The Niko Story: Can There Be a Happy End in Abuse Accusation Cases?

The Niko Story: Can There Be a Happy End in AbuseAccusation Cases?

Aulikki and Thomas Ristoja*

ABSTRACT When "Niko" was discovered in sexplay with another child in his day care center, the staff became concerned andrecommended professional evaluations for Niko and his family.  By the time the family's saga ended, Nikohad been subjected to multiple suggestive interviews and given countless hoursof therapy by an assortment of psychologists and psychiatrists.  He was removed from home, hospitalized,placed in children's homes, and only allowed limited visits with his parentsunder strict supervision.  Niko's fatherwas criminally charged with sexually abusing him and the parents divorced underthe stress of the situation.  Theallegations grew to include sadistic rituals involving both parents and theolder brother.  Eventually the parentswent public and finally succeeded in getting Niko returned after three and ahalf years.  This case receivedtremendous attention in Finland.  Inthis article, the parents describe their ordeal and comment on the politicalsituation in the Nordic countries in general and Finland in particular whichcontributes to this type of tragedy.

In October, 1990 when our 5-year-old son, Niko(pseudonym), started to play "behind" games in his day-care center,we were not greatly alarmed.  Niko hadbeen found with his pants down in a toilet stall with another boy his age andwas overheard making a comment about putting his "willy" up the otherboy's behind.  We (Niko's father,Thomas, and his mother, Aulikki) were summoned to a meeting where the day careworkers told us about the games and asked us what could be done about them.

Thomas promised to talk to Niko.  But two weeks later we were again asked to ameeting and told that the games had not stopped.  Apparently, one staff member had given Niko special attention asshe tried to find out where he got his sexual ideas and Niko, not surprisingly,responded with more scatological and sexual comments and behaviors.  The staff suggested that Niko be taken to afamily advisory bureau because they would have special staff for these things.  We readily agreed.  We were listening to the experts and trying to do what was rightfor our son.

In the family advisory bureau our whole family(Aulikki, Thomas, Niko and his 15-year-old brother) was interviewed during aone hour session, after which Niko was interviewed in private by childpsychiatrist L.K.  In all, Thomas tookNiko to the bureau eight times, Aulikki took him once, and a worker fromkindergarten took him twice.  During theinterviews with Niko we were interviewed in a separate room, and apart from thefirst conjoint family session, we were all interviewed separately.  The psychologist P.P. was very eager tolearn details about Thomas' parents, grandparents and relatives while speakingwith him alone (unfortunately, the interviews with Thomas were not taped).

Available tapes of the early interviews with Niko atthe family advisory bureau show the child psychiatrist L.K. using anatomicallydetailed dolls, which she herself undresses. She wants to know how many objects Niko can insert in the doll's anusand Niko accommodates her request.  Atone point in the interview he says to her, "All you want to talk about is'behind games'."  But at the timewe had not seen these tapes.

After three months, L.K. and P.P. concluded that thereason for Niko's "behind" games and behavior could not be determinedand referred him to Aurora hospital. They assured us that it was necessary to have such a quiet place withmore experts available to solve the problem. Also, they were of the opinion that Niko's behavior was so abnormal thatthis was the only proper thing to do. Of course we consented.  Wetrusted the professionals and believed they were objectively attempting todiscover the truth.

Niko was placed on the somatic pediatric ward (not onthe psychiatric, they pointed out to us, in order not to label him in any way,although he was there to be evaluated and investigated using psychologicalmethods) and was scheduled to stay there for three weeks.  We, along with Niko, met Dr. V-M.T.(doctor-in-chief during Niko's stay), child psychiatrist A.H., and some of thenurses on the ward.  We were told aboutthe hospital and everything was quite jovial, except from the very nervousglances we received from Dr. V-M.T. Only afterwards were we able to understand the reason for this.

We visited Niko in the hospital every day, but after acouple of days the supervision started. We were told that this was standard procedure.  Niko asked us every day when he could come home but we could onlyanswer him, "Soon, soon you'll get home."  Niko liked us to give him a bath each evening before we had toleave.  Niko is unbeatable in inventingnew games and plays, so in the bathtub were invented dozens of new games withthe water toys.

Uncritical Corroboration at the Hospital

During this time we asked the doctors about theresults, but Dr. V-M.T. was never available. However, on February, 20, 1991, they promised us we would be told theresults of the hospital's efforts. Thomas first met with doctors V-M.T. and A.H. while Aulikki met withpsychologist M.S. and child protector T.P. We were then told the hospital staff had concluded Niko had beensexually abused and that the abuser was his father.  After this, we all met in a seminar room, to which big brotheralso had been fetched.  He arrived tothe room accompanied by P.P. and L.K., whom he had visited prior to themeeting.

We were, of course, flabbergasted.  Aulikki sarcastically commented, "Whydid you have to attack the smaller boy and leave the bigger untouched," towhich psychologist M.S. retorted: "No, no, the bigger brother has beenabused by the father as well, and he himself has also been abusingNiko."  When Aulikki asked bigbrother whether he had any recollections of having been abused he said, "Ihave not, if that had happened, I must have been heavily drugged."  (As can be seen from this, big brother hadinherited his parents' sense of humor.)

The diagnosis of sexual abuse was based on thepsychologist M.S.'s sessions with Niko. But only at this meeting did we first meet M.S., who was Niko'sprincipal therapist, and learn that she was the one responsible for theinvestigations.  It was decided Nikowould stay in the hospital for another three weeks, during which time "thefamily was given some time to orient itself to the changed situation."

Life continued as planned.  We went to the hospital every day; the surveillance was somehowstricter.  When Aulikki tried to speakto Dr. V-M.T. about the situation, he told her, "the father's guilt isonly increasing," and, "as long as the father is free, Niko cannot gohome, because you cannot guard Niko 24 hours a day."  Nurse U.H. provided Aulikki with tissuesduring this session.  At this moment theseeds were sewn that led to our divorce a year later.

The final meeting was held on March, 14, 1991, in anauditorium in the hospital.  Presentwere the doctors V-M.T. (chairman of the meeting), A.H. and L.K., psychologistsM.S. and P.P., two principal nurses, two child protectors (one, T.P, was to beone of our main adversary during the years to come), Thomas's attorney, and ourfamily.  After the opening remarks,Niko's therapist, psychologist M.S., finally spoke (we were all sitting in ahuge circle): "Incest is the cancer of society, and with the scalpel ofthe surgeon it will be cut off." Her conclusion was that Niko had been grossly abused sexually by hisfather and his older brother.  Hersolemn words had a tremendous impact on everybody present.

It was decided that Niko would be transferred to atransitory children's home for three months. Aulikki opposed this until the last moment, but in face of pressure fromthe hospital staff and the advice of Thomas's attorney ("It is the bestthing to do in this situation, in order to sort things out"), she consented.  Dr. V-M.T. had promised Thomas that themistake, if there had been one made, would be cleared up during this time, soit was a wise decision to grant temporary voluntary custody of Niko to thestate.

Niko was transferred to Varpula transitory children'shome where he was scheduled to stay for three months, after which the childprotectors would reassess the overall situation.  The children's home was a rather poor one, packed in the basementof an apartment house, with many children from a variety of backgrounds.

It was decided that the visiting times would be splitup between the parents, and that the times would be fixed, one hour twice aweek, plus three hours every Sunday. According to the director, who in turn relied on information from the nurses,Niko was greatly disturbed when we visited him together.  Therefore, it was better if Niko saw us onlyone at a time, and only during fixed times, so that a secure rhythm of livingcould be established after all the turmoil that Niko had experienced during hislast years at home.

When the dust finally settled, we attempted to sortthings out.  Thomas started trying toget the evidence about the abuse from Aurora hospital.  The psychologist M.S. and Dr. A.H. had onlygiven the so-called "shorter version" of the diagnosis.  Because this didn't stick to the facts, wewanted to have some real evidence. After some months we got "the longer version," but this wasonly a superficial and verbally more attractive version of the first one.  But it was nevertheless now four pagesinstead of two.

This diagnosis led to us filing a complaint at thecivil administration.  This complaintwas to remain there for three years, without any action taken.  It was only three days before the childprotectors got their suit that we withdrew this complaint.

During this time Aulikki continued to visit the familyadvisory bureau.  P.P. and L.K., whowere responsible for the investigations of Niko in the first instance,inadvertently assured Aulikki of Niko's return home, but only after weseparated and agreed to divorce.  Only atotal ousting of Thomas from the family would allow them to consider returningNiko.

The behavior of these two professionals isinteresting.  After the diagnosis theystarted to pity Aulikki in her distress but never once did either of them showany doubt over the correctness of Aurora's findings.  They had never told us they had found evidence that Thomas wasguilty of abuse.  The transferrecommendation to Aurora did not include any statements about suspicion ofabuse within the family, it only stated, "the extent of Niko's sexualbehavior demands further investigations." It was only after four years that we learned when Niko was taken intoAurora hospital on January, 29, 1991, his dossier already bore the label"suspicion of incest." Although this same dossier had been given to us earlier, this line hasbeen removed.

So Thomas began looking for a flat to move to.  As there was a major shortage of flats torent, this was easier said than done. The tension due to mutual accusations between the two of us rose to amaximum.  Our older son was living inthe midst of this inferno, having also to watch the painful excision of hisfather from the family.  It was strangethat the child protectors not once showed concern for his welfare, especiallyconsidering the fact that M.S. had diagnosed him as abused as well as an abuserof his own little brother.  When thisall started, he was 15 years old and therefore subject to child protectionlegislation.

When the three months of voluntary custody hadelapsed, Aurora hospital and the child protection reevaluated thesituation.  They produced severalstatements (the children's home, Aurora doctor, therapist) claiming that theconditions for Niko's going home had not been changed, therefore they didn'tsupport the idea.  It was decided thatNiko would remain in the children's home for another three months.  This was also voluntary.  The law requires the authorities to make afinal, valid decision with regard to a child's residence within six monthsafter the temporary transfer of custody decision, and therefore we were allvery anxious to get the things straightened out before the three months hadelapsed.

During the time in Varpula transit home we had somemeetings with the child protectors. Every time Thomas complained about the situation, the chief childprotection social worker T.P. remarked that she could turn the matter over tothe police as well.  The choice wasours.  Either we cooperate ' that is, weagree to all the decisions made ' or else the matter would be given to thepolice.  As can be seen from this, thesemeetings were filled with indescribable horror; we felt as if we were living ina crazy world where our integrity and human decency were torn to pieces.  We were puppets on a string, forced to carryout the decisions of the experts and officials.

How about Niko's health?  Very soon after he left Aurora, A.H. found him a therapist, anelderly lady, whom he started to visit twice a week.  This therapist, K. K., was from the beginning convinced that Nikohad been abused by his father.  In oneof the officials' meetings, when she had met Niko only twice, she stated thatthis was a case of abuse over many generations.  She refused to see us and even refused to speak to Aulikki on thephone.  Instead, she considered thestaff in the children's home as the care givers with whom to be in touch.

This is why the statements written by the children'shome officials were so unnatural.  Inthese statements, Niko was said to be afraid of being in the same room with hisparents.  They claimed he insisted onhaving a staff member as a guard when his father visited but not so with hismother.  Furthermore, they said heshowed no sign of homesickness and never spoke about his parents.  The chief of Varpula wrote that Niko's sexgames had diminished, she didn't hear so many foul words anymore and Niko hadstarted to play games like a normal little boy.  In short, they claimed, he had adjusted well to the children'shome.

Child Protection Turns to the Police for Help

The end of the temporary six months was approachingand with this we were approached by child protection.  How was life now?  Had weseparated?  Unfortunately, Thomas wasstill living in our home and had not yet found a place of his own.  The child protection workers asked us tovoluntarily sign the transition of the temporary to a permanent transfer ofcustody from the parents to the state, assuring us that this was the properthing to do.

But after carefully considering our situation, wefinally decided we had had it.  Werejected the suggestions from child protection, who respondeddramatically.  They announced that,since we were not cooperating, they would have to move fast.  They turned the matter over to the policeand the child protection district head demanded that Thomas be penalizedaccording to criminal law.  Theinvoluntary permanent transfer of custody was issued immediately, signed, andput into motion.  Our only recourse wasto file a complaint in the civil court.

During this time Thomas had been demanding to see theevidence from Aurora hospital and psychologist M.S. answered our complaint tothe civil administration.  We hadquestioned the different conclusions made by M.S. (on the basis of the"longer version diagnosis") and M.S. explained the points inquestion.

This didn't suffice to show any guilt, so Thomascontinued to demand some real evidence. Aurora replied with silence, except for a letter from the hospital directorsaying that the evidence was in police care and that we could see it after thepreliminary police investigation had ended. It was only after our complaint to the Ministry of Medicine that it wasdecided it was our right to get to see the evidence.

By this time the criminal proceedings were well underway.  The public prosecutor told us thatshe would charge Thomas.  Theaccusations included oral and genital sex between Thomas and Niko, explicitlyformulated in words so that any layman could understand what had supposedlybeen going on.

The "Hard Evidence"

The material was now, finally, available to us.  We received permission to get copies of theaudiotapes from the sessions with Niko and Aurora psychologist M.S.  Now, after almost a year, we could hear forourselves the "hard evidence" we had been waiting for.  But we discovered that there were only 5hours of tapes, although there should have been about 20.  Most of the recordings were from the startof Niko's stay in Aurora.  What hadhappened to the missing 15 hours?  Therewere two sessions where only some minutes had been recorded.

Furthermore, of these 5 hours, less than 2.5 hourswere transcribed.  This transcriptionhad been made by M.S. for the prosecution. Also, most of the sessions in the family advisory bureau ' Niko and thechild psychiatrist ' had been videotaped, and now the prosecution came forwardwith a transcription of the videotapes. We then set out on the Sisyphean task of making a propertranscription.  Every evening for a coupleof months we labored to get accurate and complete transcriptions.  In the end we succeeded; we got 122 pages ascompared to Aurora's 54-page transcription.

These transcribed interviews are excellent examples ofhow a professional can go astray and abandon the code of ethics forpsychologists.  Leading questions,suggestion, coercion, stupidity, and misuse of adult authority can be seen onevery page of the transcription.  M.S.frequently misinterprets Niko's comments according to her own expectations.  She even tells him she does not believe whathe is saying when he says he loves his parents and denies abuse.  The tapes revealed that the therapy sessionswere held in a locked room from which Niko was unable to leave.

The emasculation of Niko's father is evident in thesesessions.  For example, in doll playM.S. tells Niko that the police are "stronger than that daddy."  "The father certainly feels bad aboutwhat he has done to you," is another gem in the collection.  Niko replies, "No it wasVesa!"  M.S. then asks, "Itwas Vesa?" and Niko says, "Daddy is not any 'Vesa'."  But this unambiguous information from Nikohad no effect whatsoever because child protection had made up their minds fromthe start what the real state of affairs was.

May-Milk Mixture: Fatal Falsification

One of the greatest examples of M.S.'s bias andineptitude was the "May-milk" mixture.  In Finnish, "milk" is "maito," whereas theaccusative of "May" (first name of the psychologist) is"Mayta."  When stressed, thebeginnings of both words are pronounced almost alike.  In his play sessions, Niko was phoning home and asking daddy to"come and hit May, because May was annoying him."  In Finnish, this is "Maytaturpaan" (May in the face).  M.S.interpreted this as meaning, "Daddy, come and put some milk in theface", i.e. some kind of ejaculation with white substance like milk intoNiko's face.

Even if Niko phoned other persons, mother, and afriend, using the same sentences, (asking them to come and punch May becauseshe harms him) this did not alert M.S. to an alternative meaning of theincident.  She had decided on herperverse explanation and blocked everything else out.  She even asked, "Where is mother then when you have thesemilk-to-face games?"  Niko couldn'tunderstand what she was speaking about. M.S. continued: "Is the milk coming when you are in your bed?"

The interviews are replete with examples likethis.  The question is posed in such away that an affirmative or negative answer does not wipe away the basic, butfaulty, assumption ' namely there is milk coming and the only issue is where ithappens.  One cannot assume that a childof 5 can switch from the object-level to a meta-level, i.e. to comment on thequestion itself not only on what is asked in it.  But Niko even tried this.

Other examples of M.S.'s interview questions include,"Do you think that the hospital is able to help you?"  "Has daddy promised to stop playingthese behind games if you were allowed to go home?" and "What didmother say when you said to your daddy, 'Don't talk such dirtythings'?"  All in all, the Auroratranscripts clearly document the coercive nature of the therapy Niko receivedfrom M.S.

Two experts evaluated the taped interviews.  First, Dr. G.A., the head of Lastenlinnahospital, one of the largest children's hospitals in Finland, wrote that theinterviews could be compared to a third-degree interrogation of a small child,and that he would only write a three-page statement, otherwise his statementwould be as long as the Aurora transcription, because there were errors onevery page.  He denounced the interviewsas utterly worthless.  Dr. P.T., anexpert who did not believe that the abuse had taken place, wrote, "the interviewsby M.S. are not proper, but indoctrinating, and harmful to the child."

In contrast to these two experts was the opinion ofM-M.T. who was obtained by child protection on the recommendation of M.S.  M-M.T. said that the relationship betweenNiko and M.S. was gentle, at times even affectionate (although she had neverseen anyone of the family, not even Niko). She stated that never before had she seen work of an esteemedprofessional be so gravely nullified by other professionals in the field.  She claimed that the nature of theinterviews is such that one must rely on the opinions of the psychologist inthe interviewing room because so much of the information is non-verbal ' a nodof the head, a smile, etc.  Therefore itwas unfair to attack M.S.  She alsonoted that the fact Thomas does well in chess tournaments showed he was able toput unpleasant things aside from his mind when needed (we and our oldest sonhave won many chess championships).  Inthis way, M-M.T. used the cherished hobby of our family to support her beliefthat Thomas was, in fact, an abuser.

M-M.T.'s view can best be assessed by the followingpiece of transcript:

MS:      Daddy iscoming to the hospital to visit and says: "Would you come home with us,Niko?"

N:         ??

MS:      "Wouldyou come home with us, Niko?"

N:             (Shoutingfuriously in anger) Don't say it so angrily, stupid!!!

>From this, one can only deduce that M.S. twistedher face in a violent (non-verbal) grimace, obviously trying to represent herview of the father in the following way: "He is talking in sweet words,but we know (you, Niko, and me) what your daddy is really like, don'twe?"  But Niko did not accept M.S.slandering his father.  He sometimesattacked her, both physically and verbally. But in the end, she got her revenge; on one of the last meetings shetriumphantly told Niko that he would be moving to a children's home, and thatdaddy and mummy wanted this too!

Court Proceedings

At this time we had made a complaint in the civilcourt (administrative court, as it is called in Finland).  Our claim asked for the transfer of custodydecision to be reversed and Niko to be returned home; after all, the culpritshad moved away, as the father and elder brother had moved into their ownflat.  But our claim was turned down inSpring, 1992.  We then filed a complaintwith the Highest Administrative Court, which in 1993 also turned us down.

In 1993 the criminal charges against Thomas weredismissed but the dismissal was appealed by both the public prosecutor and thechild protectors.  The main argument inthe prosecutor's memorandum was the following syllogistic proof: (1) It hasbeen shown that somebody has abused Niko, (2) Niko has spoken about somebodywith the name "Vesa," (3) "Vesa" is the abuser, (4) Nikoknows that pubic hair refers to someone other than a child, (5) there exists noman in the environment with the name "Vesa," (6) therefore the onlypossibility is that the father is "Vesa."

This reasoning was the essence of the case againstThomas.  Even if Niko had never saidthat "Vesa" had sexually abused him, the professionals believed theyhad special knowledge to see behind the words and know the truth.  This is seen in the last statement of theprosecutor in her memorandum: "... cannot be explained in any other waythan by the fact that Vesa and the father are the same person.

In addition, our accusers claimed other"evidence" against Thomas. They said abusers always deny the abuse, so since Thomas denied havingabused Niko, this meant that the accusation was real.  They believed that children never lie about abuse; this was acornerstone of their case.  At the sametime, the fact that Niko never spoke of any abuse at all did not negate abusesince as many as 75% of children, they claimed, do not talk about the abuseduring a formal investigation.  Since itwas unlikely that Niko would talk about abuse, the fact he didn't supportedtheir assumption that the abuse was real.

They interpreted Niko's affection for us as a serioussign of abuse.  During all theinterviews, Niko never went along with M.S.'s attempts to slander hisfather.  This, to them, meant that Nikowas afraid of his abusive father, who had silenced his victim using bribery,threats, and coercion.  They assumedthat Niko did not dare to show his anger against his father and interpretedthis as reflecting abuse.  Thetherapist, in a coalition with the children's home, used these unsupportedbeliefs to bolster the claims and keep the custody order unchanged.

In February, 1994 the appeals court ruled that therewas no conclusive evidence Niko had been abused by anybody.  Since there was no medical proof oreyewitnesses, the only way to find out was by interviewing Niko.  They observed that, although interviewssuggested Thomas knew about the behind games, Niko had not said he played suchgames with his father and it could not be concluded from the interviews that hehad.  Furthermore, the court ruled thatchild protection had no right to see Thomas and since Aulikki was Niko'scustodian at the time legal proceedings were instituted against Thomas, childprotection should have been required to listen to her opinion.

(During the appeals court hearing, M.S. testifiedabout her interviewing techniques.  Shehad learned from the Englishman, Dr. Arnon Bentowin and Professor Tilman Fürness(the main teachers of Finnish abuse education) that the interviewer should askthe child the same question over and over. Only after prolonged repetition of questions and answers should the taperecorder be turned on and the child's statement taken.)

We had filed a new complaint in the civil court; sinceThomas and our older son were not living in the house any more, the return ofNiko to Aulikki should be considered safe. The civil court arranged four hearings, with almost the same witnesseson our part.  On the other side was thestaff from the children's home along with the therapist K.L.  The staff members testified that Niko wasgetting along splendidly, that he wanted protection when his parents came tovisit, and that he was bored by visits from his grandparents.  They said they had planned the room thatNiko was supposed to move into, which had been an older boy's room, but whichwould be vacant after the boy became 18 years of age.  They had planned for Niko to spend his 18th birthday in that roomalso.

Although the older and more experienced children'shome workers had complied in their testimony to the fullest with what thechildren's home expected, a young assistant who had recently been hired told adifferent story.  He testified that Nikooccasionally indeed used foul language as well as played behind games.  According to the other workers this hadstopped completely when he was transferred from Varpula transitory home toTöölö's children's home, but now it was revealed that the other workers hadsome flaws in their recollections.  Whenthe court asked the young worker about Niko's suicidal behavior (this was amajor reason for the restriction of visiting rights, mentioned earlier), herevealed that Niko had said to a fellow inmate, "If you don't give me thatpiece of cake, I'll kill myself"!

Niko's current therapist, K. L., was afraid to speakin court; in fact, she had issued a lengthy statement describing the dangersshe saw in her having to testify.  Shewas certain that this would mean great danger to Niko, because she would revealthings we wanted to keep secret.  Shebelieved we would put heavy pressure on Niko and might even find a way topunish him.

K.L. described how we had abused Niko.  She said that in the evenings we and big brotherput on weird clothes, "the clothes for scaring," after which theabuse started.  Aulikki took a stiletto(a knife where the blade pops out when you push a button), put it into Niko'sanus and threatened to push the button if Niko didn't comply immediately.  Thomas penetrated him from behind, and atthe same time big brother ejaculated into Niko's mouth.  Although Niko said he wanted to go home,K.L. proudly told us in court that she was able to ward off these ugly feelingsby reminding Niko what then would happen, "Don't you remember the scaringclothes?"  For K.L., a frog came tobe a symbol of the male penis.  So itwas hardly surprising that a picture of the frog developed into an overwhelmingsymbol of the abuse.

· After K.L.'s testimony, Aurora doctor A.H. decidedthat Niko's mental and physical health were jeopardized when we learned aboutwhat went on in therapy.  Therefore, sheordered that visiting be radically restricted ' we could visit Niko only onehour and a half each every month, with all telephone calls forbidden.  The chief of the children's home made asimilar decision, according to which all visits by relatives were strictlyforbidden for a month.  The justificationfor this was that Niko now needed to have some peace and quiet.

We Go Public

This was the moment we decided to go public.  A documentary on our case was produced, andduring the fall, three programs about our case were seen by more than 15% ofthe Finnish population.  Severalnewspapers and periodicals wrote extensively about Niko and the proceedings ofour case.  In order to protect Niko, hisname remained a pseudonym, but we surfaced with our faces and first names.  Helsinki's biggest evening newspaperannounced a meeting for people who were willing to fight for Niko to bereturned home.  The next day, after themeeting, we read: "Niko-movement rose against thetreatment-mafia."  This was alsothe first time we appeared with our faces.

After the TV programs the uproar became tangible.  Two of the programs were shown in Parliamentand some bills concerning family law were proposed.  The fact that this was the first time authentic material from theinvestigations was shown may have influenced the massive media attention.  Formerly, such stories had always beenaccompanied with the assumption that there is "no smoke withoutfire."

Probably as result of these developments, the civilcourts rendered their decision in September, 1993.  Our complaint was rejected and the custody decision was enforced,but it was ruled that, if the future evaluations indicated Niko could get alongwith his mother, custody could eventually be returned to Aulikki.  The court also ruled that the restrictionsin visiting rights were illegal; there was no evidence that Niko could notvisit his home and see his parents unguarded.

This ended the three-and-a-half years of fullsurveillance.  Niko started havingleaves on weekends and we took him home every afternoon, returning him to thechildren's home at 7 P.M.  Everybody waswondering, why did he have to go back?

A great dilemma remained.  What to do now?  The civilcourt had turned down our appeal, but Niko should perhaps, eventually, in theend, after some time, in due course, be allowed to be returned to Aulikki.  In this situation child protection acceptedone of our original suggestions ' why not let some impartial experts evaluateus.  We would be alone with Niko in aroom (with a one-way mirror) and everybody could then see for themselveswhether Niko was afraid of us.  We hadsuggested this years ago, but only now was our idea accepted.  So, after some months, six experts summonedthe necessary courage to become members of the team whose aim was to determinewhether we were suitable and whether Niko could return home, and when.

The experts were a psychiatrist, a child psychiatrist,a professor in child psychiatry, a psychologist, a gestalt art therapist, and asocial worker.  These experts met allthe persons concerned in different constellations (Niko, us, children's homeworkers, even the therapist, who very reluctantly agreed to see one of theexperts for a short time).  The work ofthe expert group went on for months. Finally their report was released. They concluded Niko could safely return home and recommended that thistake place when school ended and the summer holidays started (on June 3, 1994).

So Niko's custody order was overturned, although thecourt had not ordered it.  The HighestAdministrative Court handed down its decision one and a half years after Nikohad been returned home.  According tothe ruling, custody should not have been overturned and there had been nogrounds for allowing Niko to return home. In short, the Highest Administrative Court would have kept Niko in statecustody ' probably permanently.

But this is typical of the Finnish society.  Until now, social issues had beenadjudicated according to the proposals of social workers.  In 20 years there had not been one casewhere a social issue had been decided in favor of a citizen, when opposed by thesocial state.  The same applies to theother means of complaint, to which private citizens can resort when theybelieve they have been unfairly treated by officials, namely the Chancellor ofJustice, and the Justice Clerk of Parliament. The private citizen is, especially in social issues, without theprotection of the law.

Analyzing the outcome one might feel inclined to thinkthat justice won in the end and it is certainly heartening to know that we arein the hands of steadfast and unerring officials.  The chilling fact remains, however, that our family was justterribly lucky.  First, we had the luckto meet some experts, attorneys, and other people who used their authority forus, and secondly, Niko was placed in a children's home in the same city wherewe lived.  If he had been placed withfoster parents, perhaps in another place in Finland altogether, we wouldcertainly not have succeeded in getting him home.  The bonds between him and us would have been cut off forgood.  Based on existing figures, it isunderstandable that the child protection feels quite confident in theiractions, even when these are completely outlandish and would never be approvedof in other fields of life.  But now weare already talking about a global problem, as proceedings in other westerncountries can testify.

We Move to Attack

After getting Niko home, we decided to sue theestablishment.  We accused eight workersand the city of Helsinki.  The personssued were doctors V-M.T., A.H. and L.K., psychologists M.S. and P.P., childprotection workers I.E. and T.P., and therapist K.L.  The case has been in court for a year and half now.  The defendants claim that their diagnosiswas, and still is, correct.  Theyadmitted only one slight mistake ' the visiting rights restriction order waswritten on a wrong form.  And, as onelawyer, working for the government, put it, the only mistake made in this wholeprocess was that the investigative material, (i.e. audio- and videotapes) wasgiven to us.

This view reflects the prevailing governmentalposition in issues like these.  Thestate official expressing this view believes abuse investigations should neverbe videotaped.  In an ongoing case inSaarijärvi, the psychologist who formulated the "diagnosis" ofmother-son incest did not video- nor audiotape her interrogations of the child,with the justification that she had to safeguard her own protection by thelaw!  (As we wrote this, we learned thatthe Saarijärvi incest diagnosis and transfer of custody decision was overturnedand the son returned to his mother. This is the first time in Finland that something like this hashappened.  The Niko case has startedsomething, albeit still small.)

According to a renowned professor of law, Hannu TapaniKlami, the threshold when the state can seize a child from its parents shouldbe lower than the threshold to convict a person.  In abuse cases, this means that the child can be taken, even ifthere is not enough evidence to convict the alleged offender.  Also, the time of seizure is important.  According to a judge in the civil court,four years of state custody is usually the maximum.  After this, the child would never be returned to its parents.  Niko was held for three and a half years.

Totalitarianism in Disguise

The situation in the Nordic countries is currentlyvery bad.  In Norway the child can, byforce, be adopted into a foster family after two years of state custody.  Consequently, the family has very minimalchances against the monolith of the state professionals with their associatedagencies.  In the case of foster homeplacements, the parents are likely to face a doomed struggle, not only againstthe state, but against fierce foster parents as well, whose considerable incomeis derived from their foster children. As one foster family father put it, "It's much more remunerative toraise children than to raise pigs ' and much cleaner, too.

On the other hand, Norway is the first country wherethe state institution "child protection" has genuinely started to beevaluated.  For the first time itsstatus has begun to be scrutinized.  InNorway, we encounter many active people, who consider the current state ofaffairs unacceptable and are willing to take action to do something about it.

In Finland, a child politics committee recently produceda memorandum that was heatedly discussed in Parliament.  The proposed remedies to existing childprotection laws are as follows: The means of state seizure of the child shouldbe made easier, which means that the state should have easier access tochildren.  The overturning of a transferof custody decision should be made considerably more difficult, so that whenthe decision to take custody is made, it should become more difficult for theparents to have their child returned to them.

The rationale for this is, why prolong the decisionmaking in the first place, when the child could be placed with foster parentsimmediately?  As the memorandum puts it,we are here talking about the child's whole life.  When we know that parents are not capable of raising theirchildren, it is inhuman of us to let the child grow attached and develop strongemotional bonds towards such people. "The child must have the right to grow a deep love and affectiontowards the foster parents.  It isinhuman to cut such bonds when they have already developed.  Therefore when the child is placed intofoster care this had better be for good," as one of the members of thecommittee rather bluntly put it.

The state may even take a child before the child isborn.  A mother, who is from the lowerstrata in society, and/or intellectually weaker equipped than the averageperson, is persuaded to give temporary custody to the officials.  She is forced to have a caesarean birth sothat she can be sterilized at the same time. This policy has been advocated especially in the northern parts ofFinland.  But now, the Ministry ofHealth and Social Affairs is trying to expand these procedures into nationwidelaw.  According to the Ministry'smemorandum, the right and ability to function as a mother is still, and hasalways been, in the hands and judgment of doctors and social officials.  Often the crucial judgment is provided by adoctor or psychologist, who has not even seen the would-be mother in question.  But this is of little significance, and hashitherto not impeded the sterilization of the mother and removal of thenewborn.

The memorandum also holds that the laws of secrecyshould be altered in a way that would enable the social officials to gainaccess to every piece of information pertaining to the individual inquestion.  This amendment would meanthat all information from every state agency (day-care, school, militaryservice, health services, etc.) would automatically be transferred to the socialauthorities' "central computer" as it were.  This is not a unique proposal. In Norway, the psychiatrist Kari Killen has proposed establishing agiant data-base encompassing the whole history of every individual.  Whenever you need suspects for an abuseallegation (or other alleged crime) you could run the computer starting withthe input "family trouble history."

Finland has been a diligent pupil.  Now we want to establish a child ombudsman,as the experiences in the Nordic countries with the ombudsmen has been sosuccessful and promising.  The ombudsmanwould, as the memorandum states, defend the children against instances wherethey would be at risk, for example in their families.  The children are not, as is stated, the property of theirparents, and the best interest of the child is incompatible with the interestof the parents.  It is interesting toponder what the interest of the parents really means ' is it in the bestinterest of parents to abuse their children? (as opposed to the best interestof the child).  We are dealing with an errorof thought.  Such errors occur when thelanguage used to veil inhuman conduct and strategies by the state is frozen anddescribed as "general clauses" under which any action could be takenand still meet the requirements of the law.

General clauses are extensively used when making newlaws; here, Sweden is the mentor, and Finland the obedient pupil.  In Sweden, the philosopher Axel Hägerströmexpressed his opinion that there exist two kinds of clauses ' those that can beverified or refuted, and those that only express an opinion without thispossibility.  In Hägerström's view, theclauses of the law belong to the second category.  In fact, this made such an impact on the professionals of lawthat they were, in fact, immobilized for decades.

When Secretary of State Carl Lidbom said that the lawsshould reflect and obey the party ideology in power (i.e. jurisdiction shouldnot be autonomous, but follow party ideology), the way was paved for one of themost superbly veiled totalitarian states in the western hemisphere.  Sweden, which was one of the first nationsto sign the European Commission of Human Rights, has been the most frequentstate to violate it with regard to the social sector.  In Sweden, the Social Democratic Parry was in powerintermittently for over 50 years, with virtually no opposition.  The result in Sweden was the highest taxesin the world, the highest youth criminality rates, and an extremely high rateof state children seizures.

This, then, is one important factor when determiningFinland's course.  Another one is theopinions of professors of law.  Asmentioned earlier, the professor of law at Helsinki University, Hannu TapaniKlami, has more than once written that the threshold for the right of the"state" to seize children in the name of the best interest of thechild should be low, as compared to his opinion that the threshold to pass averdict in unclear child abuse accusations should be quite high, i.e. 91%,which is, in fact, a healthy state of affairs.

Best Interests of the Child

The expression "best interest of the child"was coined and developed in Nazi Germany, and further elaborated in the GermanDemocratic Republic, the DDR.  Themajority of officials in Nazi Germany, who chose the Jews for the gas chambers,were incidentally, women.  Both thesehells on earth are now extinct, but many remnants still remain, strong andvigorous.

The rights of the individual against the right of thestate is, of course, at the core of the matter.  Why do so few people take interest in issues like these?  Why are the best judges so easilymanipulated into believing the most outlandish stories by brainwashed childrenand "enlightened" psychologists? Why do so many prosecutors want to put alleged offenders in jail incases where sane judgment would establish innocence beyond reasonabledoubt?  When children are seized fromunsuspecting families, why do so few people believe that the same fate couldbefall them tomorrow?

In the end, abuse accusations are only a small part ofthe heinous arsenal of arms at the state's disposal when kidnapping childrenfrom their parents.  In order to gaintotal control over its members, the state has finally understood that the bestmeans is to attack the family.  Inovertly totalitarian societies, the state does not have to resort to cunning,but may keep its citizens at bay with brute force and terror, but in so-calleddemocratic western societies, the state must resort to more sophisticatedmeans.

When taking a child, the state assumes it is doinggood and believes its interventions should be viewed as the white knight inarmor coming to the rescue of innocent children.  The resulting damage to families is never acknowledged.  If the parents want to fight, they usuallychoose to fight in secret.  This is whatthe state wants ' for the whole tragedy to remain embedded in a veil ofsecrecy.

In the end the family may be destroyed and thechild/children placed into foster homes or institutional care.  Since this ensures the outcome for a myriadof CP employees, in the end, it is all about money.  The state must develop citizens who work hard and pay taxes.  For this, the maintenance of the family maybe an impediment, although the children at least give jobs to the stateofficials.  As we write this, Parliamentfurther cut the revenue for families that want to raise their children athome.  Consequently, you have to putyour child in a day care, so that you can work and pay taxes.  At the same time, the state gains moreaccess to your private life through your children.  As the social legislature in Sweden has formulated it, "Theaim of the day-care system is to be able to X-ray the family."

The latest development here, and which was affected bythe Niko case, is that the forced transfer of custody to the state always shallbe given to a civil court to decide, when the decision formerly has been madeby child protection officials, with the client's right to appeal.  Also, in complicated cases, the child shallbe ordered a "trusted man" to represent the child, because the socialofficials cannot represent it.  What ismissing still, though, is the law.  Onlywhen the criminal law and the European Convention on Human Rights is fullyacknowledged in child protection issues, do we have a chance to bring morejustice into this area.

Postscript

Niko, who has been home now for almost two years, isdoing well in school and has many friends. He doesn't want to talk about the three and a half years he wasseparated from his family.  We believehis extraordinarily strong character kept him from giving in to thefabrications of the therapist and hospital staff.

Our oldest son was unable to cope with the situationand moved to a youth department for adolescents with problems.  Previously an excellent student, the troubleput an end to his motivation and interest and he still has problems withschool.  He now lives in a flat with twoother young people and is doing better. We see him every weekend.

Although we divorced in 1991 under pressure from childprotection, Thomas finally returned home in September, 1995.  Our lawsuit is coming up in May.  Several months ago the public prosecutorsuddenly ordered a police investigation into our case.  He said that since our suit is of suchtremendous social importance, he wants to get to the core of the matter.  Therefore, the actions of the officialsinvolved should be scrutinized very carefully. But we are still waiting for this investigation to begin.