Aftenposten commentator says ‘Fjord’ could fuel skepticism about child welfare services. We disagree.

Aftenposten commentator Andreas Slettholm argues that the film “Fjord” is not good for Norwegian children who need protection. He says the film could, on questionable grounds, deepen skepticism toward Norway’s child welfare services.

The authors strongly disagree. They argue that failures in child welfare must be portrayed and debated publicly if services for children and young people are to improve. Drawing on years of work as expert witnesses and psychologists for children and families in crisis, they describe flawed assessments, inadequate procedures and a lack of openness.

“

Temporary separation can last a long time.

They also challenge the idea that a temporary removal is necessarily less harmful. Across Norway, parents and children remain separated because of child welfare interventions. Such action is often necessary when children need protection and adequate care, the authors say. But complex cases are difficult to assess, and agencies vary in their experience, expertise and time to understand what families need.

Some children who should have received protection remain in untenable homes. Others undergo measures that make matters worse, including emergency placements or care takeovers that should never have happened. “Temporary” separation can last while cases are investigated, scheduled for hearings and reviewed by courts or expert witnesses. Babies and young children face particular pressure because time and closeness are crucial to forming bonds. Even when families are eventually reunited, the strain and grief may never fully disappear. The authors conclude that reality can be more damaging to children than a critically acclaimed film.

“

If children and parents are separated on an unjustified basis, even the temporary feels like an eternity.