[ad_1]
– I have always been proud to work in child welfare. In this case, I am ashamed, Pia Monclair tells Dagbladet.
This very experienced child welfare educator works in the child welfare service in the Alna district of Oslo, and has done so for several years.
A couple of years ago, Monclair was commissioned to build bridges in a child welfare case, where the distance was great and the situation was difficult between the family in question and the child welfare service.
The child welfare service responds at the foot of the article.
Bridge builder
In the case, a pair of parents was deprived of the care of their two children four years ago due to concerns about violence.
Since then, the parents have hardly seen the children.
After a long battle in the court system, the parents were roundly acquitted of the allegations of violence, without influencing how the child welfare service viewed the case.
It also hasn’t helped that the parents have subsequently had another child, who the child welfare service believes they can provide good care.
After the parents submitted a contact request with the two children who were placed in foster care, the child welfare service proposed a conversation process at the county council.
At the talk meeting, it was agreed between the child welfare service and parents that Pia Monclair, who knew parents well, was to be a bridge in establishing parent-child relationships, and Monclair was mandated accordingly. .
– It turned out so well, yes, beyond all expectations, says Monclair.
COLD: Pia Monclair experiences that she is paralyzed in her own workplace after speaking out against the child welfare service. – My loyalty is with the children, she says. Photo: Nina Hansen
see more
– shocked
The problems began when Monclair became increasingly confident that the child welfare service had incorrectly evaluated these parents early in the process.
Even after the parents were acquitted of the violence, Monclair experienced that it was possible to hear about it through his own child welfare service.
It was a real surprise for Monclair when the child welfare service suddenly stopped the talking process, which had worked very well in relation to the mandate.
At the same time, they told him that he would no longer be allowed to work on this case.
– I was not familiar with this and I felt kicked in the leg, says Monclair and continues:
– I am very shocked by how this family has been treated and by the treatment of the case by the child welfare service. In my work lies the loyalty of children.
Cold as ice
The parents’ attorney, Herman Alexander Hoff, is also highly critical of the fact that the child welfare service decided to stop the process of talking and establishing contact between parents and children.
– This was a surprise to everyone. The work that Monclair had started after the term appeared to be well underway, the attorney notes.
Monclair has no doubt that he now has to remove the magazine from his mouth.
Personally, you feel like you have no other choice. She also feels that the other colleagues involved in the case have frozen her.
– The child welfare service must be able to take care of all the new information that has emerged since 2017, and that the child welfare service can also make incorrect assessments. The parents had no contact with the children who were taken from them. They heard very little from the child welfare service in the years that followed.
Dagbladet has met the parents. They confirm they had a near-non-existent relationship with the child welfare service before Pia Monclair came on the case.
SHOCKED: – It’s almost unbelievable how far the child welfare service is willing to go in this case to protect its own errors in judgment, says child welfare employee Pia Monclair. Photo: Nina Hansen
see more
Problematic email
When the child welfare service stopped the interview process, the parents considered it appropriate to file a claim for a return case with the county administrative board.
As the child welfare service that knows both parents and children, Pia Monclair was an important witness.
Two days before she testified, Monclair received an email from the head of the child welfare service, which Monclair saw as an attempt to pressure her not to say what she really thinks about the facts and assessments of the case.
However, he did not allow himself to be pressured, but expressed his opinions in the provincial council.
The department head’s email was also presented to the county board, which in its decision of August 25 this year writes the following:
The court will also note the unfortunate fact that witness Pia Monclair, two days before her explanation to the court, received an email from a department head at Alna Child Welfare, where the content could be interpreted to mean that Monclair should not say what she thought was right. barna. »
– It’s almost unbelievable how far the child welfare service is willing to go in this case to protect its own misjudgments, says Monclair.
– refuses to listen
However, the county board placed great emphasis on his diploma. It was decided that parents should have twelve visits a year with the youngest child and six visits a year with the oldest child.
The claim of the child welfare service in the municipality of Oslo was two visits a year with the youngest child and zero visits a year with the oldest.
The parents’ attorney believes that the child welfare service has hypothetically operated in this case from an early stage of the case.
– The child welfare service refuses to listen to its own social worker, Pia Monclair. On the other hand, they have tried to silence her, take her job and pressure her testimony in court. It’s completely incomprehensible, all the time Monclair is the one from the child welfare service who definitely knows the parents, and probably the oldest son better, too, says attorney Herman Alexander Hoff.
You want child protection
Hoff believes that with the situation now, Alna’s child welfare should come out of the case.
– Children will not be able to receive a good and correct follow-up, without another child welfare service entering and taking care of the case. Regarding the court proceedings, I asked Alna Child Welfare to establish a child welfare service. They have not responded to this. The caseworker change request has also not been responded to, Hoff says.
The municipality of Oslo stated at the county board that “the case is characterized by suspicion of the child welfare service.” The municipality does not recognize itself in this and believes that it is a pity that this is what becomes the focus of the case and “not what the case is about.”
Furthermore, the municipality strongly opposes the return of the children and believes that being together can be harmful.
On behalf of the parents, Attorney Hoff has reported to the police to the head of the child welfare service by emailing Pia Monclair, which he believes is an attempt to influence Monclair not to explain what he knows about the case of child welfare.
Monclair has been questioned in connection with the police case.
Both the municipality and the parents have appealed the county council’s decision and there will be appeal hearings in district court early next year.
– Complicated case
Dagbladet has asked several questions of both the department head and the Alna district head of child welfare.
Child welfare manager Guro Owren at Alna says the district, for “personnel policy reasons,” has concluded that she is answering Dagbladet’s question.
– This is a complicated case of child welfare in which many considerations must be taken into account, Owren writes in an email to Dagbladet.
In addition, he points out that, for the sake of children’s privacy, they will never be able to delve into such cases in the media.
– Generally, however, it must be said that in such cases there must be space for the child welfare service to openly debate internally and also have different professional opinions on what is in the best interests of the child. This is absolutely necessary for the children and the individual child’s life situation and for the child welfare service in these types of processes, says Owren.
The child welfare chief says the district is unaware that this is a police case and that they are awaiting the outcome of such a case before commenting on this.
– It is normal procedure for the negotiation process to end when the parties in a child welfare case cannot reach an agreement. It is also a common procedure to appeal to the district court for both the private party and the municipality when it is desirable to test the decision of the county council further in the court system. The child welfare service obviously doesn’t want to take cases to the court system, if it can be avoided, Owren says.
