Help Anju!  

           A five-year-old child legally kidnapped in the Netherlands

 

Anju (Anna) is a five-year-old girl currently living in a Dutch foster family. Elisabeth is her mother. Once a week Elisabeth and Anna are allowed to see each other for an hour. Vigilantly monitored at all times they are denied any privacy during the meeting. They are forbidden to speak to each other in their native language - Estonian. They are not allowed to have lunch together nor to exchange any personal items. The organisation handling Anna’s fate called Leger des Heils (in English: The Salvation Army) has denied Elisabeth’s mother any chance to meet her grandchild. As of last week (the first week of September 2020*), the officials have reduced the meetings between the mother and the child to once every two weeks or even less, for it has been decided that Anna will enter a six months period of Dutch learning program and seeing her mother once a week would be disturbing for the progress!

Less than a year ago in October 2019 the single mother, an Estonian artist Elisabeth Salmin (40) moved to the Netherlands from Estonia with her four-year-old daughter Anna. Both Elisabeth and Anna have Estonian citizenship. Anna, having a Dutch father, has both Estonian and Dutch citizenship. In Estonia school starts at age seven and any institutional child care before that is optional. Many parents choose to stay at home with their preschoolers, often using part time childcare, a babysitter or help from grandparents. But since Elisabeth had heard good things about the Dutch school, and having lived and studied there before, she trusted things would go well and they moved here.

Things didn’t go as planned - Anna didn’t accommodate well at school and Elisabeth decided that temporary homeschooling was a better option. After all, as an artist and a translator she worked from home anyway. Soon after that, in January 2020, they had to leave their rented home - according to the rules set by the housing association, people under 50 and with children were not allowed to live there. Elisabeth struggled to find an affordable place for rent. When the COVID-19 crisis set in, things got even more complicated. Eventually Elisabeth managed to buy a houseboat on an installment plan. It wasn’t her first choice. But at least she now owned their home. From there on she was hopeful again: she was drawing plans to renovate the houseboat, to make it a self-sustainable home for her little family. They were both really happy with living on the boat. For a few weeks.

On 18th of May strangers showed up at the houseboat, asking questions and making opinionated comments about their home. They urged Elisabeth and her daughter to leave their houseboat. The purpose of their visits remained unclear to Elisabeth as she was never given any written document about their intentions. Up until then her interactions with her neighbors had been amicable. Elisabeth does not drink nor use drugs. She had always been a loving and respecting parent to her child.

Legally kidnapped! On 27th of May in the evening child protection officials showed up: they had acquired a permission from a judge and took four-year-old Anna with them to be put in foster care. The main reason, they said, was that the living conditions on the boat did not meet the Dutch standards.The first written notice about such intention was sent to Elisabeth’s email only four hours prior. After two weeks being denied any contact with her daughter, Elisabeth could finally visit her. She traveled back and forth six hours on a bike to meet Anna. After a few visits she received a cold warning that if she speaks to her daughter in their native language the visits will be terminated - the supervisor has to hear and understand what they are talking about! Other rules set by the officials included: 'No personal items! No lunch together! No phone calls outside the meetings'! (1)

With the help of donations Elisabeth rented an apartment that “met the standards” and asked that her child be returned to her. Now the officials said: Anna must stay in foster care for at least three months anyway, 'because the contract has already been signed with the foster family'!

In August 2020, a few weeks before the last court session during her meeting with Anna the supervisor kept talking to Anna. Elisabeth asked the person not to do that - after all, it was the one hour once a week she got to be with her child. The official terminated the visit immediately and future visits were cancelled. At the last court session on 26th of August the judge extended Anna's stay in foster care by another six months, reasoning that 'Staying in a Dutch speaking foster family would be good for the child's poor Dutch skills'! Also, he claimed that 'Anna’s development was at risk - Anna was passive, she did not like to communicate in the foster family. There was a need to monitor and study her and that could be done best while staying in a foster family'!  Ironically, when Elisabeth met her child for the first time after the confiscation she noticed and pointed it out to the officials that Anna - who had formerly been an active and playful child - had become very silent and passive, the authorities said this was a reaction to the trauma she had got from living with her mother!

The ‘child protection’ officials have now (September 2020) told Elisabeth that Anna will enter a six months period of Dutch learning program and seeing her mother will be disturbing for her progress! From now on she will be able to meet her child for one hour once every two weeks.

***

We must bring to the attention that there have been signs in Anna’s behavior in the foster care which, according to the ‘child protection’ officials, justify continuing Anna’s separation from her mother, extending her stay in the foster care. However, according to experts in child development these signs point to the trauma caused by the very ‘child protection’ measure i.e. the separation from the mother. Experts warn that the child-parent separation has a detrimental effect on both mental and physiological level, even if basic physical needs are met, and those changes lead to effects that remain in adulthood.(2) Based on the studies done in the field Vanessa LoBue Ph.D. writes: “The most dangerous kind of stress—called “toxic stress”— can result from a prolonged period of distress without help from a loved one. This kind of stress can cause problems for the development of a child’s brain, and can have serious long-term behavioral consequences, possibly disrupting a child’s ability to regulate their emotions and cope with future stress. It could even be detrimental to learning.”(3) This possibility, however often pointed out by the mother, has not received any attention from the officials. Not to mention that impartial child development specialists, family psychologists, would have been asked to assess the above-mentioned interpretations of Anna’s behavioral changes.

Separating Anna from her mother was rushed, without consulting an impartial team of child-development experts, psychologists, without consideration of the emotional, psychological, physiological effects of such a dramatic event. There has been no attempt to help the child or the family without separating her from her mother. Elisabeth is not a drinker, she does not use drugs, she was not violent to her child, her child was fed. With her mother Anna learned through developing and creative activities (family photos suggest), they also spent a lot of time in nature.

Elisabeth has not received clearly communicated written documents with specific expectations which she would have to fulfill in order to get her child back.(4)  It is important to note that there has been no evaluation by a child psychologist on the separation from the mother including the way Elisabeth and Anna are allowed to meet - supervised and not allowed to talk to each other in their native language. As discussed above separating a child from the mother is extremely traumatising to the mother but especially to the child, and it has permanent consequences on the child's development. Thus, separating the child from the mother should be an absolutely last resort. That measure should be regarded only when the child’s life is unequivocally and convincingly considered in danger, and when the cooperation (before separating the mother and the child) which is targeted on the improvement of the situation, and with the participation of the mother, impartial psychologists and social workers, has not been able to improve the situation.

We point out that the rules of administration have made it possible to take advantage of the mother’s difficult financial situation. For example, Elisabeth had applied for social help but as she returned to the Netherlands less than a year ago, the help has been refused. Elisabeth and her daughter were forced to leave the social housing due to the rules of the cooperative which did not allow a single mother under 50 years of age and a child to live there. At the same time Elisabeth is criticised for moving to the houseboat, not taking into account the fact that the mother had been unsuccessfully looking for an affordable rental room, thus, moving into the houseboat was a rather inventive emergency solution to the difficult financial situation and the Covid-19 crisis. Also, errors have emerged in Elisabeth’s personal data in the Dutch official registries: her nationality was marked Russian instead of Estonian. She had to spend a lot of time and visit offices to have the mistake corrected.

Subjective evaluations, personal opinions, prejudices and judgements based on personal preferences have been used against Elisabeth in this case. Accusations against Elisabeth are based mainly on one visit by the agents and subjective evaluations were made during the visit. Also, personal observations and opinions of the foster-mother are used as “evidence”.

Elisabeth has done everything she could and has fulfilled the initial requirements: she has rented a room in an apartment with modern amenities, she has built a boat bridge, among other things. However, now new reasons are given for holding the child: the child’s Dutch language development and her development in general and allegedly the child does not want to meet the mother; in the interest of intensive language learning the mother-child meetings will be reduced from weekly to once every two weeks etc. Another argument for holding the child is the statement by Leger des Heils which says there is a DANGER that the child will be taken to the mother’s native country!

In conclusion

Mother’s presence, connection with her is any child’s basic need. It is vital to the child's well-being and development. The ability to establish lasting close relationships and cope with different life situations also depends on it. Separation from the mother has a long-lasting detrimental effect on the child's emotional, social and cognitive and physiological development.

We recognize that some lifestyle and parenting choices of Elisabeth may have been unconventional. However, there is no indication that the child had been unhappy or in danger while living with her mother. Judging from family photos and Elisabeth’s personal accounts on her facebook page from before the child was taken, Anna was a happy little kid living an active life full of play, engaged in creation, exploring nature. If and when the child protectors found that there were things in that family's life that ‘needed improvement’, and that the mother needed guidance, all help could and should have been arranged without removing Anna from her mother. Child protection services must follow the principle that their actions should not cause greater harm than the harm done by not intervening! In this case the principle has not been followed. The child protection’s response has been disproportionate, harmful and in direct conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Dutch ‘child protection’ actions in this case and the reasoning behind the court decisions do not point to the child's life having been in danger with her mother, but rather to a forced assimilation of a (Estonian-Dutch) child. Finally we wish to emphasize that in order to help any child, the child’s mother, the family must be helped, instead of breaking it! All child care activities must respect the fundamental unit of the society - the family - and acknowledge the importance of a parent-child connection. Any and all ‘suspicions’ about a child being ‘in danger’ must be rigorously evaluated by impartial (child- and family-)psychologists and the family must be included in a respectful manner in the process of ‘improving their life’.

In view of the above and based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (5), The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights (6)

                                   We hereby demand that
           Anna must be immediately returned to her mother!

 

In addition, Anna and her mother Elisabeth must be offered help to cope with the trauma caused by separation, including:

-  Anna's voice must be heard! Her wishes and opinions must be heard, respected and taken into consideration!
-  Elisabeth’s wishes and opinions must be heard, respected and taken into consideration!
-  Elisabeth and Anna must get access to an independent professional psychological counseling.
-  A professional impartial Estonian-speaking psychologist-psychotherapist (one NOT related to the officials handling Anna’s fate) must be provided for Anna so that the child can safely express her emotions and process the trauma of separation from her mother. The child must have a say in whether she likes/approves the given counselor.
-  Any future assistance offered to the family or the child (including any forms of evaluation, educating etc.) must occur while the mother and child are reunited, and with their consent - the mother and the child must have a say in deciding if and what kind of help they need. They should be heard and their wishes respected.
-  Every aspect of Anna’s separation from her mother must be scrutinized by impartial independent experts in child development.

NOTES:

* This petition was published on 16 September 2020 and is based on the information available up to that date. A few updates have been added later in the notes.

1 Elisabeth is now allowed one 5 minute phone call per week outside the meetings.

2 Carey, B. Reuniting and Detaining Migrant Families Pose New Mental Health Risks. New York Times. 22 June 2018

3 Vanessa LoBue Ph.D., The Effects of Separating Children From Their Parents - What science says about the detrimental effects of separating families, Psychology Today (web issue) 2018 

4 A list of goals to work on was included in a document given to Elisabeth after the petition was written.

5  Convention on the Rights of the Child New York, 20 November 1989 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

6 https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/