That sounds very similar to what happened in the USA where native children were taken from their families in a deliberate attempt to wipe out their culture, summed up by the phrase “kill the Indian, save the man.” Outrageous this is still happening in modern times, in a supposedly liberal democracy.
US, Canada, Australia all did this stuff in the 19th and 20th centuries. The issue is, it’s 2025 and these tests are not illegal in one of the most developed countries on earth.
Imagine growing up as a foster child because your parents failed a pseudo-scientific biased psychology exam mandated by danish government to test parenting abilities. Another chapter on the dark side of psychology history. I hope Denmark will be sued for breaking human rights laws.
I can imagine an argument for checking basic abilities of a parent for extreme cases, where the kid's life might be in danger (extreme psychiatric problems, drug addiction, sex offenders, etc).
This is completely different and fully dystopic, though. looking at Rorschach tests? cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist?
I feel this part is also particularly damning:
>Like Zammi, her son was meant to have been taken away immediately after birth.
>But because he was born prematurely on Boxing Day and social workers were on holiday, she and her husband Ulrik got to keep him for 17 days.
So the state decides that the child is in enough danger to justify removal from their family. Let's say they truly, honestly believe this is a dangerous enough situation to justify the measure. It is then fine to leave the newborn with those parents for weeks due to scheduling conflicts?
What a horrific nightmare. This is what happens when you let government grow and grow and grow. It keeps finding new things that sound like good ideas, but there's no way to rein it back in when it gets out of hand.
This is reprehensible, but I can't help but wonder if the fact that we're reading about this is related to the recent rhetoric about Trump "liberating" Greenland.
This is Colonialism, pure and simple and US Soldiers have to "protect" the authorities responsible for this abuse of native Americans by european settlers. Greenland should be taken away from Denmark and these Mothers should get their kids back.
Beyond the (in)famous and awful situation with the history of residential schools, there's been a decades long (ab)use of the social work & family services sector to demolish indigenous family structures among First Nations in Canada.
Often it starts with seemingly well meaning social workers dealing with actual real risks of harm to children in communities with high rates of poverty and alcoholism and domestic abuse on account of centuries of problems... but the bureaucracy gets used in terrible and insensitive ways. And in the end children get taken from their parents and put into foster care, ripped away from their culture, language, history.
> Defenders of the tests say they offer a more objective method of assessment than the potentially anecdotal and subjective evidence of social workers and other experts.
> But critics say they cannot meaningfully predict whether someone will make a good parent.
1) If that is a problem, then just shut the child protection agency. Because subjective evidence of social workers and other "experts" ALSO cannot meaningfully predict that (besides, we all know what education social workers get, ie. 6 months of legendarily easy theory with zero tests. There are barely any psychologists "in the system" and psychiatrists ... well, has anyone seen any at all?)
2) I find it baffling the real issue is never discussed. What fundamentally matters is whether the situation of children in government care, with the help of social workers and other "experts", is better than children abused at home. Is that the case?
Study after study shows the same pattern. Again, and again, and again: even abusive birth parents or absent ones or addicts or ... with AND without any help (including the ones that refuse help) are better caregivers than "professionals". And that's ignoring the real, horrible, problem.
The real problem is that children who get abused generally become abusive themselves. This causes professionals to refuse these children, because they cannot deal with such children, and even if they can, they get stronger, smarter and sneakyer every year, while professionals don't. Of course, they do need children, otherwise not even the most absurd politician will let them keep their job.
So ... they are regularly accused of "filling beds". Which essentially means foster care is full of children who don't need or want foster care AND children who do want foster care can't get or stay in the system.
This is why obvious, simple rules that would force the system to work for children aren't allowed to exist. For example, above a minimal age, say 8 years or even 12, you could say that without agreement from the child they cannot be kept against their will. If such a rule exists, you can just shut child protection since almost no children will choose child protection, and those that do will be the worst ones the system doesn't want.
Unfortunately, the inherent problem that nobody talks about is that no matter what solution you implement, you'll always have individuals wronged by the system.
31 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 58.9 ms ] threadI’ll be honest, I don’t know off hand how long it takes for sun rays to reach the earth.
This is completely different and fully dystopic, though. looking at Rorschach tests? cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist?
I feel this part is also particularly damning:
>Like Zammi, her son was meant to have been taken away immediately after birth.
>But because he was born prematurely on Boxing Day and social workers were on holiday, she and her husband Ulrik got to keep him for 17 days.
So the state decides that the child is in enough danger to justify removal from their family. Let's say they truly, honestly believe this is a dangerous enough situation to justify the measure. It is then fine to leave the newborn with those parents for weeks due to scheduling conflicts?
I didn't have the first idea how to even hold a baby before mine arrived. This test is insane and the psychologists involved should be imprisoned.
what happens if a parent answers that they believe the Earth is flat?
I can only see a couple cases of clear abuse where this should happen.
But intelligence should NEVER be a reason to take kids from parents.
This is so dystopian. Next step is to take your kids if you don't have the right opinions or political views?
Kids are also way more likely to be abused in foster care. Social workers have really gotten out of hand in a lot of places.
Outside of clear abuse this is one of the worst things a human can do
"Greenlandic children born in Denmark are five times more likely to be taken away from their parents compared with other children in Denmark."
Beyond the (in)famous and awful situation with the history of residential schools, there's been a decades long (ab)use of the social work & family services sector to demolish indigenous family structures among First Nations in Canada.
e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-child-welfa...
Or just read anything written in the last couple decades by Cindy Blackstock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Blackstock)
Often it starts with seemingly well meaning social workers dealing with actual real risks of harm to children in communities with high rates of poverty and alcoholism and domestic abuse on account of centuries of problems... but the bureaucracy gets used in terrible and insensitive ways. And in the end children get taken from their parents and put into foster care, ripped away from their culture, language, history.
> But critics say they cannot meaningfully predict whether someone will make a good parent.
1) If that is a problem, then just shut the child protection agency. Because subjective evidence of social workers and other "experts" ALSO cannot meaningfully predict that (besides, we all know what education social workers get, ie. 6 months of legendarily easy theory with zero tests. There are barely any psychologists "in the system" and psychiatrists ... well, has anyone seen any at all?)
2) I find it baffling the real issue is never discussed. What fundamentally matters is whether the situation of children in government care, with the help of social workers and other "experts", is better than children abused at home. Is that the case?
NO, it isn't!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3135630/
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?PublicationDoc...
and most dramatic:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980505092617.h...
Study after study shows the same pattern. Again, and again, and again: even abusive birth parents or absent ones or addicts or ... with AND without any help (including the ones that refuse help) are better caregivers than "professionals". And that's ignoring the real, horrible, problem.
The real problem is that children who get abused generally become abusive themselves. This causes professionals to refuse these children, because they cannot deal with such children, and even if they can, they get stronger, smarter and sneakyer every year, while professionals don't. Of course, they do need children, otherwise not even the most absurd politician will let them keep their job.
So ... they are regularly accused of "filling beds". Which essentially means foster care is full of children who don't need or want foster care AND children who do want foster care can't get or stay in the system.
This is why obvious, simple rules that would force the system to work for children aren't allowed to exist. For example, above a minimal age, say 8 years or even 12, you could say that without agreement from the child they cannot be kept against their will. If such a rule exists, you can just shut child protection since almost no children will choose child protection, and those that do will be the worst ones the system doesn't want.