Afghanistan has bombs because of war, Finland has bombs because of Social Services
A disturbing story in the latest issue of 6-Degrees magazine – It appears an Afghan woman in Finland, who speaks little Finnish or English, went to social services because her 12-year old daughter had racked up some insane phone bills and she needed help. Social Services came to the rescue and discovered that the daughter has been drinking, smoking, and staying out late – they forced the mother to concede that she was unfit to be a mother.
Social Services took her child – two years later, the state still forbids her to see her not just her mother, but her entire family. The girl occasionally secretly visits her mother, however Social Service tells the mother that the daughter does not want to see her. They teach her Christianity even though she’s Muslim. The daughter has continued drinking and is now taking drugs, she’s also attempted suicide. Because of this, the mother has understandably been suffering from severe depression and has been hospitalized.
The mother feels like their life has been destroyed. After her daughter’s suicide attempt she went to the hospital to ask what’s going on. The meeting was full of frustration and hopeless anger. “After that meeting they imposed a restraining order on me so I cannot see her. I can’t understand why. They said that I am dangerous to my children. But I love them more than anything! In Afghanistan we had bombs because of the war. Here the bombs are social,†she says bitterly.
[...]The family came to Finland hoping for a better life but instead things have gone desperately wrong. “Now I’m here, I’m afraid for my whole family. My husband has died and all I want is to keep the rest of the family together. It’s all breaking down and I don’t know what to do,†says the mother. “I don’t know how to demand my rights. Where do I go now if I can’t go to talk to the social workers? Why are they doing this to me?â€Â
Yes, another success story for Social Services, they’ve truly saved this girl.
Yes *one* story where Finnish Social Services went wrong. Keep highlighting them. Meanwhile, lets also count how many times they get it right?
Ofcourse if there are mistakes like these, they should be rectified in the system. But where in the world is it better than this?
Although, I must say I’m surprised at the christianity bit, if its indeed true.
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
Sounds like something Hannu Karpo would do a show about on TV… perhaps a bit exaggerated, and some of the story intentionally left out… but there’s one truth in there: the Finnish Social Services *never* make mistakes (in their mind).
Comment by FinnFreak — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Hmmm, I remember one case, where 12-years old was kept with his all-day drinking parents, as the sosiaaliauntie said, he supported the parents and kept the family running. Now that was a small place, where the aunties don’t necessarily want any confrontation with the people they see on daily basis, but having 12-years old looking after and supporting the parents. Nice way to start your life.
Was this Afghan girl placed to some ‘Jesusing around’ surrogate family, or what? I don’t believe any flowerhat institution would be forcing religion on somebody. They are more than happy to accomodate your shrinked heads or any other accessory your belief system requires.
Comment by antti (the redneck one) — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
This story sounds truly horrible..
That family should be compensated and the social services should admit their mistake. However, I don’t think this is as common a phenomenon that Phil tries to imply. I agree with Perspective in vast majority of the cases the system works splendidly. A lot of lives have been saved and many families have actually been helped and healed. It’s just sad that when something goes wrong it tends to go horribly wrong.
And yes, nobody should be forcefed a religion, any religion.
Comment by Åboy — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
If I only read this site for news, I’d seriously consider moving to some place better than Finland. Like Somalia or something.
Comment by Fägäri — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
I thought drinking, smoking and staying out late was normal for Finnish teens. At least, that’s the impression I get from some of the parents who talk around the dog park. Is there something missing from this story?
Comment by hfb — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
Sounds a bit one sided.
Comment by Norma — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
I heard of another story…
Husband and wife died in a car crash and their infant baby was taken to the finnish family. Of course, nothing strange here but child and parents were Russian citizens. Also, grandmother and grandfather of the baby were living in Finland but they’ve been refused to take him! Another close relatives have been living in Russia but they also have been refused.
Baby was in the process of citizeship and name change in the new family but only after protest of Russian Embassy and Foreign Ministry, baby was given back to relatives in Finland.
So, nothing strange that they want to change her religion. If they have a chance to take child from a family, they’ll do everything to convert him to a Finn.
Comment by Belino — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Those witty remarks Phil makes against Finnish social services indicate that in his point of view it should be somekind of Utopian Social service. Although it is important to notice the problems in the service it quite unfair to concentrate only on those negative sides.
There’s no way the system can be flawless. At least not before they have endless cashflow and emotical robots that don’t make mistakes and have bad days.
Comment by Toni — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Actually, I don’t think I’ve heard of a success story with regard to child services where the children are removed from their families. I used to contemplate calling them every time I heard the kids upstairs scream and wail, but I figured alco parents are likely better than being adrift in a system of weirdo strangers.
Usually, unless the circumstances are extreme, everything should be done to keep the family together before ripping it apart. The story does really need to some detail explaining why they took the kid away for engaging in behaviours that are standard issue for finnish teenagers.
Comment by hfb — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
I read another story actually. I read that there was a really good family living in Eira and the child was doing well in school and had no obvious behavioural problems. Then the social services got bored and just stole the child away for no reason except the sheer fun of it and they taught the child satan worship and banned the parents from ever seeing it again.
Obviously, that’s not true. I happen to have had an in depth discussion with two social workers just a couple of days ago. What horrified me was how hard it is for social services to take away children who are being mistreated and how easily they are handed back. That story smells distinctly like half-truth/bullshit.
Comment by finnsense — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
Yes *one* story where Finnish Social Services went wrong. Keep highlighting them. . lets also count how many times they get it right?
I haven’t read about any.
Your comment kinda reminds me of Bush’s and Israel’s statements like “Yes, one bomb went astray and kill civilians, but what about the other 100 that hit their targets?” …if two children are “saved” but one is wrongly taken from their family, is it okay?
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
No it is not ok, as my next statement very well points out. (And I don’t know if Bush ever agrees to a mistake made in real time, or soon enough..but atleast I don’t dislike Bush or his policies because his bombs are not hundred percent on target)
Point here being, your implicit ‘agenda’ (for want of a better word) seems to be to point out that Finnish Social Services suck bigtime, and the welfare state has got it wrong, and we should expect some kind of Utopian Social Service, as pointed by Toni.
And this you implement through such chosen pointers to mistakes, to efforts gone wrong (for whatever reasons). Ofcourse I know the mainstream media would highlight mistakes, and not cover things going well…simply because they are *supposed* to go well. But that should not be the case in a personal forum like this. Here we should either point out both aspects, or atleast acknowledge the facts in the right *perspective*
Then again, I may be entirely mistaken in my understanding (as a fairly long time regular reader, and a very independent observer of all the viewpoints people express here). In such a case, I would like to know what exactly was your point in posting this piece…and specifically the carefully chosen use of ‘another’ in your last sentence.
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
So what do you propose we do instead, Phil?
The track record of the child protection system in Finland is actually very good. These anecdotal cases of “horrible social authorities snatching a baby from perfectly innocent and decent parents” reek strongly, to tell you the truth. They get a lot more emphasis than the successful ones. And why don’t you hear more about the successful ones? Perhaps because it’s the kind of information that is considered to be intimate and personal and so is protected according to the law.
It’s like finnsense said: in reality it’s damn hard for the officials to get a child into custody in Finland. It’s nothing like in the USA where a photo of your child bathing naked will do. The main paradigm for the officials in Finland is to keep the family together as long as possible. The child can’t be taken away on a whim. If the parents show signs of wanting to improve and to mend their ways the family stays together. And even if the situation would turn into taking the child into custody the parents still have the right to keep in contact with the child (or as the social workers put it, the child has the right to keep in contact with his or her parents).
We have to bear in mind that these are people we’re talking about. The social workers are only human. It seems that no matter how well the 99% of the profession do their job, the 1% always stains the whole group.
There are bad social workers and good social workers, just as there are bad doctors, teachers and bus drivers and good doctors, teachers and bus drivers. I’ve never heard anyone say that because some bus driver somewhere made a horrible mistake and accidentally killed a person the whole profession of bus drivers should be banned or ostracized in some manner, or that there’s something inherently wrong with the whole bus driver occupation or the transportation system.
Comment by Åboy — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
“Your comment kinda reminds me of Bush’s and Israel’s statements like “Yes, one bomb went astray and kill civilians, but what about the other 100 that hit their targets?†…if two children are “saved†but one is wrongly taken from their family, is it okay? ”
So you think there should be no social intervention in cases of child abuse and gross neglect?
Comment by m — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
This was on the same page of 6 degrees:
How much of what you read, listen to or watch in the media you believe?
I believe it all.
4%
Most is true.
30%
Half of it is true.
42%
Just a fraction of it.
22%
Results
Votes: 287
Home » VOTE » Media truth » Poll results
Vote has been saved.
Media truth
Question
How much of what you read, listen to or watch in the media you believe?
Responses
I believe it all. 12 4%
Most is true. 87 30%
Half of it is true. 122 42%
Just a fraction of it. 66 22%
Total votes
287
Comment by Perttu — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
Yeah, one wrong out of decaces and millions of right. Keep up your good work Phil, keep proving to the world that you’re an infantile idiot.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
“Yes *one* story where Finnish Social Services went wrong. Keep highlighting them. . lets also count how many times they get it right?
I haven’t read about any.”
To paraphase an old philosophical question: If Finnish Social Services succesfully help a citizen and there’s no reporter around to hear it, does it make any sound?
I also recommend you go and read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic
Comment by Zark — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
“I thought drinking, smoking and staying out late was normal for Finnish teens. At least, that’s the impression I get from some of the parents who talk around the dog park. Is there something missing from this story?”
Damn, beaten to it. From what I have seen, half of the parents in Finland should have their children taken from them!
Anyway, whatever happened to the rights of the child to break the law? Maybe the kid did these things because the mother was not allowed to spank her and she was not sophisticated enough to make use of alternative punishments…….
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Hmmm… there’s been some talk in the legislative circles lately of social workers having too much executive power in their hands, hasn’t there? I’ve understood that there’s no possibility of having your case reviewed in a court of law in situations like this, so maybe the whole SYSTEM is a bit Stalinist to begin with, huh?
Or maybe I’m just a dissident and all this is a case of Phil the evil ausländer insulting out perfect Nordic system AGAIN, eh?
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Oh, man… How can Phil be so fucking stupid?
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
That’s awful.
But this story is even sadder and more worrying, surely.
August 26, 2006
Boston, MA (AP) – A seven-year-old boy was at the center of a Boston
courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over whom should have custody of him. The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with child custody law and regulations requiring that family unity be maintained to the degree possible.
The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her.
When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried out that they also beat him.
After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning
that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the
judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who
should have custody of him.
After two recesses to check legal references and confer with child
welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Boston
Red Sox, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.
Comment by anti-social services — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Finnish Social Services suck bigtime, and the welfare state has got it wrong, and we should expect some kind of Utopian Social Service, as pointed by Toni.
No, the same shit happens in the U.S., doesn’t have much to do with the welfare state, it’s more to do with social services in general.
Do social services ever take away a child from an innocent family? Yes or no? If no, the system is flawless and you’re naive. If yes, how many innocent families should SS take their children from? Is it a successful program if only 1 out of 10 are wrongly taken? And how is that any different then missiles going astray, or the wrongful holding of people in Guantanamo Bay?
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
It seems that no matter how well the 99% of the profession do their job, the 1% always stains the whole group.
Yeah, but that 1% fucks over alot of families.
How would you all feel if you child was wrongly taken from you? Everyone else would cry, “Well they’re saving another 10!!” …but you’re still without your children. I guess you all would think that’s perfectly okay? “Take one for the team” …right?
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
So? What’s the alternative?
You’re stubbornly refusing to understand the situation, Phil. Even in medicine they use these abbreviations for medical treatments that tell the doctors and researchers how many patients you have to treat with the medicine in order to cure a certain procentige, how many do not get cured and how many actually die. It’s a sad fact of life that no matter what you do there’s always some glitch in the system.
The right answer is not to turn a blind eye and say “you’re the 1% that gets fucked, deal with it”. The right answer is to correct any possible mistakes and to compensate for them in the best possible way. No system is perfect but we can try to minimize the suffering that people have to go through. What would be the alternative?
Comment by Åboy — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
If your missilies are going to go astray you shouldn’t boast them being “precision weapons”. That’s what some governments *AHEM* have done.
It’s actually quite childish to compare this child protection issue to Guantanamo Bay. The people that were brought there were illegally captured in the begin with and denied any legal rights that they should have according to international laws. So there’s no meaningful comparison there to make, really.
Comment by Åboy — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
So you think there should be no social intervention in cases of child abuse and gross neglect?
If the girl racks up phone bills, smokes, drinks, does drugs, and stays out late – that’s NOT gross neglect and the state should NOT take your kid away. Do any of you think they should??? It’s bad parenting, sure. If the mother is beating her or sexually abusing her, then yes – but obviously this isn’t the case cause the mother didn’t stand trial and get convicted.
But this girl sneaks home to visit her family!! They obviously want to be together, yet some two-bit social service agent prevents them. And why shouldn’t she be allowed to see her brother??
My fear with all this is that 1) Because she’s foreign and doesn’t speak the language, the mother got taken advantage of. 2) Bad parenting is turning into “gross neglect” and leads to snatching of children by the state.
I know I’ll be blasted for saying this but – Social Service need to take away children just like Cops need criminals, without them, their jobs would dry up. Why don’t you think the U.S. cops want to see the end to the war on drugs? Cause they’ll be unemployed. Why don’t you think military generals want wars to end? Cause it’s back to sitting at a desk. How much recongition do you get around the department if you “saved” a child’s life? Probably a shit load. I trust social service agents as much as I trust Priests and Politicians.
But a serious question – What does a parent need to do (or not do) to have her child taken rightfully away? I think we can all agree that beating and sexually abuse is one. What else? Mom has a drinking problem? That by itself isn’t a problem unless it leads to other things like beating and sexual abuse, or if the child is very young and needs to bed etc.. What if the kid is wild and drinks and smokes and does drugs and doesn’t come home for days? What if mommy and daddy yell around the house too often? Where’s the line between bad parenting and gross neglect?
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Do social services ever take away a child from an innocent family? Yes or no? If no, the system is flawless and you’re naive. If yes, how many innocent families should SS take their children from? Is it a successful program if only 1 out of 10 are wrongly taken? And how is that any different then missiles going astray, or the wrongful holding of people in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes social services sometimes take away child from innocent families – the less they do so, the better.
How many…well, as I said, the less the better. Zero would be good, but I don’t expect it. And that would not be a necessary criteria for me in rating the service good or bad.
Yes, I do understand it can happen to me or my loved one, and I would, at that moment, probably curse the social services people.
But that would be an emotional reaction, not a rational one. Which is what it is now. And what about you?
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
That story smells distinctly like half-truth/bullshit.
Perhaps, but we will probably never know. Because of privacy issues social workers can never utter a word about the case in public. That’s why we always hear just the other side of the story – and these kinds of stories do pop up occasionally. The mother should sue. But if she did and the case went to the court, even then we would not know the the social workers’ side of the story. The court would be held behind closed doors I seem to remember a case or two where a parent actually has won. Social workers are not perfect, they make mistakes, but as Finnsense wrote, they don’t start a painful process like this unless they think there is a very good reason for it. They are human beings, for heavens sake!
Comment by tomia — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
And please stop repeating the missile-gone-astray example. I hate those actions (good that you second guessed it already) not because they went astray, but because often they had no reason to be fired in the first place.
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
>Zero would be good, but I don’t expect it.
Everyone makes mistakes, social services included. The biggest problem – if I’ve understood correctly – is that you can’t take such cases to a court of law at ALL, which to me reeks of gross neglect of lawful process if anything! Now wouldn’t you agree?
I’m sure Hesari had a story about this a while ago…
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
You are right, you’re going to get blasted.
Phil wrote:
“Social Service need to take away children just like Cops need criminals, without them, their jobs would dry up.”
What a load of crap. You seem to have a pretty weird picture of the social workers in your head: scheming, demonic handmaidens for the evil state. Oh yes, plotting to rob the cradles and to throw the innocent parents behind bars.
I’ve actually come into contact with many social workers through my studies and my work and what they all seem to wish is that they would run out of work. Honestly. All of them wish that there would be no need for them to do what they do. But they have to. The same goes for the nurses and doctors: they probably wouldn’t want people to get hurt or to suffer, but as people do there must be someone there to help them in the best way possible. Sometimes mistakes are made and suffering isn’t alleviated. In these instances the system must recognize its flaws and compensate for them.
I’m asking you again because you don’t seem to want to answer: What do you propose we do? Should we abolish the social services altogether? What should we do when there’s a child that’s clearly abused by his/her family? In your opionion the state is an evil, soul-sucking demon whose only task is to needlessly torture people. Well then, should we just let the children stay in their abusive families? What do you think we should do?
Comment by Åboy — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Everyone makes mistakes, social services included. The biggest problem – if I’ve understood correctly – is that you can’t take such cases to a court of law at ALL, which to me reeks of gross neglect of lawful process if anything! Now wouldn’t you agree?
Oh i never defended this particular case. I don’t feel qualified enough to judge this case, and anyway if what’s reported is true, its terrible. More so the religion part. And yes, if there’s no way for the mother to sue, then its even worse. Although that is not what I understand from the comments here…it does seem that parents sue in such cases.
Anyway, my grouse was against Phil’s bigger ‘agenda’ as I saw it (and he didn’t deny it, despite me openly questioning him about it)
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
>But if she did and the case went to the court, even then we would not
>know the the social workers’ side of the story.
Ah, but herein lies the crux of the matter in that these cases cannot (to my knowledge) be tried in a common court at all, but one is forced to deal with an inspectionary board of some kind instead… but hey, please correct me if I’m wrong, this is just something I remember reading somewhere a while ago!
Anyone?
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
if I’ve understood correctly – is that you can’t take such cases to a court of law at ALL
You haven’t understood corrcetly, sorry. In Finland we namely have this thing called “reilu meininki” (~rule of law).
Comment by tomia — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
>it does seem that parents sue in such cases.
OK, could very well be I’m wrong… anyone around to shed some light on this matter?
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Here is a thought, why not just send the family back to where they came from. That should be an option. “You can go and raise your kid how you want, you just can’t do it here.”
social services pays mobile phone bills? There’s another problem for you. How about taking the damn thing away!
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Sorry, I’m not sure about what I wrote above anymore. See (in Finnish):
http://www.stm.fi/Resource.phx/vastt/perhe/prtuk/huostaanotto.htx
For some non-apperant reason children under 12 or their parents don’t have the right to sue. But they can demand that the court makes sure that the decision was made according to the law. As a complete idot in these matters I – don’t know the right words in English and -don’t know what is the difference between the two processes.
But surely you can try to get your case tried in a criminal court, I guess, and at least at the European Court of Human Rights. Right?
Comment by tomia — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
But that would be an emotional reaction, not a rational one.
Uhhh…I think it would be very rational to curse some organization who takes away your child!
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
Uhhh…I think it would be very rational to curse some organization who takes away your child!
Not really. Rational reaction would be to acknowledge the fact that “there is no perfect society, including the one we’ve chosen to live in, especially if we’ve chosen the best available option. Therefore, at times, we should be ready, like all else, to pay the prices.”
Do note, I am not expecting anyone in that situation would sit down and think thus, least of all myself. Just that this is what would constitute *rational* in such a case.
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
“Social Services took her child – two years later, the state still forbids her to see her not just her mother, but her entire family. The girl occasionally secretly visits her mother, however Social Service tells the mother that the daughter does not want to see her.”
Another biased and one-sided story, those social service people might tell a totally different story of the same case.
They do not take a child away from family unless it is absolute necessary. Even then, the goal is always somekind of family reunion in the end, if that is somehow possible (like mother/father finally stops drinking and seeks help). Of course no system is perfect, they have to make sometimes quick decisions.
Fact #1: 12-year-old daughter caught DRINKING AND SMOKING?! and staying up late. Probably not just one-time case but every weekend. Very bad parenting.
Fact #2: Mother goes to social services, instead of taking away the phone from her daughter, what the hell is that? She is expecting social services to pay up her daughter’s phone bills. Probably by then the social service did make a home visit and interviewed the whole family. Their conclusion: Unfit for mother at the moment.
Comment by tim73 — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
What do you think we should do?
Bad parenting isn’t a reason to take away a child. Assuming this story is accurate, just beucase you have a wild kid who smokes, drinks, does drugs, and stays out late – doesn’t mean the state can take away your kid! IMO, if you take away the kid, then the parent(s) have done something terrible and should be taken to court and possibily sent to jail. This wasn’t the case in this situation. And the the girl, who is 14 and almost an adult, WANTS to see her mother! Sorry but if two family members want to see each other, SS should not be standing in the way. I’m not for abolishing SS, I just think they’re abusing their powers, here and in the U.S.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Rational reaction would be to acknowledge the fact that “there is no perfect society, including the one we’ve chosen to live in, especially if we’ve chosen the best available option. Therefore, at times, we should be ready, like all else, to pay the prices.â€Â
Only some mindless robot would think that when the state wrongfully takes their child.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
Another biased and one-sided story, those social service people might tell a totally different story of the same case.
Right, cause social services are never wrong, only us citizens.
Of course no system is perfect, they have to make sometimes quick decisions.
Yeah, and those quick decisions lead to the destruction of families by the hands of the state.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
I think the problem is that social services don’t take children from their parents often enough. That is because it is very expensive up 600euros/day to pay for professional home.also the one of the criteria for taking a child in custody is that the non-institutional procedures aren’t sufficient (avohoidon tukitoimet ovat riittämättömiä. The criteria are that the growth and development of a child are endangered (kasvu ja kehitys vaarantuvat), the non-institutional procedures are not sufficient. the third criteria is that even if these previous criteria are fulfilled, but separating the child from his/her parents is not in the best interest of the child, the child will not be taken into custody (this is rarely the case)
In many cases a child or adolescent ( usually 16-17 old)is taken in the care of social services because of misuse of alcohol or drugs, because it is seen the she herself endangers her growth and development.
In the coming legislation the mention of insufficient non-institutional procedures is left out because in many cases children have been left to poor conditions for many years, relying too much to non-institutional treatment ,and that has caused damage to children.
anyway the decision is made by social welfare board (sosiaalilautakunta) and if parents or the child, if 12 or older ,don’t agree with their decision the decision is submitted to administrative court (hallinto-oikeus). If the parties concerned request there will be a hearing, otherwise it will be done in writing. In the administrative court there are three judges and an specialist ( usually a doctor, psychologist or social worker) In a hearing the parties concerned can have their own witnesses and can prove their good parenting abilities.
And of course there is the highest administrative court after that.
I think it’s a very heavy procedure and i think that there is many chances given to parents to make their case and there are enough people to prevent arbitrary (mielivaltainen) treatment. It’s not just one mean spirited sosiaalitantta that can steal your children out of pure malevolence.
Also you should consider the scenario where you’ve lost your children in a divorce and they’re mistreated in their new family, is it okay that the social service can’t intervene because in fraction of a percent of cases they make mistakes.
(sorry for my limited english)
Comment by Paavo Ojala — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Fact #1: 12-year-old daughter caught DRINKING AND SMOKING?! and staying up late. Probably not just one-time case but every weekend. Very bad parenting. [...]Unfit for mother at the moment.
Unfit mother for two years so far.
Quesiton for all of you – If your 12-year-old drinks, smokes, and stays out late – is it enough for the state to take away your child?
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
Only some mindless robot would think that when the state wrongfully takes their child.
Yes only a mindless robot would, I completely agree. Because the robot would not have an ‘emotional’ response to it. Which is…kind of…what I stated earlier, no?
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Quesiton for all of you – If your 12-year-old drinks, smokes, and stays out late – is it enough for the state to take away your child?
No, it isn’t. Someone doing it, just for this reason (and especially fi the kid is unwilling to seperate), is acting wrongly.
It shows that the person/system committing this act has done a mistake.
It proves no bigger point about that person/system.
Comment by Perspective — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
>You haven’t understood correctly, sorry.
I think I have, thank you very much, at least when the matter concerns minors less than fifteen years old. An excerpt from the Child Protection Society’s website: “Jos 15 vuotta täyttänyt lapsi tai hänen huoltajansa vastustavat huostaanottoa tai siihen liittyvää sijaishuoltoon sijoittamista tai jos heitä ei ole voitu kuulla, menee päätös lääninoikeuden vahvistettavaksi”.
Or, in other words, children over 15 yrs. old and their parents have a right to try the decision in a civil court (there’s more, but that’s the general idea). Now please notice the age limit, and also the fact that this limit applies to the _parents_ as well! So if your kid is younger than 15 you’re stuck with the aunties of the Social Board it seems, be the decision correct or otherwise…
Smells a bit läskidemari-Maoist, doesn’t it?
(Re: http://www.lskl.fi/showPage.php?page_id=84)
PS. I’m no expert by any means, and thus stand to be corrected. But as a layman this smells a bit funny to me nevertheless!
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
Because the robot would not have an ‘emotional’ response to it. Which is…kind of…what I stated earlier, no?
It’s completely rational to be upset if the state wrongly takes away your child. In fact, if the state wrongly takes your child and you think it’s perfectly rational of them, you’re completley irrational
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
“The track record of the child protection system in Finland is actually very good.” so lets give them a pass when they take this child away.
But when the Israel or US bomb misses (Very very rare), you don’t give them a pass, after all they are not child protection.
But at the end of the day, a child is hurt.
Pure utter hypocrisy. You guys live in a world full of hypocrisy that matches your skewed social state bureaucrat, protected, micreomanaged lives.
Comment by winter — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Here’s the text I referred to earlier (see #38):
Lasta ja hänen läheisiään on kuultava huostaanottoa valmisteltaessa. Jos 12 vuotta täyttänyt lapsi tai hänen huoltajansa vastustavat huostaanottoa, asia on vahvistettava hallinto-oikeudessa. Kaksitoista vuotta täyttäneellä lapsella ja hänestä huolehtivilla aikuisilla on oikeus valittaa huostaanottopäätöksestä hallinto-oikeuteen ja edelleen korkeimpaan hallinto-oikeuteen.
A strange discrepancy, but I’m pretty sure that the ministry has the correct information on its site.
Comment by tomia — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
I’ve read the article above, and from all written in it, I can only say that there hasn’t been a major clash of culture, I am not even sure if the case is about anything else than poor translations.
Translated from here: http://www.stm.fi/Resource.phx/vastt/perhe/prtuk/huostaanotto.htx
In Finland, taking a child into custody is only considered when; the environment at home or the child’s own behaviour is a danger to child’s health and development. If non-institutional social care is seen inefficient or the act itself is impossible to come true, there will be a transfer of guardianship if it is considered to be the best for the child’s welfare.
Taking a child into custody can happen as a rash act of safety or as an actual transfer of guardianship, which usually means relocating the child outside the family. This procedure may happen by the parents’ approval or against their will by the decision of social committee, which is in each local community.
Child and his close relatives must be heard when the decision is being made. If a child of age or the parents reject the transfer of guardianship; then the matter must be verified in Administrative Court. Child of age twelve and his parents also have the right to complain up to Supreme Court.
The custody will end at the latest when the child hits the age of 18, however, it can be ended before if the reasons why he was taken into custody have disappeared, but only if it isn’t against the child’s best welfare. The Social committee has an obligation to support the child after the end of custody until he reaches the age of 21.
: – : – : – : – : – : – : – :
Finns love bureaucracy, a lot more than they would ever admit to themselves. Taking a child away is indeed terribly difficult. In any case as I was writing this, lot other posts were posted in the meantime – so I apologise if I happen to repeat things already said.
Comment by Mockingbird — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
** Notices some spelling mistakes. **
Humph, there isn’t an edit button.
Comment by Mockingbird — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
Wait, the state can take the kid, without the right to challenge or legal recourse for either the kid or the parents, up until the age of 12 or 15?! Holy shit, that’s about as fair as the Salem witch trials. For those poor bastards who are the recipients of the ‘human error’ that has been frequently mentioned in defense of social services, they have no way to correct it? That’s a terrifying thought, especially when you’re not Finnish/a shifty furriner.
As an aside….don’t Muslims strictly avoid alcohol?
Comment by hfb — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
the parents can challenge the decision even if the child is under 12.
Comment by Paavo Ojala — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
Parent’s have the right to chalenge the decision. And children also will have this rigth when they are atleast twelve years old.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
BTW, do you Americans get somekind of brainwash treatment at the age of four? Something along the lines:
“Listen now, my little angel, repeat after me: “GOVERNMENT IS BAD! GOVERNMENT IS BAD! UN TROOPS ARE AFTER US! GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE”
Every time there is a problem in a society, it must the fault of government and/or welfare state. Anykind of reasoning with actual facts is just a waste of time. Private companies are never to blame or so called free market results.
Comment by tim73 — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
So the parents can challenge it then…good. I was a bit shocked at the thought that there was no recourse.
Comment by hfb — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
There are cases all over the world where social services gets it wrong. There are horror stories here in the states, too.
It’s a very emotionally charged business, and there are frequently cases where, no matter what decision is made, the tragedies linger.
Comment by AmeriikanEnkeli — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
>Parent’s have the right to chalenge the decision.
Where does it say that the parents can challenge the decision in a _court_of_law_ when the kid is under 12?
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
“Kaksitoista vuotta täyttäneellä lapsella “ja hänestä huolehtivilla aikuisilla” on oikeus valittaa huostaanottopäätöksestä hallinto-oikeuteen ja edelleen korkeimpaan hallinto-oikeuteen.”
Oops.
Twelve years old child and the adults guarding him at the moment have that right.
Comment by Mockingbird — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
BTW, do you Finns get some kind of brainwash treatment at the age of four? Something along the lines:
1. Government is good.
2. Industry is bad, they exist to take advantage of you. Forget the fact that Bill Gates is giving all his blood money to charity, and not to the better Government who can spend it better.
3. When the government is slow to react, like your current slow motion deployment to Lebanon. Blame Israel, if that fails and some war photos are discovered to be fake, Blame Bush.
4. When all fails, just find another food for oil program to formulate your foreign policy after.
Comment by winter — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Every time there is a problem in a society, it must the fault of government and/or welfare state.
No, it’s just that on this blog, I usually bring up problems that are caused by the government. I do this because, we’re supposed to have some sort of control over the government, democracy and all. I don’t bring up problems with corporations for instance, because I don’t really have much control over for instance, what Tietonator can do. I don’t bring up problems in relationships or families because, I don’t have much if any control over your relationship or family.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
>!!!_TWELVE_YEARS_OLD_CHILD_!!! and the adults guarding him at the
>moment have that right.
My point exactly. And hardly anyone here sees a danger in administrative mechanisms and/or practices like this???
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
Phil, and luckily you don`t have much if any control over this government either..
Comment by Harri — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
I hardly see any danger in it. Well, what makes an 18 year old legally adult? But the thing is, when the matter is considered legally, a twelve years old, is old enough to indicate his, “ownâ€Â, opinions, let it be just; “I don’t like my new guardians, I want my parents back.â€Â
And Finnish legal system does differ from the American one, in Finland I wouldn’t recommend suing an axe factory because the axe didn’t come with a “proper†warnings like; “the blade may be sharp and thus dangerousâ€Â.
And if you have ever seen a Finnish trial, it is terribly boring; there are lots of customs to be said before the trial starts. But after that it is surprisingly fun to see how much some people are willing to lie.
Comment by Mockingbird — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Phil, and luckily you don`t have much if any control over this government either..
Sure I do, after everyone reads my blog, it’s made sure that libertarians will never make it in to mainstream Finnish politics.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Well UN troop have been caught chasing after children so where is that a lie?????? (Not that the others are not true as well.)
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
“adults guarding him” = parents (“Hänen huoltajansa” in Finnish). You guys mistranslated the law text. There is no “at the moment”.
Comment by tim73 — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
So none of you really understands what comment number 16 means?
It’s a test – how much of the printed word do people believe? That’s a bogus story, and they’re likely to announce it in the next issue.
Comment by PTJ Uusitalo — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
PHIL
You’re questionnaire has no point. Every option sounds like it was made by someone with cultural shock, just like you.
Comment by Perttu — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
Yeah SS shouldn’t take kids away from their parents, for any reason. They should help the family and take care of the problem together. But if you do drugs on a daily basis, you should go to juvie or something or at least get a punishment. As if the D.A.R.E stuff isn’t told to you since you’re a kid, whether you’re a refugee or born here.
Comment by Keksi — Fri, Sep 1st, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
I hate people circeling the wagons every time somebody comes up with an example of a short coming in the Finnish society. Wrong is wrong regardless if it’s commited by our bastards instead of those foreign bastards that we don’t seem to have too much problem of critizising. Malka omasta silmasta jne.
Comment by Petteri — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 8:01 am
[b]“adults guarding him†= parents (â€ÂHänen huoltajansa†in Finnish). You guys mistranslated the law text. There is no “at the momentâ€Â.[/b]
Yes, the “at the moment” is an addition done by me, however, does it make an difference to the context of teh law? It is a sad fact that the “problem children” in the system tend to jump from one family into another, thus explaining the “at the moment”.
Comment by Mockingbird — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 9:04 am
>I hardly see any danger in it.
OK, I’ll elaborate a bit. If I’ve understood correctly it goes like this when the kid is younger than 12: the social board first decides to take the kid away, and if the parents disagree they’re forced to take their complaint back to that VERY SAME board, which then decides whether their OWN original decision was a correct one – and you see nothing funny in that???
Seriously people, do you REALLY think this kind of conduct is suitable for a country calling itself a western democracy?
PS. @73: Spot on. My thoughts exactly.
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 9:21 am
It’s a test – how much of the printed word do people believe? That’s a bogus story, and they’re likely to announce it in the next issue.
I believe that quiz of their’s has been there all summer.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 9:29 am
You’re questionnaire has no point. Every option sounds like it was made by someone with cultural shock, just like you.
What would be appropriate answers then?
Comment by Phil — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 9:30 am
Again a bunch of people are here crying out loud about the horrible injustices of finnish society without bothering to check what the law actually says. Talk about inhonesty and prejudice.
From Lastensuojelulaki:
“36 § (9.2.1990/139)
Muutoksenhaku alistettavasta päätöksestä
Muutosta 17 §:n 2 momentissa tarkoitettuun lapsen huostaanottamista ja sijaishuoltoon sijoittamista koskevaan päätökseen saa hakea valittamalla [lääninoikeuteen] 30 päivän kuluessa päätöksen tiedoksisaannista. Valitus voidaan antaa tuona aikana myös sosiaalilautakunnalle, jonka tulee toimittaa se 14 päivän kuluessa [lääninoikeudelle] sekä liittää mukaan oma lausuntonsa.
37 § (29.6.2006/583)
Muutoksenhaku korkeimpaan hallinto-oikeuteen
Hallinto-oikeuden tämän lain nojalla antamaan päätökseen lapsen huostaanottoa, sijaishuoltoon sijoittamista, yhteydenpidon rajoittamista ja huostassa pitämisen lakkaamista sekä 13 §:n 1 momentissa säädetyssä asumista koskevassa asiassa saa hakea valittamalla muutosta korkeimmalta hallinto-oikeudelta siten kuin hallintolainkäyttölaissa on säädetty. Valituskirja liitteineen voidaan antaa myös hallinto-oikeuteen korkeimmalle hallinto-oikeudelle toimitettavaksi.
Muuhun kuin 1 momentissa säädettyyn hallinto-oikeuden tämän lain nojalla antamaan perhe- ja yksilökohtaista lastensuojelua koskevaan päätökseen ei saa valittamalla hakea muutosta.”
And here’s the 17 § 2. momentti:
“Jos 12 vuotta täyttänyt lapsi tai hänen huoltajansa vastustaa huostaanottamista tai siihen liittyvää sijaishuoltoon sijoittamista taikka jos mainitussa asiassa ei ole voitu suorittaa 1 momentin edellyttämää kuulemista, on päätös alistettava 30 päivän kuluessa [lääninoikeuden] vahvistettavaksi. Päätöstä ei kuitenkaan tule alistaa [lääninoikeuden] vahvistettavaksi, jos kuulemista ei ole voitu suorittaa sen johdosta, ettei kuultavan asuin- tai oleskelupaikkaa voida kohtuullisin toimenpitein selvittää tai jos lapsen ja kuultavan puuttuvan yhteydenpidon vuoksi kuulematta jättämistä voidaan pitää perusteltuna.”
I’m no lawyer, but what I take this to mean is that a child of 12 years or more can complain to district court and a childs caretakers (parents) can always complain to a district court.
And anonymeaculpa is completely clueless. As 36 § says parents can take the complaint to the same board WHO ARE REQUIRED TO DELIVER IT TO THE DISTRICT COURT, obviously to make it easier to file the complaint.
Comment by m — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 10:10 am
Oh btw. the proper translation for “hallinto-oikeus” is Administrative Court, not district court. Sorry.
Comment by m — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 10:12 am
M – the point seems to remain that the parent’s only outlet is to complain to the people who made the decision to begin with. Given that some women in Finland feel comfortable bitching out a mother publicly if she’s bottle feeding her child and threatening to call the social services for child abuse, you have to place an inordinate amount of hope that the people on this board are going to be sane, unbiased and fair in cases that have been due to gross negligence or psycho grannies. It does seem to be a lot to ask.
Comment by hfb — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 10:25 am
social board makes the decision in the first place, and if anyone disagrees then it has to submitted to administrative court, not to the same people who made the decision to begin with.
and as i wrote earlier the administrative court consists of three judges and a specialist. plus you can have your own witnesses.
and you need a very strong case to take someone away from their family, because there is the obligation to use the non-institutional measures first. and there are a lot of tragical situations where children are left in care of their e.g. seriously mentally sick parents for too long.
and to comment 74.
based on this article by 6-degrees we can’t decide if what was done was wrong or not. why would we assume that mother’s story is unbiased whereas all the public servants, judges and psychiatrists have been biased during this case. that might be the case, but that’s not to decide based on mother’s story only.
And Phil are saying that state should not in any case interfere with how parents treat their children? I think it’s understandable that a system has been created to interfere in extreme cases of negligence or active harm done to children. or are you saying that there should be more bureaucracy to minimise arbitrariness and bias, ( i see court hearings as bureaucracy)
many people seem to feel it problematic that state interferes with the drinking of 12-olds. eventhough the society feels that adults have the right to have a drinking problem, it doesn’t seem to offer the same right to 12-olds. so it seems that if the parents can’t prevent the 12-old from drinking too much the state will.
everytime a underaged child is taken to hospital due to alcohol intoxication a psychiatrist talks with the child and social workers consult the parents. usually this is the only thing done. if they feel that parents need help they will start with the non-institutional procedures to “support” the parents with parenting. many parents welcome the help. and it is only in very rare cases that the situation is seen so serious that the child is needed to separate from their parents. and social board has limited budget for taking children in custody so they try to save it for the cases they see as most serious. and the social workers don’t get paid by the headcount of chidren they separate from their families so i don’t see motivation for forming conspiracies with the judges and psychologists in order to ruin families.
problem is that even if measures done by a public servant are seen as wrong or biased, and the decision is reversed eg in the administrative court the evil public servant usually gets reprimanded, but that, at least for the two first times, doesn’t have that much practical consequenses.
Comment by Paavo Ojala — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 11:40 am
“M – the point seems to remain that the parent’s only outlet is to complain to the people who made the decision to begin with.”
No. If parents disagree with the decision it must be ratified in a County Administrative Court “lääninoikeus”.
If that fails parents can file a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.
Law text is a mess. I’m confused about the difference between “lääninoikeus” (County Administrative Court) and “hallinto-oikeus” (Administrative Court). But anyway there’s the option of the Supreme Administrative Court.
Comment by m — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 11:49 am
hfb: give me a fucking break. You Americans have the same kind of law.
Comment by tim73 — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 11:56 am
the point seems to remain that the parent’s only outlet is to complain to the people who made the decision to begin with.
Not at all. Wasn’t the system explained already yesterday in #52. Do you a have selective memory, or what?
By the way, it’s not the municipality officials who make the decision but a board made up of memebers who are nominated by the municipality representives. So, they are politically responsible. But furthermore the decesion has to be ratified by the judical system (if the guardian(s) is not satisfied). Pretty normal “checks and balances” at work, in other words.
But it’s true that in order to complain one has to wait till the kid is 12. The idea is that by then the kid can decide for herself whether she want to have another try with her biologial parent.
Most of the time the decision is a tragedy whatever you do. Parenthood is often pretty crucial to anybody’s identity. If your children are taken from you, you either feel an utter failure or you start blaiming others in order to save your self-respect. And most small kids love their parents whatever they do. “A Child Called It” comes to mind.
Comment by tomia — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Hey, I said I stand to be corrected, didn’t I? Anyway, it seems that all Finnish child custody cases can be taken to a court of law by either the parents or the kid… so all’s well that ends well, mitäh?
Which, BTW, then raises another question about the case mentioned here, of course: the Afghan woman disagreed with the decision, but did she take her case to a court? And why not if she didn’t?
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
tomia – No need to get snappy…there have been a number of posts that say one thing and others another…and the Finnish legal text is a bit confusing as well since law isn’t my thing. Even here you say the parents can’t protest until the kid is 12…but others and the law text say otherwise. I’m just confused as to which is right in all this mess. As a foreigner about to have a kid this sort of stuff really does make you feel vulnerable and uneasy.
Comment by hfb — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
hfb: there ARE legal recourses against just about any bureaucratic decision in Finland (with very few exceptions, such as in the current example, where a kid being under 15 means that the State has complete discretionary power). However, just because someone might have the right to appeal doesn’t mean that their point of view will be heard. In fact, in far too many cases, the courts and ombudsmen tend to take the bureaucracy’s side and to systematically avoid the embarassing questions and the evidences brought forth, focusing instead on defending and confirming the bureaucracy’s position. In a nuthsell: the appeal procedures and ombudsen are just for show, mostly to appease concerns that regularly come from EU or from UN; in practice, the system very much exists by and for itself. Politicians know, but they refuse to touch the almighty bureaucrats, because public sector employees are too important of an voter segment to ignore and the politicians want to keep their seat in the Parliament.
Comment by Martin-Éric — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
@ Phil (post 42): I wasn’t talking about this particular case. I was of course asking what would be the alternative for this kind of system that we happen to have at the moment? So, what’s your opinion?
Comment by Åboy — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
I hate people circeling the wagons every time somebody comes up with an example of a short coming in the Finnish society.
It’s true we have problems accepting criticism from foreigners. On the other hand, this blog has been a constant display of quite harsh criticism towards Finland for a couple of years now. Some of the “criticism” hasn’t been very well-founded either, some of it bordering on bigotry with slight fact-twisting. It’s no wonder some of the finnish readers are constantly on the defensive. Sadly, a few resort to bashing Phil’s country of birth. Then there are the true nutcases (both Finnish and foreign) whose posts are better left unread.
Comment by mh — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
there ARE legal recourses against just about any bureaucratic decision in Finland
Yes, that’s the bottom line. Finland must have one of the strongest legal traditions in the world.
I discussed this with a social-worker friend of mine. Apparently even parents whose kids are under 12 (not 15 as you write) can appeal as many times as they want to, at least in theory. They just demand that the Social and Health Board of their municipality makes a new decision. If they are not satisfied they can challenge it and ask the court not to ratify (vahvistaa) it – and even after that they can appeal to an ombudsman or the European Court of Human Rights.
The age limit’s idea is that a small kid is not tossed around but has a chance to settle down.
In her opinion one problem is that the there is a lot of pressure from municipalities not to take children into custody – or return them to the parents – even in pretty clear cases. It’s namely very expensive for small, poor communities in particular. These lead to other kinds of horror stories; kids who are not rescued even if they should have been.
Here the parents whose kids have been taken away discuss it:
http://www.vanhemmat com
Obviously they simply can’t have an objective view, but still it’s disturbing to read some of the messages. A lot of human tragedy. One can’t help but wonder if some of it could be avoided.
Comment by tomia — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
It’s completely rational to be upset if the state wrongly takes away your child. In fact, if the state wrongly takes your child and you think it’s perfectly rational of them, you’re completley irrational
Yes its rational to have an emotional response in such a condition, but the content of that response itself is not rational!
For example, if you go to the best surgeon in the world knowing he fails once in 10000 sugeries, you realistically know its possible that things may go wrong, but hope they wont. And if they do, you still curse him.
Which is all fine from your point of view, but *completely* irrational from a *neutral* obsevers view..who knows (or atleast should know) that there’s a realistic limit even for the best.
Not that I necessarily mean to say that the system in Finland is the best….just that such response can be evoked against even the best.
Comment by Perspective — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
For example, if you go to the best surgeon in the world knowing he fails once in 10000 sugeries, you realistically know its possible that things may go wrong, but hope they wont.
There’s one MAJOR difference – going to that doctor is voluntary. Having the state take your kids IS NOT. You can’t even compare the two.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
It’s always hard to face criticism given by foreigners. Not only in Finland but everywhere. I lived in the USA for a year and another in France, both times -when having that kind of discussion- it was taken as an offense.
If I talk about poor people in the USA, I sound like “Michael Moore”, if I talk about freeriding Switzerland, I am “jealous”, Italian mafia, French bureaucracy, Swedish hypocriticism, Polish martyrdom, Estonian gay rights, – - -
Comment by Perttu — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
Who cares what it says in Six Degrees? The pubisher will print any bizarre story that discredits Finland. The “victim” in this case being a Moslem like Alexis Kouros himself probably helped a lot.
Oh, and by the way, guess who pays for Six Degrees? You, the taxpayer.
Lovely, innit?
Comment by jm — Sat, Sep 2nd, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
I suppose in Libertarian Land there would be no social workers and therefore no problem. Correct?
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 2:56 am
“The state of Massachusetts almost murdered her. They deemed her “virtually brain-dead,” in a “vegetative state,” and not worth saving. Now, she is “bright-eyed and smiling,” responsive, and speaking a few words.”
Yep. The USA has the same problem. A Government that rules with a set of rules they will not bend.
Link: Girl
Comment by winter — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 2:59 am
Phil said:
No, it’s just that on this blog, I usually bring up problems that are caused by the government. I do this because, we’re supposed to have some sort of control over the government, democracy and all. I don’t bring up problems with corporations for instance, because I don’t really have much control over for instance, what Tietonator can do.
And yet you support taking away power from a democratic government and giving it to corporations which you amit you can’t control. Is is democracy you hate or is it just paying taxes that bothers you so much?
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 3:04 am
I don’t bring up problems with corporations for instance, because I don’t really have much control over for instance, what Tietonator can do.
Corporations are actually much more trustworthy than states. For one thing, it’s really easy for anyone to become a co-owner of a corporation (unlike states, which exclude others on the basis of birth, race, religion, and language). And corporations have very easily defined goals (specifically: profits) that dispel a lot of unnecessary and wasteful moralizing as to what the goal should be.
Corporations are fast becoming armed forces by themselves, which is a welcomed change. Future wars can now be conducted without the intercession of weak-kneed states that are hampered by moral equanimity. As all kinds of mercenaries are increasingly given legal status (for example, Hezbollah) it follows that corporations can and should only follow suit. In a world where states refuse to provide security, corporations will be in a position to fill the void. Not only could such corporations provide security, but they could also go on the offensive against any enemies deemed a threat.
Is that undemocratic? To a certain degree, yes, but if democracies refuse to take action in times of crisis (as so many European democracies do), yet expect corporations to deliver continued benefits to their societies, the result will be the commoditization of security, in the form of corporations specializing in such trade.
I’d certainly buy the stock of such companies, as soon as the demand for them increases. They probably would have gotten there already, had not the US taken direct action against terrorist-supporting states after 9/11.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 3:30 am
Armed private corporations acting like states and with little or no accountability to anything except turning a profit – it’ll be just like the British East India Company. That’s something I’ll be eagerly looking forward to.
Does this mean the RIAA will have it’s own private militia soon?
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 3:59 am
RIAA will have it’s own private militia soon?
They are the Lawyers.
Comment by winter — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 4:51 am
corporations may seem “safe” at first, but more profit they make, more dangerous they become. The corporate maquiladoras in Mexico, Coca-Cola using waste water in India, Shell in Nigeria..
Comment by Perttu — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 7:10 am
Maquiladoras in Mexico are actually very beneficial to Mexico, so I wouldn’t call them dangerous. As to Coca-Cola in India, that seems to be more of a case of media-generated paranoia, and Coca-Cola India seems to be following the advice of its Indian managers on how to deal with that.
Shell in Nigeria is an excellent example, as they do use mercenaries. In that case, the main problem is a corrupt state that simply can’t provide security, nor the benefits to the population generated by the state’s share of the Shell income stream. Such states, as we know, are often kept artificially propped up by foreign aid from welfare states intent on progenerating their particular form of government, which have an anti-corporate bias.
In many developing nations, more often than not, you’ll find corporations providing basic services to the local population, not the state. The main problem, though, is that corporations are only interested in their local needs, not the needs of an entire country, which makes sense, of course, as corporations are not responsible for the well-being of entire countries.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 8:16 am
Maquiladors are profit wise beneficial, but in that case we can only talk about money. Of course the corporations are not responsible for the well being of a whole society whereas the state is, but that is the scary part of it. As they don’t have responsibility, they can concentrate on profit and forget the worker’s rights and welfare, move out to the south and forget all that because worl labor is cheap. Having maquiladoras in Mexico, textile industry in Bangladesh and Philippines, that’s all profitable for the corporations but not for the people.
Comment by Perttu — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 10:07 am
The state is paying for 6d to be produced. wtf…
I do think it is bad that they support the newspapers as well. If enough people want to read a left leaning party newspaper let them or their rich unions pay for it.
Or make Kauppalehti free to all of us right wingers
Comment by Jansons Fisk — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Perttu – So how would you describe the plans for the big StoraEnso paper mill in South America? I doubt it is so that the company can pay the workers like Finnish labour unions and treat the environment better than in Finland as well. And the paper industry doesn’t have all that good of a track record here.
Corporations do what they do to make money, lots of money. Always. Even the Finnish ones. I never believe corporations that say ‘they care about the people’. Individuals, maybe yes. Corporations, hell no.
Comment by hfb — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
And yet you support taking away power from a democratic government and giving it to corporations which you amit you can’t control. Is is democracy you hate or is it just paying taxes that bothers you so much?
I support taking power away from the politicians AND the corporations and giving it back to the people, that’s what libertarianism/liberalism is all about. Corporations only have power because they have politicians under their thumbs. When corporations join hands with politicians, which happens all too often today in both Finland and the U.S., there’s no way we citizens can defend ourselves.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
RIAA will have it’s own private militia soon?
RIAA can’t do shit without the help of politicians. That’s what I’m talking about in the post above, corporations are powerless without the government.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
The state is paying for 6d to be produced. wtf…
That state gave Kouros close to 100,000 euros to start his monthly magazine. And if you look at most of his ads, they’re all entities who are funded ultimately by the state.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
hfb,
I believe StoraEnso is doing exactly what you said, also Nokia in China. I’m not denying it at all because of my Finnishness. But it’s based on American model, that’s for sure.
Comment by Perttu — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
“they’re all entities who are funded ultimately by the state.”
So are you saying the state runs 6d?
Comment by winter — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Phil said:
“RIAA can’t do shit without the help of politicians. That’s what I’m talking about in the post above, corporations are powerless without the government.”
That is true, they’re helpless without government, that’s when they move to the southern countries which can dump civic rights for getting money, understandable, as they don’t have it. But as for corporations..
Comment by Perttu — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Yes, we have got the Gestapo of our own. I was deprived of my parenthood because of “the bad terms between me and the mother of my child”. The court process in itself from year 1995 to 1999 was the basis to the decision ” meetings with child three times 1,5 hours per year “. I have never hurt my child nor the mother. She is a doctor, she is also a feminist, also has got some influence on others. This arrangement was “for the best interest of the child”, as the documents always remember to say. The chief judge Leena Korkalainen, in Vaasa, said hypocritically: “.. but the court does not comply with the mother, as she claims for, cutting the ties between the father and the child, since it is necessary to sustain that tie between these two … the child will rebuild the relation in her adult years…” A liar this judge, a criminal. Of these 4,5 hours a year has nothing become. I travelled to Vaasa for 20 – 30 minutes for over six years ,then I quit. I said goodbyes to Arla, my daughter. Absolute shit of fascism. My story is a true one, all documents are open to all, nothing was defined secret. It can be read through my blog under the title “Kirjani”.
Many people do not dare to think of the possibility of the good meaning society, which destroys your life for good, always “for the best of the child”. That’s why many automatically critizise the horror stories told by some others. These first ones say: ” …you have not told everything, not the ultimate truth … the authorities cannot be that evil … they are bound to law..” This kind of rubbish.
My blog: http://www.vanhemmat.net/Ruha
My story, my book, has been read by thousands of persons. I am about to translate it into English.
Pertti Ruha
Comment by Pertti Ruha — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Jeez.. 6d, from the free copies I see in Helsinki, looked more like a student fanzine. I thought it was some hobby thing. Now I am annoyed at the waste of taxpayer money.
Comment by Jansons Fisk — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
The RIAA can’t enforce enforce copyright without politicians, unless the fearless leader in the US decides to privatize the police, too, but you can’t have it both ways. The state also protects the people from corporations. Look at health and safety standards from the early 20th century and today. In most cases they were improved because someone a) sued the company or b) new regulations were created.
For example, if I recall correctly, GM was against mandatory seatbelts because it would “kill the image of the car.”
There was also Love Canal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
Helsinki had it’s own version of that, though it seems no one was hurt and the companies involved had broken no laws:
http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/today/011299-04.html
Corporations act in their own self interest. It’s my understanding that maquiladoras pay quite well by local standards, but they will also pack up and leave if they can make more money elsewhere. In America in the 1920’s a lot of companies were giving extra benefits to workers that the state often provides. Everyone was happy until the Great Depression hit.
There needs to be some state involvement. Even most American Republicans would agree on that. It’s the amount of state involvement that people argue about.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
perttu – Are you saying that real Finnish corporations aren’t in it for the money? While I do understand what you mean, I do bristle somewhat at the idea that the ’style’ is American alone. I suspect that if more scrutiny were turned towards corporate behaviour close to home here, you’d find that money and greed have no nationalist loyalties. But…this is a bit far afield from the original topic.
Comment by hfb — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
I do think it is bad that they support the newspapers as well. If enough people want to read a left leaning party newspaper let them or their rich unions pay for it.
Or make Kauppalehti free to all of us right wingers
So they support other papers as well? That’s just silly. Does Kauppalehti get money, too?
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
hfb –
Forget Finland, I’m not talking about nation states but corporations.
Comment by Perttu — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Anonymous: yes they give other support through how many parliament men are elected for the party. I don’t think kauppalehti was supported but I thought I remembered a year back reading about grant to at least some Swedish pess (HBL etc).
Cannot find any information in English that is current with values and meal is calling.
Maybe this helps.
http://www.ejc.nl/jr/emland/finland.html
http://www.mintc.fi/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=lvm/cm/pub/showdoc.p?docid=1870&menuid=88&channelitemid=10208&channelid=54
Comment by Jansons Fisk — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
Comment #95:
“Who cares what it says in Six Degrees? The pubisher will print any bizarre story that discredits Finland. The “victim†in this case being a Moslem like Alexis Kouros himself probably helped a lot.
Oh, and by the way, guess who pays for Six Degrees? You, the taxpayer. Lovely, innit?”
Exactly.
Phil, your only source for this story was Six Degrees, a magazine notoriously known for promoting islamic fundamentalism and paranoid conspiracy theories.
It would be a good idea to start with the assumption that every word in that magazine is a lie, including the words “and” and “the”.
That story is probably totally made up, out of thin air, as in: freely fabricated.
Get it?
How can you be stupid enough to believe that story?
How can you be stupid enough to believe anything in Six Degrees?
Do you also believe in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
P.S.
If you’re that gullible, I have a bridge to sell. It’s called the Brooklyn Bridge. Special price, only for you, because you are my friend.
Comment by Mikko Ellilä — Sun, Sep 3rd, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
There’s one MAJOR difference – going to that doctor is voluntary. Having the state take your kids IS NOT. You can’t even compare the two.
And I thought one had a choice!
Comment by Perspective — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Unless we are talking autocratic states.
Comment by Perspective — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 10:18 am
>How can you be stupid enough to believe anything in Six Degrees?
OK, you claim 6d publishes nothing but lies. OK, fair enough – now all you’ve got to do is to _prove_ those claims. How’s that sound to you, boyo?
Comment by AnonyMeaCulpa — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 10:59 am
I wouldn’t say they publish “lies”.
So say Phil takes the bus, falls asleep and is the only one on the bus and gets smurfed, his ticket is over the 1 hour limit so he gets a ticket.
HS – writes: A lone ticketless passenger on the 206 bus.
Iltalehti -writes: A man of foreign origin was caught ticketless on the 206 bus.
6degrees – writes: Foreigners targeted by ticket inspectors on the 206 bus, no Finns were fined for travelling without a ticket!!!
Comment by Hank W. — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Article in the English ed. of the HS today about increasing numbers of children being taken into custody.
“She also notes that one third of social workers either lack qualifications, or are working on short-term contracts.”
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Number+of+children+in+protective+care+continues+to+grow/1135221402257
Comment by hfb — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
“She also notes that one third of social workers either lack qualifications, or are working on short-term contracts.â€Â
That’s not good, of course, but as has been noted several times, it’s not the social workers who make the final decision (if the parent(s) disagree). If you are afraid, as you’ve told you are, that your child will be taken away:
- don’t let you neighbors, husband etc to have a reason to doubt your ability to parent your child
- don’t let the social workers to doubt your ability to parent your child
- don’t let the social and health board to doubt your ability to parent your child
- don’t let the court to doubt your ability to parent your child
- don’t let the ombudsman to doubt your ability to parent your child
- and finally, don’t let the European Court of Human Rights to doubt your ability to parent your child
I’ve raised two kids, and honestly it’s been a struggle; most of the time I’ve been fighting those instances – as all Finnish parents do.
Comment by tomia — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
most of the time I’ve been fighting those instances – as all Finnish parents do.
Wow. That’s scary. From the sounds of it, parents need to live in a constant state of paranoia, if raising a child in Finland. Worrying what the state might do seems to be more of a concern than the child itself.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
most of the time I’ve been fighting those instances – as all Finnish parents do.
Wow. That’s scary. From the sounds of it, parents need to live in a constant state of paranoia, if raising a child in Finland. Worrying what the state might do seems to be more of a concern than the child itself.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Sep 4th, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
Wow. That’s scary.
The only thing that is scary is your total lack of realism. When was the last time they let you out to the real world?
Comment by tomia — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
tomia – well, I thought the same thing, especially after the “most of the time I’ve been fighting those instances – as all Finnish parents do.” I won’t be having or raising my kid here, but overall it does seem like a scary system, especially for furriners.
Comment by hfb — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
What’s probably even scarier, are the circumstances under which certain kids live before they are taken into custody – or the way those kids turn out if they are not for some reason.
Comment by tomia — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
Wow. That’s scary. From the sounds of it, parents need to live in a constant state of paranoia, if raising a child in Finland.
Yes, the welfare state keeps a register of e.g. flat tax advocates and constantly bullies them with the threat of taking their children away. Once they do, if the parents file a complaint, they are sent to political reeducation camps. Most of them never return.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Actually, no political re-education camps are needed in Finland, as most of the indoctrination is done in state-monopolized public schools throughout a child’s life, and continues with those lucky enough to be admitted to state-controlled universities.
Comment by Finnpundit — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
continues with those lucky enough to be admitted to state-controlled universities.
They are really cunning too, implanting microchips emitting mind control rays into British and American textbooks, even those ordered from Amazon.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
134: Now you’re being silly. There are no mind control rays necessary, as most of the basic molding is done in the early years, through the state schools and state church. The use of British and American textbooks in subsequent years give the illusion that a Finnish educational system is open to all points-of-view, which is necessary the older the students get. But the bigotry Finns are famous for gets ingrained very early on.
Comment by Finnpundit — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Finnpundit, I am truly glad that there are astute individuals such as yourself on the internet who are on to the welfare-statist conspiracies and keep us all informed.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Yes, it’s often difficult for Finns to understand without an outside perspective.
Comment by Finnpundit — Tue, Sep 5th, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
I think we do not have enough information to judge this case. Nobody knows the details, so it does not make sense to criticize (Phil?).
Comment by Dario — Wed, Sep 6th, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
I think we do not have enough information to judge this case.
That’s never a problem in the blogosphere.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Thu, Sep 7th, 2006 @ 12:10 am