by the state as violence against the child? And after another scandal arranged by a 16-year-old girl for parents only because they expressed their dissatisfaction with her desire to go to a night party, she herself filed an application to them in “Lastensuela”, and social workers solemnly forwarded Ida to a private orphanage. She left her parents’ house with a proud look of a winner. But then it turned out that in a new place of residence they were not at all ready to tolerate her disgusting antics, freedoms began to be cut back, and bans and punishments entered everyday life. Parental home seemed Ideal paradise, and she repeatedly asked to go back, but where it comes to financing private business, each “head on the account.” Ida was incredibly disobedient and depraved, so after another trick, her naked was placed in a cooler without windows, doors and a bed. And they kept the month … The measure turned out to be effective, so it was repeated every time after the girl’s big disgraces. Ida was not allowed to leave the institution, I was not allowed to send letters. However, the news with a complaint about the teachers she managed to pass through someone. But in vain. I go no one heard. It should be noted that private children’s homes in Finland – this is a property of a very specific person, and it is illegal to go to this territory even with a check. Therefore, the methods of education of Ida remained a personal affair of the institution’s staff until its coming of age. When she left the orphanage and returned to her parents in tears, they together filed an application to the police, reporting all the Idi’s torment. Even the Finnish newspapers wrote about this. The process took place, in which the owner of a private orphanage claimed that it was not violence, but “the necessary measure of upbringing conditioned by circumstances” (by the way, his position was widely approved and supported by the public). They sentenced the tutor-entrepreneur to pay a fine in Finnish penalties in the form of punishment.

I will not continue in the same vein, only I will note that similar processes take place regularly in Finland, and they often speak not only about measures of physical punishment, but about bullying and sexual violence against pupils.

In conclusion, I would like to remind you that several years ago, Finnish experts on “protecting the rights of children” already came to Moscow, who tried to pass on their experience to our compatriots. During the lectures the representative of the delegation proudly announced the data on the annual seizure of one thousand children per year from blood families (what is it for a small Finland ?!). The attendees were hung by a dumb question, so nobody voiced: “Is there really so much fugitives in the country of Suomi ???”

In this connection, it is very important for me, and for the entire parental community, to know which Finnish experience in the matter of “protecting children” our ombudsman wants to adopt?

EM Timoshina, Candidate of Law, Criminologist

Children are taken away more and more often, they stop talking more and more stubbornly

The scandal with Russian children in Finland showed the difference between the countries of “victorious democracy” and people whose “democracy” did not discourage love for children. In Europe, the taking-off of children has become not only an ordinary affair, but also profitable, and the media have been given the task of not noticing the problems. So far, only Russia actively opposes the destruction of families … here we have the newspapers silent, and the children swim from their dads and mothers.
This material was taken by the original author from his LJ, at the request of the mother of the child under the pressure of English “justice”. I hope someone in the media of Latvia still want to follow this story …

Tatiana Turchina, Dublin

Laila Brice, whose name is read in English as Bryce is a Latvian journalist. She worked in London as an editor of a Russian newspaper. On March 8, 2010, the social services of the London district of Merton took advantage of the fact that at that time Laila spoke poor English, did not know the laws of the country, did not know the situation, was deceived and forged by her fraud and forgery, and signed her statement about the transfer of her daughter Katya, guardianship of public services. Two and a half years have passed since then. All this time, Laila, who has an older daughter, Maya, who was already an adult, fought for Katya’s return to the family. Social services carefully concealed from her the fact that from the very beginning they were preparing to deceive the selected child into a violent, that is, without the mother’s consent, transferring Katya to another family. In English, this is called forcedadoption – forced adoption. The deception was revealed only after Laila lost the hearing in the family court, got access to reports from Scotland Yard and found evidence that her child was literally abducted by social services. These certificates will be made public in the appeals court, which will be held on October 1 this year. In the meantime, there is a brief background and the day of Laila, photographed in photographs, yet unaware that her child was abducted with intent.

I stayed in this family for a week, I saw an excellent well-groomed child, dearly loved by her mother. Laila treated the little girl with great care, never for a moment leaving her. Her eldest daughter, Maya, was replaced by her mother when she needed to leave the house for work. Both Laila and Maya were delighted with being in London, shopping, discussing prospects. Maya went to college, receiving excellent marks and praised by her teachers. The family was absolutely happy. It never occurred to me that a couple of years later I would see completely different people – lost and unhappy. Katya’s father, who was in Riga all the time, left the family for another woman. Katya herself was no longer in the house either. She was under the care of the social services of the London district of Merton. Social workers placed Katya in the family of a guardian – a native of the island of Mauritius. In addition to Katya, two more girls lived here, older than Katya for six years. Both are from the family of alcoholics. One of them constantly beat little Katya, but social services preferred to “ignore” this.

Three years after I took this picture, I was told how Katya came under the care of social services. The fact is that Laila, Maya and Katya moved to another apartment. Maya after college entered the university, and Laila found the work of an editor in a Russian newspaper. She usually worked from home. The owner of the newspaper, as it is usual for the majority of businessmen of Russian origin, paid little and irregularly, detaining money and paying them in installments. In turn, Layla delayed the rent of landlords, from whom she rented an apartment. Tom did not like this and he constantly threatened to evict the family. On March 5, 2010 the owner of the newspaper demanded that Laila immediately come to the editorial office. A certain file was lost and it was required to find it immediately. Laila’s excuses that the weather is very bad, and her child was slightly ill, were not taken into account. Either urgently go to work, or be fired. In a panic, Laila called up friends – it was necessary to find someone who would agree to sit with the child. Such a person was found. A friend of Violetta agreed to close her store and come to rescue Laila. In order to cope with their own affairs and reach Laila’s home, she needed time. Meanwhile, the owner of the newspaper continued to call and demand to appear immediately in the editorial office. We had to go to the other end of London – three buses and a metro. Time to wait for the girlfriend was not. That’s why Laila removed all the items that little Katya could get injured or swallowed, put her warm clothes on, put bottles of tea and yogurt on the table, turned off the old boiler, which could cause the accident, kissed the child, asking him for forgiveness, leaving him alone, tightly closed the door of the room and went to work. This was the last day Laila saw her youngest daughter at home. As it turned out later, the girlfriend was stuck in a traffic jam and appeared in the apartment after the door opened with her key, landlord entered. Seeing that the child was left alone at home, he called the police. The police, arriving already on three cars, took away little Katya and arrested all those present at the time in the house: a girl late for the child, who returned from the University of Maya and later – Laila herself. Three days later, social worker Clara Masenda deceived Laila to sign a document on the transfer of the child to the care of social services, presenting it as a document permitting social services to provide medical assistance to the child. Clara Masende needed to hurry – she knew that the police were going to transfer the child back to her mother the next day. Lyle did not say so. On the contrary, the next day she was beaten by all the truths and crooks in consent to guardianship, presenting the case in such a way that otherwise it would be impossible to get Katya back. This was the beginning of a campaign to transfer little Katya to forced adoption. Mothers did not say that social services were not going to return the child. On the contrary, it was sent to numerous “assessments,” that is, assessment tests that parents usually take, whose children are taken away by social services. To the annoyance of social workers, Laila successfully passed everything. She always asked: “When will Katya be returned to me?” She could no longer return Katya to her mother: a pretty white girl (this was especially emphasized) was lined up with a queue of people who wanted to adopt her. And here it is necessary to tell about the circumstances that come.

In recent years, the British newspapers are full of such advertisements: “Guardians are required.” Or these: “Create a family: adopt!” This is part of the state policy – since the former head of Barnardos Martin Neyr (MartinNarey) became an adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Tim Lawton (TimLoughton) became the minister for children’s affairs. The latter himself was adopted by a family of guardians at the age of three months, through the hands of which about 80 children passed. The UK Government regards adoption as an excellent solution to reduce the cost of keeping a child under guardianship. Still, every guardian receives 400 pounds per child every week, and here there is a lot of extra spending on social workers assessing the suitability of guardians, doctors looking after children, various services providing parents with various tests, and so on, and so on. In short, the government has taken a course to accelerate the transfer of children to adopt. At the same time, government advisors for some reason prefer not to go into the circumstances accompanying the sluggish process of adoption. And the reality is that in the “market” of children intended for adoption, children with disabilities, children from poor families – for example, from families of alcoholics and drug addicts, children
black and Asian parents, children over four years old. “Catfish” “fly away” mostly white children, under the age of four and with good genetics. Katya was a child who is easy to “sell” in this market. It is to sell, because on children like Katya, the system makes money. For example, according to the site placing a child in a specialized orphanage costs £ 7,000 per week per child, the cost of attorneys and legal costs when placing a child for adoption costs £ 500,000. each case, and experts receive up to 28,000 pounds for a simple report. Adoption agencies that put children in for adoption make millions in this business, earning 18,000 pounds for each adopted child, and local authorities also make millions, reaching the government’s “quota” adoption of children. Children are a serious business.

Laila and her daughter Katya became hostages of the system.

The first thing that strikes the eye in Laila’s apartment is the files and documents spread out on the floor. Laila does not have the means to pay for a private lawyer and she prepares herself for defense in the appeal court. A free lawyer from LegalAid is also not for her – the judge of the district family court officially refused to Lyle in the appeal. Plus, practice has shown that free lawyers from the British service LegalAid somehow prefer to work against those whom they are called to protect. In any case, a representative of LegalAid, who worked with Laila, did not even inform the latter that she could easily get her child back. Simply by writing an application for the denial of social services. When Laila was told with great secrecy and she followed the advice, the social services of Merton County responded instantly-they filed an application with the family court to take Laila away from her child. The chances of winning such a court from parents are almost none: the cases won by them are calculated in tenths of a percent. Somewhere in the middle of the process, Laila received an official message that she did not need to attend the court hearings. Laila’s case was decided in favor of social services even before the verdict of the court was pronounced. Even about her right to appeal Laila learned by heart, just appearing in the court of appeals. The lawyer, at that time already paid (money for it was found by an English priest who was touched by Laila’s story) along with all claimed that Lyle could not file an appeal: it would require huge funds.

Waiting for a suburban train. Then we finally arrived home. A couple more photos of Laila and her older daughter Maya, made on other days ..

Laila’s older daughter is Maya. She is already 21 years old. She is a university student studying psychology. Alas, the court in connection with Katya knocked the whole family out of the rut: Maya was present at the court, which decided the fate of her sister and could not attend the classes at the university. Fortunately, she was allowed to take missed exams later. Maya filed a statement so that the court allowed her to be the guardian of her sister. But social workers had other kinds of Katya. Maya was denied custody of her sister. It was motivated by the fact that Maya is under the influence of her mother. Now Maya also filed a lawsuit in the appeals court, so that if she does not take her mother, her sister is given to her. We are waiting for October 1.

this is not Russia, it’s strictly according to the instructions.

And, the trick is that, as far as I know, elements of Juvenile Justice are also introduced in Latvia.

Those. and in Latvia they can take away children, and absolutely and not even for such a thing as leaving one house (although of course it is definitely wrong to leave the child – here one must proceed from the fact that anything can happen).

For example, at home you can lightly push the toddler down the ass. He can blather in the kindergarten or at school or in the courtyard, or even just as a parrot repeat “now I’ll give a pop!” Or suddenly zastvallyaete clean houses. So everywhere, there can be people and social services or “good neighbors” who will call the Social Service. Or, God forbid, you quarreled with your child, he can whip the trust phone where necessary.

They will come and take us away.

The problem is that if a child or parent with a fool (or as in this case – not figuring out) signs the wrong paper – then the child is likely not to be seen back, even he wants it himself. The structure is subordinated directly to the UN, and it can only be re-used through an international court. And it’s not that simple.

I do not know how much the elements of Juvenile Justice are deeply embedded in the Latvian legislation, but I know there are already several precedents.

Above is a certificate of Katya’s citizenship, which social workers in London’s Merton district are going to give to a British family and issue a new birth certificate, replacing the nationality. Four-year-old Katya, just like Laila and Maya – a citizen of Latvia. But the Latvian embassy after long requests to intervene while limited to a paper – a pier, under the Latvian laws to the child it is impossible to change the passport, to give a new name and a surname differently as at will of mother or the father – or if parents are deprived the parental rights – the trustee. Laila is not deprived of parental rights – neither in Latvia, nor in Great Britain. But social workers in the London district of Merton, just like the British family court, are absolutely indifferent to the nationality of the child they kidnap. The children of foreigners are an easily accessible victim for them. So far, only the Slovak government has been outraged and threatened to appeal to the European Court of Justice, having discovered that in three years, about a hundred Slovak children have fallen into the network of British adoption agencies. And it’s not a secret that children, who fall through adoptive agencies to foster parents, from time to time become victims of sexual violence and other nozkokoniy. Information about this is published in British newspapers. Laila has every reason to fear that forcibly transferring her daughter to someone else’s family will lead to a bad outcome.

And the excerpt from Lyle’s last letter:

“I look at people on the street, and I constantly ask myself the question – here’s a mother who is completely different from the girl she keeps holding her hand – she might be an adopter.
Here is a black, wild boar, fed up with an eerie skull, with empty eyes of a ruminant animal, for some reason carries a girl of Scottish appearance, with red hair and blue eyes in school uniform, for some nine or ten years. She looks at him faithfully, then he takes it with such a strange movement, pushes to the exit, and I ask the question: who is he for her: a social worker? Or is it an adopter who tortures her at night, plugging her mouth and intimidating her so that she does not dare to talk about what he does to her?
By what right he is strange, with the gesture of the master, he makes such a gesture, resembling the embrace of the master …
Tanya, I really already see this country, divided only into two categories – those who give birth to their children, and those who take them away, take away, kidnap.
You have to be in my shoes to understand what is happening to the mother, who is being bullied, who has been robbed of the child, who is being held hostage for the sake of which she is still trying to keep herself in her hands. “

As it turned out yesterday, the Latvian embassy finally reacted to inquiries about Katie Britsa and reported that she sent a request to London Merton about this case. Today I also received a response from the Ministry of Welfare of Latvia (where there are responsible for international adoption) where I sent a letter requesting to help us with information about the rights of the UK to give a child, a Latvian citizen, to adoption without the consent of a mother who is not deprived of parental rights, into the British family (so-called forced adoption, forced adoption). The answer is that my letter was forwarded to the relevant organizations.

With the efforts of Mark and the British consultants and the title of bachelor, it became clear that the laws of Canada and international conventions were violated in the Kati case. However, the legal service of Merton is guarding the disclosure of their own violations of the law and has just sent me a whole package of documents proving why I should not publish information about Katya and her photo. First of all, it is the concern that information about Katya does not fall into the hands of her potential adoptive parents. 🙂 Despite the threats of Merton and the British court personally, I’m not going to obey these decisions. Moreover, I’m going to inform the press and human rights organizations about this whole story. Because it seems to me most that Katya was the victim of a large corrupt organization that makes money on children. I understand that many people are involved in business, hence the opposition to the disclosure of information. I seriously believe that it’s time for me to go underground and write from there.