Danish authorities take one-hour-old infant despite law banning the tests on people with Greenlandic backgrounds
A Greenlandic mother’s one-hour-old baby was removed from her by Danish authorities after she underwent “parenting competence” tests – despite a new law banning the use of the controversial psychometric assessments on people with Greenlandic backgrounds.
Ivana Nikoline Brønlund, who was born in Nuuk to Greenlandic parents and has played for the Greenlandic handball team, gave birth to her daughter, Aviaja-Luuna, on 11 August in a hospital in Hvidovre, near Copenhagen, where she lives with her family.
An hour later, the local municipality took the infant into foster care. Brønlund, 18, says she has since only seen her daughter once, for an hour, when she was not allowed to comfort the baby or change her nappy.
The “parenting competence” tests, known as FKU (forældrekompetenceundersøgelse), were banned on people with Greenlandic backgrounds earlier this year after years of criticism by campaigners and human rights bodies, who argued successfully that the tests were racist because they were culturally unsuitable for people from Inuit backgrounds. As the law came into force in May, campaigners are asking why Brønlund was still subjected to a test.
The Danish social affairs minister, Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, has said she was concerned by the reports and had requested the municipality behind the decision, Høje-Taastrup, to explain its handling of the case. “Standardised tests should not be used in placement cases involving families with a Greenlandic background. The law is clear,” she said.
Brønlund’s case has prompted protests in Greenland, with further protests planned in Nuuk, Copenhagen, Reykjavík and Belfast.
Brønlund was told that her baby was removed because of the trauma she had suffered at the hands of her adoptive father, who is in prison for sexually abusing her. The municipality told her she was “not Greenlandic enough” for the new law banning the tests to apply, despite her being born in Greenland of Greenlandic parents.
Local authorities started the testing on her in April – after an announcement in January that the ban was coming in. They completed the tests in June, at which point the law was in force. Brønlund was told three weeks before giving birth that her child would be taken away.
The municipality declined to comment, saying it was bound by confidentiality. But it has admitted to faults in its processes and said it was seeking to ensure the family’s legal requirements were met and “the best possible solution” for the family.
IMO you shouldn’t be allowed to have kids until you’ve proven you can raise them to live a healthy life in our society.
I’m done letting just a creampie be the test for parenthood.
If we want to responsibly control our populations to be sustainable then we have to transition to a different system of checks and balances for population.
Then the problem becomes “who decides?”
In this case, you have a Danish government telling a Native Greenlander they arent’t competent for… “reasons”. I see a whole host of problems with this, notably institutional racism, of which the Western World is guilty of a whole hell of a lot of.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/26/australia-disproportionate-removal-aboriginal-children
It’s not a problem if we want to be serious about the issue, governments regulate it and we support sensible regulations as voters.
Yes I understand not everything works as planned in politics, but that’s how it’s done.
The problem is overcoming hundreds of years of systemic abuse. Nothing good will come from separating native peoples from their children. Especially in this case with no actual evidence of any abuse.
“tests, known as FKU (forældrekompetenceundersøgelse)”
Tests known as “fuck you, we’re taking your baby.”
Ordinarily I’m against random acronyms, but in this case…
This is some racist shit
Happiest place in the world…
Denmark is consistently ranked as one of the happiest countries in the world, often coming in second place, just behind Finland, according to the World Happiness Report. Factors contributing to this happiness include strong social support, trust, and a high quality of life
LMFAO
Ha 4chan chud. Get ‘em gravylicious
Ah yes… Let’s increase your childhood trauma with government approved trauma for you and your newborn baby. Because you didn’t follow a rule that we just made up, your newborn will have attachment issues, stress, development delays and feeding difficulties.
And sure our municipality has admitted to faults in its processes and said it was seeking to ensure the family’s legal requirements were met and “the best possible solution” for the family. We just don’t keep it simple and give your baby back.
We will need to “think” about it for weeks or months, since our brains aren’t capable of processing the consequences of our actions , rules or immoral decision making. “We just follow orders”. So you just have to wait till the baby is 2 years old or something, idk #yolo. Welcome to hell. Aka the "banality of evil” by Hannah Arendt.
My first thought too, who tf thinks its a good idea to remove a newborn from their mother for something like that??
The most critical period for skin to skin contact: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/12578-kangaroo-care
Brønlund was told that her baby was removed because of the trauma she had suffered at the hands of her adoptive father, who is in prison for sexually abusing her. The municipality told her she was “not Greenlandic enough” for the new law banning the tests to apply, despite her being born in Greenland of Greenlandic parents.
What the actual fuck? I wasn’t understanding this… Still not sure if I am bc it seems so incomprehensible.
They took her newborn baby bc she (the mother) was a victim of sexual abuse? Wtf is the logic behind that?
Maybe it’s the myth that people who experienced abuse as kids will themselves become abusers. It’s bullshit. Sure, some do, but the majority just deal with their trauma as best they can and are regular people.
I could see giving the assessment to act as something like a screener for post partum anxiety/depression risk.
I have no idea if that was the reasoning, but even then it seems like the way to move forward when you know someone is at risk, is to offer inpatient or outpatient resources. Then continue to follow up with more screeners. Just taking a newborn baby away is bad for both the mother and child’s physical and mental health.
I feel so much anger just thinking about her situation, and all the maternal instincts that you feel leading up to and after giving birth. That sounds like a nightmare.
Brønlund told the Guardian: “I didn’t want to go into labour because I knew what would happen afterwards. I would keep my baby nearby me when she was in my stomach, that was the closest I would be with her. It was a very rough and horrible time.”
She said her first meeting with her daughter, earlier this week, was cut short early because the baby was believed to be overtired and overstimulated.
“My heart broke when she [the supervisor] stopped the time. I was so sad, I cried out to the car and in the car. It was so fast that we had to leave,” she said, through tears. “My heart is so broken, I don’t know what to do without her.”
Holy fuck, well if you weren’t traumatized before you are now, and we made sure trauma has a head start to continue on to the next generation.
deleted by creator
These laws can never be a good thing. The door to abuse is too easy to open with them.
deleted by creator
Really? Because a crackhead with a baby always ends so well.
I understand what youre saying, and with that EXACT point you’ve made I agree. The problem I want to make sure is understood is that policies dont end with the common sense use cases. They inevitably become a tool to oppress those that they dont like.
A more productive thing is to address systemic issues that create people who are dependent on substances, rather than over-broad legislations that are just asking to be used to abuse the “out group” of the time.
Racism and indoctrination are two results I can think of from this. I cannot think of any examples of good outcomes when the state systematically takes children from their parents.
I cannot think of any examples of good outcomes when the state systematically takes children from their parents.
It’s often profitable. Have you not considered the perspective of the money?
SLASHSARCASM
Even if they’re only applied with good intentions, it’s still so obviously wrong.
The “parenting competence” tests, known as FKU
Fuck you too.
I’m sure there’s a King Leopold conservative somewhere saying, “serves her right or some shit.”
Conservatives worldwide can get bent.
“She deserved to get raped at 17 by her step father”
“She probably committed some grave sin in her previous life.” — religious leaders of my childhood
How could this ever be a reasonable idea, regardless of this mother’s heritage.
There are a huge number of people who are or will be terrible parents who definitely should not have had kids.
But I don’t know of any way the government can positively address that, outside of actual child abuse.
It’s one thing to say someone is a terrible parent who ought not to have had children, it’s a whole other thing to prevent someone from having children either before or after birth.
I agree that there are far too many people who are likely not very qualified to be having kids. But that said, i don’t think anyone or organization can ever be objectively qualified to deny anyone the right of not just a human being, but that of all living beings.
Especially on the grounds of any ‘competence’ or lack thereof, not to mention of course, heritage or circumstance.
Were seeing the consequences in the US in real time of people unqualified to be parents. They vote for destruction and raise their kids to do the same.
I would argue the situation today isn’t caused by ignorant people. But by a systemic ‘de’-education of the population, by design.
The problem starts at birthing the child in the first place, have incompetwnt parents practice safe sex instead of waiting till they have a kid to intervene.
Bitter virgin detected.
These parents aren’t even really incompetent. IIRC they failed the test because the mom suffered (sexual?) abuse as a child. And apparently that trauma disqualifies her as a mother somehow.
They were also told they’d take the baby away 3 weeks before the birth. Also, the law used here shouldn’t even apply to them because they’re Greenlandic.
It’s an all-round travesty of a case and the Danish government should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
The fact that the government is able to make a preemptive judgement is on its own just bonkers. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The government should also be a support system, not one that penalises. It should be providing relevant guidance and other support to make sure the family can get through anything holding them and the baby back from a fulfilling family life.
Imagine thinking an 18 year old with the determination, grit, stamina, and vision to be a professional athlete on a national team is incompetent. Or are you just jealous that she’s accomplished more than you?
Or are you just
jealousenvious that she’s accomplished more than you?Point of order,
Jealosy is a desire to own and keep from others something that is yours. It is in the same vein as zealotry.
Envy is wanting to own and take from others something that they have. It is in the same vein as coveting.
These are not synonymous, nor interchangeable.
Not op, but I’m not jealous. That sounds like a lot of hard fucking work and I’m juuuust complacent enough.
