机构与时间：哥本哈根市 Børne- og Ungeudvalget（儿童与青少年委员会），2025-09-16。 出席：主持法官 Louise Rask Havegård、记录员 Katrine Nielsen、两名市政成员、两名儿童心理专家；涉案儿童：Oscar Dan Li（2015-05-12）。 到场情况：Beizi Li 到场并有口译；父亲及其律师未到（有书面）；儿童律师 Ellen Bleeg 到场；Oscar 未到。 会议结果：依据《Barnets lov》§105 stk.1 nr.2 & stk.2，在未来两年内中断母子全部联系，复审期限设为两年。 记录列示的主要理由： 1) Oscar 自 2022-04 起寄养，2022-11 起已停止接触； 2) 记录称 2023-04-28 母亲因 2021–2022 年所谓“性侵”被定罪（委员会据此采信）； 3) 记录称母亲被“诊断为偏执型精神分裂、缺乏病识感”； 4) 儿童律师转述：2025-05-22 与 2025-08-21 的谈话中，Oscar 表示“尚未准备好见母亲”； 5) 2025-06-30 寄养报告称 Oscar “很少提到母亲，倾向与母亲保持距离”。 母亲在会上陈述：坚决反对中断；指出刑案判决错误并已向欧盟与联合国申诉；转述有目击者称 Oscar 紧张并说“不能见妈妈”；表示尊重孩子意愿，但认为应当有见面权。

1）预设结论的“听证”：记录以既定口吻陈述“定罪/诊断”，缺少实质质询；听证功能被形式化，目的在于合法化既判立场。 2）证据来源未核实：所谓“精神分裂”未给出来源、日期、机构与原始医学文件；儿童意见为律师间接转述，无逐字记录/音频以供核验。 3）比例原则缺位：未论证为何监督探视/书信/视频等较轻措施不足以保护儿童，即径行采取全面中断。 4）翻译与沟通限制：虽有口译，但无逐句记录；无法确认发言被准确理解与归档。 5）复审期限的惩罚化：直接设“两年”封禁期，性质趋近惩罚而非保护。

该会议记录显示：决定在听证前即被预设；以未核实的医学标签与间接转述的儿童意见作为关键依据；程序设计倾向情感性惩罚而非最佳利益评估。此文件纳入 Z/E 系列证据链，用以证明丹麦儿童保护体系的系统性程序偏见。

Body & Date: Child and Youth Committee (Børne- og Ungeudvalget), City of Copenhagen, 16 Sep 2025. Attendees: Presiding judge Louise Rask Havegård, clerk Katrine Nielsen, two municipal members, two child-psychology experts. Child: Oscar Dan Li (2015-05-12). Presence: Beizi Li attended with an interpreter; the father and his counsel were absent (written submission filed). Child’s lawyer Ellen Bleeg attended; Oscar was absent. Outcome: Under Barnets lov §105(1)(2) & §105(2), the Committee decided to interrupt all contact between mother and child for two years, with a review set after two years. Main reasons as recorded: 1) Foster care since Apr 2022; contact stopped since Nov 2022; 2) Record relies on a criminal conviction (28 Apr 2023) concerning alleged acts in 2021–2022; 3) Record states a diagnosis of “paranoid schizophrenia” and “lack of insight” for the mother; 4) According to the child’s lawyer, Oscar said in talks (22 May & 21 Aug 2025) he was “not ready to see mother”; 5) Foster care report (30 Jun 2025) says Oscar rarely mentions his mother and keeps distance. Mother’s statement at the hearing: She objected to the interruption; argued the criminal judgment is wrong and has been appealed to EU/UN; a witness saw Oscar anxious saying he “cannot see mother”. She respects the child’s will but insists on the right to meet.

(1) Predetermined hearing: The minutes present conviction/diagnosis as settled facts with little scrutiny; the hearing served to formalize a pre-set outcome. (2) Unverified evidence sources: No source/date/institution or primary medical file for the diagnosis; the child’s view is indirectly reported by counsel with no verbatim record/audio. (3) Proportionality ignored: No justification why supervised visitation / letters / video are insufficient; the Committee jumped to a total interruption. (4) Translation & communication limits: Although an interpreter was present, there is no verbatim record to ensure accurate understanding and archiving of the mother’s statements. (5) Punitive review horizon: A straight “two-year ban” operates more like punishment than protection.

The minutes indicate a pre-set decision relying on an unverified medical label and an indirect account of the child’s views. The design functions as emotional/punitive control rather than a best-interests assessment. This document is filed as part of the Z/E-series evidentiary chain to evidence systemic procedural bias in Danish child protection.