Read One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway for Free Online Page B

firm conviction that if Wenche Behring is not qualified to look after Anders without the intervention of child protection agencies, then there are in fact very few, if any, mothers in this country qualified to raise their children independently,’ he wroteto the child welfare authorities.
    There was no more the specialists at the centre could do. They were not authorised to take any formal steps; only the child welfare department could take such action.
    The serious concerns of the Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry now had to be weighed against a new assessment from the Vigeland Park nursery, which referred to Anders as a ‘cheerful, happyboy’. Jens Breivik complained that the assessment had come from the pen of a nursery employee who was a friend of Wenche’s.
    When the Child Welfare Board held its hearing to consider whether Anders should be taken into care, Wenche arrived well prepared at the Vika social services office, along with her lawyer. He stressed that Anders’s mother had now recovered from the short-lived crisis thathad resulted from her difficult divorce. The officer originally handling the case had left, and the young replacement had scarcely any experience of child welfare issues and had never been called before the board before. When she attended the meeting she had not worked on the case beyond reading the papers. It proved an uncomfortable experience for the young welfare officer, who felt she had beenthrown to the wolves.
    It was only on specific and very serious grounds such as battery, abuse or obvious neglect that legal authority could be granted under the Child Welfare Act for the enforced placement of a child in a foster home. Social services suggested a compromise. The family would be monitored for the time being.
    Three checks were carried out, one with notice and two unannounced, inthe winter of 1984. The social welfare office report of these visits to Silkestrå ran as follows: ‘The mother appeared organised, tidy and in control, easy to talk to, calm and unruffled regardless of the subject under discussion. The girl was calm, well behaved and watchful. Anders was a pleasant, relaxed boy with a warm smile that immediately makes one like him. During conversations in the homehe sat up at the table, busy with games, plasticine or Playmobil toys.’ The report also said that not a single cross word was exchanged between the family members. Anders was never whiny or obstructive. ‘The mother never changes her expression and does not get upset if difficult situations arise with Anders. She speaks calmly and Anders accepts her instructions and does as she says.’ The only reservationexpressed by the home visitor from social services was that the children’s mother had sent them out for pizza, although they were ‘possibly a bit young to run that sort of errand, and one might add that pizza can scarcely be called a nutritious meal’.
    At the very end, the home visitor did say there could be grounds for concern about how the mother might cope with potential crises in the future,but this in itself was not considered sufficient to warrant removing the boy from his mother’s care.
    Around midsummer 1984, when Anders was five, the child welfare board in Oslo reached its unanimous verdict:
    ‘The necessary conditions for taking the child into care have not been met. Case dismissed.’

 
Peeing on the Stairs
    What a little brat, thought a young mother from one of the neighbouring staircases, who had tried yet again to get a hello out of Anders. He never responded, just looked away or turned aside.
    Oh well, she thought, and went on her way.
    Anyone watching the children at play would notice the boy who was nearly always by himself. He would observe from the sidelines, neverget involved in anything. But the busy parents had enough to do keeping track of their own kids. The gardens and pathways round the blocks of flats at Silkestrå were teeming with children.
    Then, something new