Familievernkontoret Øvre Romerike Glåmdal, avd. Jessheim - Jessheim

Darryl

Very Poor Service. I feel obliged to write a
review to highlight what I've experienced.

I also feel it necessary to mention that I am a male foreigner living in Norway, and as much as I don't want to come to terms with what I'm experiencing, I now have to admit that I feel there is an unspoken bias of discrimination that I am challenged with when I am requesting a basic need of support/guidance from the office in Jessheim.

I am sure that such a reputable organisation would exercise plausible deniability to any claim made against them, and perhaps choose to obfuscate any foul play or wrong doing by masking over flaws in conduct with fabrications such as "professional standards" or "codes of practice".

I will write just one of the barriers that I am being met with from the office to keep things simple. But there is more that I am faced with daily from the system that seems to restrict the rights of individuals, and to refuse offering the services that they claim to provide.

Over the past month I have requested a meeting via video consultation instead of a physical meeting at the office, for very basic reasons. Long distance travel, covering costs involved, amongst personal issues that I will not disclose here.

The request has been refused multiple times. And each time they state it is because the Mother has refused to consent, therefore your right to a video consultation is forfeited. They require both parties to consent. But here is exactly where the problem begins.

I have explained that this makes no real sense, and a bias is implied against one party. The Mother only has a right to consent or refuse her own involvement in our endeavours with the office. What right does she have to decide the fate of my decision? Can the family office not consider applying to the meeting in question, flexibility of choice simultaneously? Mother in person, Father via video, and Mediator between?

And for the purposes of clarity, do I not have the right to decide over my own needs or requests in my dealings with them?

Do I not control my own participation in any agreement made between us? I do not understand the logical fallacy here.

A basic understanding of rights suggests that I do at all times have the same rights as anyone else acting within the legal/lawful parameters in any democratic country.

So how then can a company that offers parents a service in bridging the effective communication skills necessary, deny access of such a simple need in 2022?

I suggest that the office workers who read this review, remember that they are offering a public service.

Meaning that therapists, administration, management are required to facilitate simple solutions for individuals that ask for the support necessary to act as mediators between parents, when communication is difficult between parties. To meet the desired needs of BOTH is of utmost importance surely?

I am now suspicious of the matter at hand, I'm distressed, and as a consequence I am reaching my own conflicted conclusions. It is only because I want to be with my Son. And for this to happen quickly I need a prompt change in treatment, and for my voice to be heard.

So please take CAUTION.

If you are male, a foreigner, and have low income. BE WARNED! You might be judged harshly, with disdain and may perhaps be treated according to the whims of ignorant, unhelpful, uncooperative individuals with little regard for the true welfare, or right to so called support. This is pure conjecture, but I can't see why such rigid inflexibility is being applied to this situation. What valid reasoning can explain such negligence?

Perhaps I'll organise a meeting at another family office, though now I admit that I am hesitant to be met with the same problem. It is after all, exhausting.

funkycarjente 8.