very shocking. it is highly deplorable. I do not know exactly, in what way I can help but I really wish to. do animals or birds have to learn how to bring about a new born? here in India, blind mothers are very efficient. so are there in Norway I suppose.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shadab Husain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:30 PM Subject: [AI] Suffering of a blind mother! > 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 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
