2025-09-16 儿童与青少年委员会会议记录伪程序分析

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 与 stk.2，决定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；

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，但认为应当保有见面权。

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。

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，无逐字记录或音频可供核验。

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，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，性质更接近惩罚而非保护。

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 E 系列证据链，用于展示丹麦儿童保护体系中的程序偏见问题。

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) and §105(2), the Committee decided to interrupt all contact between mother and child for two years, with review 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 dated 28 Apr 2023 regarding 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 on 22 May and 21 Aug 2025 that he was “not ready to see mother”;

5) Foster care report dated 30 Jun 2025 says Oscar rarely mentions his mother and keeps distance.

Mother’s statement at the hearing: She objected to the interruption; argued that the criminal judgment was wrong and has been appealed to EU and UN channels; stated that a witness saw Oscar anxious and saying he “cannot see mother”; and maintained that even while respecting the child’s feelings, the right to meet should remain.

(1) Predetermined hearing: The minutes present conviction and diagnosis as settled facts with little scrutiny; the hearing function appears formalized rather than substantive.

(2) Unverified evidence sources: No source, date, institution, or primary medical file is given for the diagnosis; the child’s view is indirectly reported by counsel with no verbatim record or audio.

(3) Proportionality ignored: No justification is given for why supervised visits, letters, or video contact would be insufficient before imposing total interruption.

(4) Translation and communication limits: Although an interpreter was present, no verbatim record exists to confirm accurate understanding and archiving of the mother’s statements.

(5) Punitive review horizon: A direct two-year ban operates more like punishment than protection.

The minutes indicate a decision structure relying on an unverified medical label and an indirect account of the child’s views.

This document is filed as part of the E-series evidence chain to demonstrate procedural bias within the Danish child protection system.