By John Davidson
February 25, 2025
Nearly a year after Norway’s child welfare authority, Barnevernet, forcibly removed Monica and Petter Drexel’s children, new details from their attorney, Barbro Paulsen, reveal a case riddled with legal and procedural failures. In an email to this journalist today, February 23, 2025, Paulsen asserts: “The official justification for the emergency removal was an alleged lack of schooling. However, this reasoning does not hold up to scrutiny. The youngest child was not even of school age. The 8-year-old was homeschooled with full approval from Norwegian education authorities and under the supervision of a government-appointed monitor. Despite this, child welfare authorities removed the children by force, even though no neglect had ever been established.” She adds, “Norwegian law stipulates that support measures must be attempted first before authorities can resort to drastic actions.”
Contact the Norwegian Embassy to demand the
family be reunited and Barnevernet reformed.
Petter Gunnerud & Monica Drexel, daughters Iris and Saga
Case # BIN-2024 / 001132
Phone: +1 (202) 333-6000
E-mail: emb.washington@mfa.no
The ordeal began on March 5, 2024, in Tynset, when eight officials raided the Drexels’ vacation rental. In a July 2024 interview with me, Monica recounted: “They took our children from this place. It turns out that our children had been outside in the garden. They were playing in the snow during daytime.” She explained the trigger: “Some neighbors, they usually do this as an anonymous report of a message of concern… these people are not at school during daytime and I have to report them.” The children, aged four and eight—Saga and Iris—were seized despite Saga’s approved homeschooling and Iris not being of school age.
Paulsen’s update today exposes deeper flaws. On visitation, she writes: “The child welfare authorities have justified denying parental visitation by claiming that the parents might abduct their children. Legally, this argument is untenable, as the child welfare system has full access to law enforcement and a wide range of coercive measures at its disposal to prevent such an event.” She attributes the escalation to “a catastrophic breakdown in communication between caseworkers, lack of wisdom and knowledge, combined with institutional cowardice—both within the child welfare system and among those who submitted anonymous concern reports.” Most alarmingly, she warns: “The case must first go through all legal instances in Norway… Once all national legal avenues have been exhausted, the case can be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In an optimal and expedited scenario… it may take around two years to complete the entire process nationally… a final decision could take an additional 3–5 years… During this prolonged legal battle, they grow up not with their parents, but in foster homes or institutions.” She notes Barnevernet “can retain custody of children indefinitely if they determine that the conditions for returning the child to their parents are not met.”
Due process has crumbled, Paulsen asserts: “The parents have been systematically denied the right to have support persons and witnesses present during all legal proceedings, effectively leaving them isolated in their fight against the system… Objectively, completely independent of any opinions one might have about the parents, their right to contradiction and participation in the process has been severely lacking and unworthy of a constitutional state and an allegedly democratic society.” Monica confirmed this in July: “They got so very scared of this person [our witness]. So they said, we will not have any meetings with this person in this room.” She added, “They have blocked all our contact with our children,” including separating Saga and Iris—news learned from a stranger, not officials.
The emotional toll is profound. Monica described Iris in July: “Yes, especially our four-year-old was completely changed. It was very hard to get her to speak. I think she has almost given up talking. For some reason, she has lost a lot of her words, and she has also changed her personality.” She detailed visitation: “We’ve seen them twice since March. And then when we got to see them, this was for three hours. And they had two people watching over us that were supposed to make sure that we don’t say anything to our children that we are not allowed to talk about. So they basically make it impossible to talk about anything because you are afraid that they will just throw you out there at any time you say something wrong.” I remarked then, “They didn’t ask anything. They just grabbed them,” reflecting their account.
Paulsen ties this to a pattern: “This case is not unique, although it surpasses most I have encountered in its severity.” Over the past decade, Barnevernet has faced scrutiny. In 2015, the Bodnariu family’s five children were taken over alleged corporal punishment, returned in 2016 after protests BBC News, “Norway’s Barnevernet,” April 13, 2016. In 2011, Sagarika Chakraborty’s children were seized, regained in 2013 after India’s intervention Firstpost, “What is Barnevernet,” March 17, 2023. In 2019, Amy Jakobsen Bjørnevåg lost her son Tyler over his weight, sparking U.S. outcry CBN News, “Norwegian Nightmare,” July 17, 2019. The ECHR has ruled against Norway in over 24 cases since 2015 Anadolu Agency, “Norway’s child welfare agency,” undated.
Monica’s July account aligns with Paulsen’s critique: “There was no investigation whatsoever,” she said of a pre-raid visit. “They had decided in advance that they would give us no notice of anything.” Petter alleged financial motives: “In the city of Tynset, they’ve been taking 4% of all the children living in the area,” with “$60,000 a year, a child” and bonuses for fabricated diagnoses. A 2018 letter from 170 Norwegian professionals called Barnevernet “dysfunctional” BBC News, “Norway’s Barnevernet,” April 13, 2016.
Paulsen stressed invisibility: “I believe that, if this case had taken place in the United States, I have no doubt that it would have attracted significant media scrutiny and legal challenges. However, in Norway, where the child welfare system operates with minimal accountability and little external oversight, such cases often unfold behind closed doors—far from public awareness.” She added, “This case has received no media attention in Norway,” a trend worsened since March 2020. The legal fight, now at the District Court after a February 14, 2025, County Board ruling, could stretch years. “They are working as hard as they can to write the family members as much as they can, as fast as they can,” Monica feared in July.
The Drexels’ homeschooling—rejecting “pride, and the transgender ideology” and COVID testing—made them targets, Petter noting Norway’s 400 homeschooled kids and “almost 40 cases” at the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) . Monica sees a wider threat: “It is actually because of our thoughts and our speech.” Courts dismissed their children’s pleas because “they have the wrong opinion.” “If they crack down on homeschooling like this and they can do so without being held accountable in any way, then what’s going to be the next level of control?” She urged: “Be very, very careful to set your foot in Norway these days.”
The Drexels’ Legal Rights
Paulsen’s revelations clarify the Drexels’ legal rights, many of which appear violated. Under Norwegian law, they’re entitled to support measures before removal, a step Paulsen says was skipped: “Norwegian law stipulates that support measures must be attempted first before authorities can resort to drastic actions.” They have a right to due process, including support persons and witnesses, yet “have been systematically denied” this, breaching both national law and the European Convention on Human Rights’ Article 6 fair hearing guarantee. Article 8 protects their family life, undermined by the unproven removal and denied visitation—Monica noting, “Normally you are allowed to see, or you should be, according to the law, allowed to see your children every week in this period after, it’s called an emergency decision,” yet they’ve had only two visits. They can appeal through Norway’s courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—an international court in Strasbourg enforcing the Convention, which has ruled against Norway in over 24 similar cases—a right they’re exercising, though Paulsen warns of a 5–7-year timeline. Their children’s right to be heard under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is dismissed, as courts reject their desire to return home because “they have the wrong opinion.” These rights highlight the systemic failures Paulsen decries.
Having covered this case for seven months, I’ve seen the Drexels’ resilience amid anguish. Paulsen’s revelations today amplify their story, echoing a decade of Barnevernet controversies. “It seems like it’s all a theater,” Monica said. How many more will suffer before accountability prevails?
Barnevernet is in the process of a lawsuit by one family who documented and secretly recorded deception by representatives from the organization. Another case involving Barnevernet was made into a movie on Netflix called “Mrs. Chatterjee vs Norway”.
John Davidson is a journalist and director.
Cited Stories on Barnevernet Issues (Past 10 Years)
Bodnariu Family (2015-2016): Five children removed over alleged corporal punishment, returned after protests. BBC News, “Norway’s Barnevernet,” April 13, 2016.
Sagarika Chakraborty (2011-2013): Children taken, returned after India’s intervention, inspiring Mrs. Chatterjee vs Norway. Firstpost, “What is Barnevernet,” March 17, 2023.
Amy Jakobsen Bjørnevåg (2013-2019): Son taken for being underweight, raising U.S. concerns. CBN News, “Norwegian Nightmare,” July 17, 2019.
ECHR Rulings (2015-Present): Over 24 cases, including a 2019 Article 8 violation. Anadolu Agency, “Norway’s child welfare agency,” undated.
An updated cut of our award-winning documentary “Epidemic of Fraud” was recently released. Learn how the people who helped bring fentanyl to the market tried to convince the American people that a drug similar to tonic water was deadly. With new updates, statistics, and retractions sprinkled throughout, it’s a movie anyone concerned with medicine, media, and public policy should see.
Watch now.
Share this post