By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Danish authorities removed Ivana Nikoline Brønlund’s one-hour-old baby after she underwent “parenting competence” tests, despite a new law prohibiting these tests on individuals with Greenlandic backgrounds. Brønlund, who was born in Greenland, was told her baby was removed due to past trauma, and that she was “not Greenlandic enough” for the law to apply. The municipality admits to process faults, while the case has ignited protests and calls for government intervention to reunite mother and child. Campaigners argue the use of these tests is culturally insensitive, and the case mirrors previous instances of Greenlandic children being separated from their mothers.
Read the original article here
Protests as newborn removed from Greenlandic mother after ‘parenting competence’ tests, it’s a headline that immediately grabs your attention, isn’t it? The words alone paint a picture of potential injustice and overreach. It’s hard not to feel a pang of outrage when you hear a newborn is taken from their mother, especially when the rationale involves something as subjective as “parenting competence” tests. It seems like a modern-day tragedy unfolding.
The whole idea of these “parenting competence” tests feels inherently flawed, and almost certainly, as the analysis indicates, culturally biased to the point of being outright racist. Consider the examples given: questions about the material glass is made of, or the “big steps” in Rome. What do these things have to do with a parent’s ability to love, nurture, and care for a child? Someone pointed out that these types of questions appear to assess a Western-style education, and quite possibly, even a Eurocentric one. If you’re not well-versed in those specific areas, does that automatically make you a bad parent? Absolutely not.
It’s also worth considering other examples, like the psychological assessment involving a doll. This one is really tricky. The idea of being observed while interacting with a doll as an adult, with your performance being judged, is an anxiety-inducing scenario. Would you act naturally? Or would you freeze up? The mother herself, as in the case that generated the article, may have never even had any dolls as a child. The whole process feels designed to set someone up for failure, not to evaluate their genuine parenting potential.
It really does highlight the inherent cruelty in such a process, especially when it leads to separating a mother from her newborn, which flies in the face of all current research. The ideal is for a baby to be with their mother; separation should be the absolute last resort.
The information available about the case is limited, but it seems as though there was no attempt to offer support or guidance to the mother. No parenting classes, no mentor, no caseworker to help this young woman navigate this incredibly challenging new experience. Instead, the authorities preemptively removed her child, denying her any real chance to prove herself and create a family.
The situation unfortunately doesn’t appear to have anything to do with any tangible danger. Instead the article appears to suggest the authorities took the baby away because the mother had been a victim of child abuse. Instead of providing support and guidance, the state became the aggressor and inflicted more trauma.
The very fact that a new “parenting competency test” was being developed to account for cultural differences for Greenlandic mothers, but was then scrapped, adds to the confusion. Was this a true commitment to fairness, or just another bureaucratic maneuver? There’s a sense that the system is designed to fail certain groups, and now the testing is “outlawed”. But they still removed the baby.
It does raise the question of the role of social services and the potential for overreach. We are led to believe that the mother is being deemed unfit before she has had the opportunity to even begin parenting. We also have no idea what really is happening; social services must keep details private and the story we get is only from the side of the mother.
While there may be valid reasons to remove a child from a parent, that is not the story here. Maybe there are problems. But there are also examples of people with a file with social services, along with her mother and grandmother. Even more so with intergenerational abuse. But it is not just a case of removing a child; it’s the manner in which it’s done and the potential for bias and cultural insensitivity.
The details are sparse in the reporting, so it’s impossible to know everything that is happening. However, from the facts that we do have, the whole thing is highly questionable and feels terribly wrong. It’s a powerful reminder that even in the most advanced societies, systemic issues can lead to situations that are ethically and morally reprehensible.