Our babies were taken after 'biased' parenting test
Danish authorities are using psychological and trivia-style “parenting tests” to decide whether newborns, particularly those of Greenlandic Inuit parents living in Denmark, should be taken into state care, prompting outrage over racism, colonialism and human-rights violations. Commenters question the scientific validity and cultural bias of tools like Rorschach inkblot tests and questions about Mother Teresa or the speed of sunlight, arguing they have little to do with parenting ability. Many also highlight historical parallels with child-removal policies against Indigenous peoples in Canada, the U.S. and Australia, and cite research suggesting foster care often produces worse outcomes than leaving children with even troubled birth families.
Overall reaction
- Most commenters express shock, anger, and disgust that such tests are used in 2025, describing the policy as dystopian, barbaric, and a human-rights violation.
- Several note this would be treated as a major scandal or investigative exposé in other countries.
Nature and validity of the tests
- The tests are widely criticized as irrelevant to parenting: trivia (“Who is Mother Teresa?”, “How long does sunlight takes to reach Earth?”), math questions, Rorschach inkblots, and playing with dolls while being scored on eye contact.
- Multiple commenters argue this is not even “pseudoscience” but closer to game-show trivia or old voter literacy tests used for discrimination.
- The fact that tests are not in parents’ native language is seen as a major, likely intentional, bias.
- Some note defenders claim the tests are more “objective” than social worker judgement, but critics counter that neither are predictive of parenting quality.
Colonialism, racism, and cultural bias
- Strong consensus that this echoes historic colonial practices: Native child removals in the US, Canada, Australia, “Stolen Generations,” residential schools, and Nordic policies toward Sami and Inuit.
- Commenters see cultural bias baked into the design (e.g., Rorschach response about seal gutting called “barbaric”), implying a standard of “civilised” Danish behavior.
- Clarified that these cases involve Greenlanders living in Denmark, but framed as part of a broader colonial relationship.
When should the state remove children?
- Many argue removal should be an absolute last resort, limited to clear, immediate danger, never based on intelligence or cultural conformity.
- One long subthread cites research (linked in the discussion) claiming outcomes in foster/state care are generally worse than even abusive birth homes, and that institutional settings can increase risk of violence and sexual abuse.
- Others push back with personal examples of extreme abuse where removal seemed unequivocally necessary, leading to a tense debate with no consensus.
Responsibility and systemic issues
- Some call for punishment of participating psychologists; others argue lawmakers and policy designers are more culpable, though “just following orders” is rejected by several.
- A few blame “big government overreach,” while others emphasize that the core issue is specifically colonial racism, not generic state size.