Newborn baby confiscated when mother fails competency test

[MumoftwoNC]

This is in Denmark. I didn't know this was a thing, I'd never heard of this... I'm so upset by it. Does anyone know any more about this? Surely this wouldn't happen in the UK? I thought mums would be given support if they weren't "competent" rather than just have their baby taken into care.

Apologies for the Guardian link which just goes on about the mother's ethnic minority, whereas I think this would be awful regardless of the race of the mum.

Protests as newborn removed from Greenlandic mother after ‘parenting competence’ tests https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/23/protests-as-newborn-removed-from-greenlandic-mother-after-parenting-competence-tests?CMP=share_btn_url

I found another article from January incorrectly saying the tests had been banned.

"According to a 2022 report published by the Danish Institute for Human Rights, 5.6% of children with a Greenlandic background living in Denmark had at the time been placed into care, compared to 1% of those with a Danish background."

Even 1% seems quite high for children who are taken into care??

https://www.euronews.com/2025/01/21/denmark-abandons-controversial-parenting-competency-tests-used-on-greenlanders

That also happens when there's enough evidence pre-birth that the baby will be at serious harm if allowed to stay with its mother/parents. It's rarer because the threshold for proof is higher, as it should be.

I think it’s more complicated than the news reports suggest. As far as I can work out from the various reports the situation is something like this:

• The (18yr old) mother has trauma related to childhood abuse and grew up in Copenhagen having been adopted.

• concerns were raised about her ability to parent safely

• authorities applied a parenting test which is banned for mothers of Greenlandic descent

• mother failed the parenting test and the baby was removed.

applying tests unlawfully is obviously wrong, but it seems it was applied in a case where genuine concern for the babies welfare existed. Additionally the test is banned for mothers of Greenlandic descent because of cultural incompatibility but the mother was not brought up by Greenlandic parents or brought up in Greenland.

I feel desperately sorry for a clearly vulnerable and young mother but where the safety of a baby is a concern then the authorities have to do something.

I haven't read the article for this specific case but I do remember an article a few years ago which basically implied Denmark has a much lower threshold for removal. The case was a danish family who had their children removed and returned after about two years with apparently no real case.

Obviously I don't know how legitimate that was but I remember there was an implication that they had quite high volume of children taken into care.

I'm danish and hadn't heard of this and was shocked to see its really close to where I'm from.
There's definitely institutional racism and prejudice against Greenland and greenlandic people, thiugh I would say most at least younger Danes don't feel that way themselves.
The test seems like a human right violation

I went looking for articles in danish to see if they'd have more information but could mostly find one from November last year about a separate case. I've asked my family if they know anything as I'm curious how it's being portrayed there

Just to add there are mother child homes for parents to get support as it was mentioned in one danish article that she didn't understand why she didn't get a chance there.

Can you find stuff about when the FKU is used for Danish parents , what kind of concerns are raised, outcomes etc? I can’t seem to find much in English and statistics are limited to the disproportionate numbers of greenlandic children taken into care. Do you have any experience of it , its uses , the types of questions?

The main concern seems to be the trauma she has as a result of sexual assault from her adoptive father (that the state gave her into the care of). How ironic.

Good point. That is quite damning. How doubly upsetting for the mum, who must be wary of adoptive parents after her experience.

The thought of my precious children being given up to strangers who might abuse them is just horrific. (I know it's rare.)

I don't know about Denmark but babies are certainly removed at birth here in the UK for safeguarding reasons rather than allowing them to stay with mum with support offered. When I had DS1, on the bay in the postnatal ward was a woman who was waiting for social services to remove her baby in the first 24 hours because she said they "didn't like the dad". I assume there was a history of DV or risk to the baby but she wouldn't get rid of the guy. I felt sad for the baby but relieved when she left as she was aggressive and often shouting at the nurses and had a man with her all the time also shouting down the phone (i assume that was the unsuitable partner).

I watched a documentary a few years ago about an intervention programme to help women who had had multiple babies removed at birth. Will have to see if I can find it.

My understanding is that a FKU which stands for forældrekompetenceundersøgelse which means parenting competence investigation can be used for any parent but they've been used disproportionately and discriminatorily against greenlandic parents and they are measured against a Scandinavian standard and in danish which doesn't take into consideration both language barriers and cultural differences but in fact use them against them.

They not to be used on parents from Greenland anymore it was decided earlier this year but it seems in this case she wasn't deemed greenlandic enough, whatever that means.

Honestly it's difficult finding the facts I find even in Danish its lot of opnion pieces.

My mum knew about it and views them as discriminatory and awful, my sister didn't know and immediately assumed they couldn't be used across the country and I wouldn't be surprised if most Danes would be the same as her.

In addition to stopping use of the tests a team with particular understanding of Greenland is supposed to be helping the local authorities with family cases where greenlanders are involved, but I'm not sure if this has happened yet.

It's hard to get a full picture as the state isn't allowed to comment on specific cases though

Yes, I’ve struggled to find facts too , like when are they used, who undergoes it, why, what exactly they consist of, what is the process etc. I assumed it was because of the language barrier/unavailability in English. You can find a lot of information easily about the process and SS involvement here in the UK. I just wanted to know “more”.

Me too it's really frustrating. I don't understand the why and the what either. I'll have a further look later when my son naps and see if I can find more.

I was also appalled by this story and was wondering who and how to contact to protest it. Very topline research has led to Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, Minister of Social Affairs and Housing, and Sophie Løhde, Minister of the Interior. Haven't tracked down contacts for them yet but will post if so.

For what it's worth, I also asked Chat GPT to put together a draft letter based on the reporting in the Guardian's feature, as well as a point on the well-established links between early life mother/child separation and lasting psychological damage for the child.
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/23/protests-as-newborn-removed-from-greenlandic-mother-after-parenting-competence-tests)

If anyone spots any errors or misinterpretations of the facts in this case, or the two UN citations, of course please shout.

Subject: Urgent Protest and Demand for the Return of Baby Aviaja-Luuna to Her Mother, Ivana Nikoline Brønlund
Dear xxxxxxxxx,
I am writing to express my deep concern and strong protest regarding the recent removal of newborn Aviaja-Luuna from her mother, Ivana Nikoline Brønlund, at Hvidovre Hospital in August 2025. This action—taken only one hour after birth—constitutes a profound violation of both human rights and the principles of cultural respect, justice, and family unity.

It is deeply troubling that this decision was based on psychometric testing without the required consultation with VISO (specialists in Greenlandic language and culture). The subsequent acknowledgment of this failure by Høje-Taastrup Municipality only underscores that Ivana’s fundamental rights, and those of her daughter, have been disregarded.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 7, 8, and 9) guarantees a child’s right to family, identity, and cultural heritage. Similarly, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires that Indigenous communities be fully respected in matters of family integrity and child welfare. Denmark, as a signatory, has a duty to uphold these protections in practice—not only in principle.

Beyond legal and cultural considerations, there is also the well-established body of evidence from psychology and neonatology showing that separating a newborn from their mother immediately after birth causes lasting trauma. Early separation disrupts emotional regulation, and can have profound effects on the child’s long-term sense of safety, attachment, and development. To knowingly impose such harm—without due process and in violation of legal safeguards—is indefensible.

Therefore, I urge for the following:

1. Immediate reunification of baby Aviaja-Luuna with her mother, Ivana Nikoline Brønlund.
2. A transparent and independent review of all procedures followed in this case, with public accountability for failures to uphold legal and cultural obligations.
3. The mandatory inclusion of Greenlandic specialists (VISO) in any and all assessments involving Greenlandic citizens, to prevent repetition of such injustices.
4. Assurance that Denmark will fully comply with its obligations under international human rights law in cases concerning Indigenous families.

This case is being watched not only in Denmark and Greenland, but across Europe and beyond. The decisions you make now will determine whether Denmark is seen as upholding its commitments to justice and equality, or as perpetuating systemic discrimination against Greenlandic citizens.
I urge you to act swiftly and decisively to correct this grave injustice by reuniting Ivana with her daughter.
Yours etc

That is sad, but also wrong that the mother keeps having more.

This story is awful but I agree we don’t know the full story and there might be far more to it.

There’s lots of complex reasons why a child might be removed at birth. In the UK for that to happen for a first child is more unusual but does happen.

These parenting assessments sound absolutely unethical and prejudiced. Intelligence isn’t a marker for whether you can parent in the way they seem to be using it. Parenting assessments will be a mix of practical assessment of ability but also cognitive understanding and information processing.

Can a parent safely feed a baby, can they make sure they have somewhere safe to sleep, do they understand the risks in a home environment or in the community. And that’s just basic physical risks. Do they have adequate support to help them with this? Sometimes the answer is no, they just cannot do it.

Serious mental health issues or learning disability which impacts a parent’s ability to provide safe care. In that situation all possible options for keeping the baby with their parents should be explored but the fact is that some parents are completely unable to parent safely.

Drug and alcohol use is also a factor.

Sometimes there will be concerns about the partner and the risks they pose to the child. Serious domestic abuse history, child abuse, previous removal of children.

If mum can’t/won’t end the relationship or continues to enter relationships with dangerous and abusive men (because it almost always is men) then sometimes the risks are too high to leave the child in their care.

This is difficult because often the support is not sufficient for women in abusive relationships to leave or even to really understand they are being abused. Domestic abuse services have been cut to the bone in some areas and rely on voluntary and charity agencies to function.

It feels cruel and unfair to ‘blame’ the mother and some would see it as punishing her for someone else’s behaviour but the needs of the child have to be paramount. So when support is offered, places in refuge offered, counselling etc and the relationship is still ongoing then the risks are too high for the child.

When you have parents having baby after baby removed, again the reasons are complex. Poor contraception and sexual health support, lack of capacity and understanding, being in abusive relationships and sometimes the hope that it will be different next time.

Most parents don’t plan to parent ‘badly’. I’ve worked with women with so much love for their children and their hearts are broken but children need far more than love. The trauma of having your baby/child removed is horrendous and I have known mothers have several babies and will continue to do so unless they can engage with help or until they can no longer conceive/maintain a pregnancy.

There are services for helping these women but there needs to be more. Mental health support, contraception, trauma therapy, employment and training advice and specialist teams that really understand the complexity and the needs.

If mum can’t/won’t end the relationship or continues to enter relationships with dangerous and abusive men (because it almost always is men) then sometimes the risks are too high to leave the child in their care.

If a man is deemed too dangerous to live with a baby then he should be in prison, end of. Removing the baby should not be the solution to a dangerous man at large. This is the conservative viewpoint, or it's mine at least.

Thank you for sharing this article. I wish you hadn’t used the word “confiscated” in the thread title though. The story itself is bad enough without making the baby sound like an object.

Yes and no. First, you can’t imprison people if they haven’t committed /been convicted of a crime. Some crimes might be historical, but still enough to present a risk to a baby/child, but no grounds for a new arrest. Also some do get imprisoned, then (rightly or wrongly) get released and the mum welcomes back in. A key point here is that in the UK a mum gets A LOT of chances to keep her children if it’s the partner that’s the issue. Sometimes they don’t even have to end the relationship, just keep the man out of her house/away from the children.

OP, another voice to reassure you that your experience would not lead to a baby being removed in the UK. Supporting maternal mental health is a service priority in order to preserve the mother-baby bond.

Also, while in the UK it is social workers who first intervene to take a child into care, ultimately this is decided in court. Social workers have to convince the judge, with evidence, that the birth parents cannot safely raise their child, AND that support will not make a difference.

So when a child is taken into care at birth, and the parents have not been given a chance to parent this child, the burden of proof for the social workers is obviously high. It can't just be, "we suspect this is a wrong 'un". Usually, there will be previous dc taken into care PLUS subsequent refusal or failure to change the original problem, be it violent men, drugs or whatever.

Even then, the legal process takes some time so the mother does have a chance to get her act together. For example, my adopted dd was taken into care at birth and came to me just before her 1st birthday, and social workers told me this was quick. It took another year to finalise the adoption. During the period up to adoption, the birth mother will usually have supervised contact with the child.

None of this addresses racism in Denmark or the UK, but I hope helps reassure you.

In the U.K. at least you cannot put someone in prison for a offence they have not yet committed.

you can remove a child on the basis that the man has committed multiple previous physical or sexual abuse and the woman is not considered capable of keeping the child safe.

there’s a lot of violent men out there. It’s not possible to lock them all up.

I understand that this story has upset you but your argument just doesn’t consider the complexity of situations like this.

In practice, that's quite tricky though.

For a man to be sent to prison, he needs to be convicted of a crime. That requires someone to report the crime to the police, give witness statements, be involved in a trial etc. And then for the accused man to be found guilty - by a jury, or perhaps in Denmark by a prosecutor.

If the crime is domestic violence related, that generally requires the abused woman to recognize that there is abuse, have the freedom and courage to report the abuse and be a "credible" enough witness who is reliable enough to show up in court and get cross examined by an adversarial barrister. Those things are unlikely if the victim doesn't even recognize the behavior as abuse, doesn't want to make a statement because they are too frightened, still wants to be in a relationship with the abuser, can't give a reliable account because they were high/drunk when the abuse occurred etc etc.

In very extreme cases, it is sometimes possible for evidence from other people to be sufficient to bring a case against the abuser, for example through prosecution for coercive control, but in practice it is difficult.

The bar for removing a child from an unsafe situation is lower than the bar for criminal prosecution, partly because the process of getting someone prosecuted for neglect/abuse etc is so difficult unless very serious harm has already happened.

It would be considered shocking if someone clearly unfit to care for a puppy kept on and on being given them, by the local supplier. Presumably a court could instruct that she must not attempt to get another, and the supplier could be notified that the order was in place? There are banning orders to protect unsuitable people getting pets. Why not the same for babies?

A sterilisation, a coil, a contraceptive implant, would be in the interests of all concerned, when repeat-breeders are involved. I.i.r.c., Baby P had a series of older siblings, all in turn 'given support' by social workers until they finally had to give up and remove each of them, which invariably made the mother get pregnant yet again.After killing him, his mother was able to get pregnant yet again, before sentence, calculating correctly that she would have a pleasant extended stay pre and post birth, in the prison mother and baby unit.