Parents lose custody of Nazi-named children

[charlie and algernon]

HOLLAND TOWNSHIP, N.J. - Three New Jersey siblings whose names have Nazi connotations have been placed in the custody of the state, police said Wednesday.

Holland Township Police Sgt. John Harris said workers from the state Division of Youth and Family Services removed 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell and his younger sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, from their home Tuesday.

Harris said family services did not tell police the reason the children were removed. Agency spokeswoman Kate Bernyk said it does not comment on specific cases.

The children and their parents, Heath and Deborah Campbell, received attention last month when a supermarket bakery refused to put Adolf Hitler Campbell's name on a birthday cake.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28655143/?GT1=43001


Yay for New Jersey!

[Shell Beau]

1. Go figure!

[Sanity Claws]

2. I don't know how to feel about this

I'm appalled how these parents named their children but I'm also appalled by the state taking children from the parents, unless I hear good reasons to suspect abuse or neglect.

[DarkTirade]

3. I think in this case they're just worried that the parents are incapable of rasing the children.

Which is probably a pretty easy thing to argue. Parents like these are gonna fuck up their kids, even if they don't 'abuse' them per se.

[LynneSin]

6. Well there are alot of parents out there incapable of raising kids

Bad naming is not a reason to take those children away from their parents.

[DarkTirade]

32. Of course bad naming isn't a good reason.

But it's certainly enough to catch the eye of somebody in child services and make them say, "Wait a minute... if they're doing something this crazy, WTF else are they doing with their kids?"

I just hope they actually found something before they grabbed the kids, otherwise there'll be a mess of lawsuits on their hands.

[WolverineDG]

12. If the only thing they have on these folks is what they named their children

it's BS to remove them. Unless, of course, you're okay with the government having a say-so in what you name your children.

dg

[DarkTirade]

34. ... and you are reading WAY too much into what I said.

And nothing out of what I actually said.

[WolverineDG]

35. "I think in this case they're just worried that the parents are incapable of rasing the children."

So now the state can just be "worried" about how you're going to raise your kids based on what you name them & you're okay with removing children based solely on that?

Nope, I didn't read too much into what you said.

dg

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Danger Mouse]

41. I think it could be argued that naming your child 'Adolf Hitler' is child abuse.

[WolverineDG]

44. Then you're not a democrat or a progressive

if you support the government stepping in & seizing kids based only on that criteria.

dg

[philosophie_en_rose]

46. Do you think there's a limit at all?

I don't know about seizing the kids, but should the government accept any name? Should a parent be able to name their kid something truly disgusting?

[WolverineDG]

51. First Amendment

if you let the government have a say in what you name yourself or your children, where do you stop the intrusion?

dg

[Danger Mouse]

56. Free speech has its limits.

Should a parent be allowed to name their kid 'Kill Obama' or something along those lines?

[WolverineDG]

64. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

(Ben Franklin)

dg

[philosophie_en_rose]

68. Really?

There is a lot of grey area, but you can ban drunk driving without banning cars. You can ban harassment without preventing criticism. There are lines everywhere. Naming a kid the formula for meth or something obviously harmful is not at all like fighting a revolution.

[WolverineDG]

71. Strawman

Sorry, not going to fall for it. It's funny how this site where we've bemoaned the police state for so many years (Patriot Act, etc) is all set to let the government take someone's kids just because they don't like what they named them. :eyes:

dg

[Danger Mouse]

74. So you would be okay with a kid being named 'Kill Obama' or something like that?

I'm pretty sure the Secret Service would disagree with you.

[philosophie_en_rose]

67. Then no limits at all, then?

Interesting. You think someone should be able to name a child Rapey McPedophile or Nwords Die or Imma Terrist or whatever?

[WolverineDG]

72. Strawman nt

[ikojo]

81. I work for an insurance company....so I see a lot of names

Do you think it's cool to name a child nevaeah (heaven backwards?). There are A LOT of oddly named kids out there who will have a hard time spelling their names.

[Danger Mouse]

54. A child can't choose their name. A name like Adolf Hitler is irresponsible and cruel.

That child will not have any friends. That child will be ostracized by peers at best.
I'm not saying that should be the sole criteria, but I do think it could be argued that such a name is child abuse.
The First Amendment has its limits. If a person decides to call THEMSELF something like 'Aryan Nation' or 'Adolf Hitler' that's fine, they're an adult and can make a their own choice.
A kid isn't so lucky. They get stuck with what they're given. Therefore, I think that there should be some sort of intervention in cases like this.

[LoZoccolo]

57. What about hippies and the goofy names they give their kids? n/t

[Danger Mouse]

58. I think 'stupid' is different from 'offensive and potentially dangerous'.

A kid with a name like 'Sunflower Moonbeam' may be picked on, but a kid with the name 'Adolf Hitler' is going to be a guaranteed punching bag.

[LoZoccolo]

62. Someone out there thinks that it's potentially dangerous to give a kid...

...some commie hippie name that will turn them into a wimp when we are trying to keep America strong.

[philosophie_en_rose]

69. Someone out there will want to name their kid the formula for meth.

:shrug:

Is it in the child's best interest to be called "Adolf Hitler." There are lots of Adolfs in the world, but they insist on the middle name.

[WolverineDG]

73. And so what if they did?

If they don't abuse or neglect their child, what business is it of yours (or the government's) to have a say-so in what they name their child?

dg

[Danger Mouse]

75. If that kid is regularly beaten in school because of their name...

how is that NOT abuse on the part of the parent?

[WolverineDG]

78. I'd say it's more of a discipline problem in the school

than abuse on the part of the parent.

dg

[Danger Mouse]

82. Anyway, I never said that a name is the only reason the children were likely taken...

just that it gives us a pretty good idea that they are shitty parents.
Cause giving your kids name like that is just plain shitty parenting.

[WolverineDG]

85. Well just because you think it,

doesn't mean it is. Good thing CPS can't yank kids just because of their names (but I'm sure they'd love to have that authority).

dg

[Danger Mouse]

87. You think naming a kid 'Adolf Hitler' is somehow good parenting?

Do tell.

[WolverineDG]

89. Oh jeez

I see you're one of those "do gooder" types who don't care how fascist you become so long as it's "for the children." :eyes:

Doesn't matter what I would or would not name my own child. What matters is that you would take a child into state custody simply because you didn't like the name the parents chose. You label parents as "unfit" based on your own prejudices & bias, not on whether or not the child was actually physically abused or neglected.

dg

[Danger Mouse]

94. Yuck. You know nothing of my opinions or beliefs.

I work with abused kids. And I think we don't do ENOUGH to take kids away from abusive parents. In fact, you'd be surprised how difficult it is at times, even when there is flagrant abuse going on.
I never said I thought the names of the kids was ENOUGH to have them taken from their parents, just that it sure raises some red flags about the parents. That's all.

[WolverineDG]

65. So why should we leave it up to you or anyone to decide

which names are "Offensive & potentially dangerous" ( :eyes: ) & which are "stupid?"

dg

[ikojo]

80. If the government can remove children for odd

names, there are a lot of kids who should be in foster homes! Some names I cannot pronounce until I hear it from the parents.

[crimsonblue]

76. being a shitty parent doesn't make one unqualified.

I'd be surprised if there isn't some other reason that the cops and child protective services (or whatever they call it down there) took the kids away. If it is simply because of the child's name, then the police department better be prepared for a lawsuit they will lose. I bet the ACLU would even take up the case.

[Jamastiene]

61. They said they didn't take the kids because of the names, but

would not tell why they DID take them. So, they jury is still out on that one really.

[WolverineDG]

66. But if that is the only reason they took them

it's BS. If there are allegations the children are in immediate physical danger, that's another thing.

dg

[Lorien]

95. It wasn't. They are probably safeguarding the children's privacy

by not stating publicly why they were removed from the home. The parents obviously have issues, so it could be any number of reasons.

[philosophie_en_rose]

70. Child abuse cases are often private.

Medical records and that kind of thing.

[Pacifist Patriot]

84. I am with you. Definitely conflicted and totally in need of more information.

With names like that, it is logical to conclude the parents are indoctrinating their children with horribly intolerant beliefs. However, there is nothing illegal about being a bigoted idiot. Definitely a weird situation and a slippery slope. (how I hate that expression by the way)

[LynneSin]

4. I'm not sure how I feel about this

On one hand I think it's wrong to give your kids such vile names. Those kids have to go out into real-life wher names like "Adolph Hitler" and "Aryan Ntion" aren't going to go over well with the rest of society.

HOWEVER....

Other than the names and the fact that the parents are racist - are the kids still in good health and getting fed? New Jersey Child Services has had some embarassing moments like the 3 brothers living with a family that fed the kids nothing more than raw pancake mix. This went on for years until NJCS noticed and got those kids out of the home (btw these were foster kids so NJCS should have noticed something when the boys were all less than normal weight).

[Bucky]

48. If naming your kid "Adolf Hitler" doesn't show reckless disregard for his wellbeing...

...at the very least it raises the question if the child's best interests are being considered.

I agree the name alone isn't grounds for terminating parental rights. I mean, it's not like they named the kid "Sean Hannity." But then, I doubt that that was the only problem you'd find in that household. Once the parents lawyer up, I think the state's case will be adequately put to the test.

[Lorien]

96. They didn't state why the children were removed. nt

[KG]

5. parents should lose custody of their children coz you dont approve of the kids names?

[charlie and algernon]

8. if they're named hitler

that kid is going to get the crap kicked out of him by his classmates because of that name. You could argue that the parent's are indirectly leading to abuse from all the shit those kids are going to get in outside world.

[KG]

11. fail.

[charlie and algernon]

14. lol, that's it?

you don't have a counter arguement, so you just say "fail?" :rofl:

[KG]

19. what's there to argue?

in your obviously limited world view, kids names should be drawn for your pre-approved list, and that violence visited on them because of their names is the parents fault, not the fault of those who would attacked them. good for you, i guess.

[charlie and algernon]

25. so it's ok to name your kid Adolf Hitler?

How about naming your kid Shithead or Asshole or Fuckyou? There should be limits to what we name kids. When was the last time a kid was beaten up because their name was Sean or Katheryn?

[darmok167]

31. Technically, the kids names are Adolf and JoyceLynn Campbell.

Hitler and Aryan Nation are the middle names.

[CreekDog]

40. that's kind of how the "fail" thing works

:rofl:

[Xipe Totec]

53. That's Liaf for you...

:evilgrin:

[Random_Australian]

27. No, the reason wasn't specified. Like the article says, they don't comment

on specific cases so there is no way of knowing.

[MrCoffee]

7. Way to overreach there, New Jersey!

There is no way in hell the state had cause to remove these kids from the home. Sure, the father is a douchebag for naming them the way he did, but that's not grounds for removing them.

Now some neo-Nazi jackass loser asswipe is going to score a big settlement from the state. Smooth move, New Jersey!

[jobycom]

15. I will agree if it turns out that that is the reason they took the kids.

However, at least down here in Texas, social services is rarely so cavalier. They wouldn't take kids without clear abuse (it wasn't CPS who started the stuff with the polygamy cult). So maybe there's abuse that we aren't being told about.

[WolverineDG]

90. LOL yes it was nt

[Midlodemocrat]

23. .

:thumbsup:

I recommended the removal of many children from their homes when I was in practice. This is just wrong, IMHO.

[motely36]

9. Thanks God!

[geardaddy]

10. Why the hell did MSNBC have a video of this?

Showing the kids. That's so wrong.

The parents give their kids horrible names, then MSNBC shows their faces on national TV.

:puke:

[jobycom]

13. I'm assuming it is for some reason beyond the naming and racism. Because I'd hate

to think that the state is going to take kids away because of political, social, religious, or cultural views. I mean, as a flaming liberal atheist vegetarian in Texas, I don't want to think of a government taking kids for political reasons.

The father in this case has had three kids in less than three years, has lied to reporters about the kids (in another interview he claimed the kids were not taken), and seems pretty smart about giving answers people will accept rather than spouting dogma. To me, this would hint at a controlling person whose self-certainty would override anyone else's ideas of right and wrong. That's exactly the type to abuse his kids. So I'm hoping this action is based on clear abuse, not just on a distaste for the views of the parents.

[charlie and algernon]

16. the state has got to be thinking about what they'll face in school and in life

Those kids will be mocked and made social outcasts. Giving those names will lead to emotional and probably physical abuse.

[jobycom]

20. That's no reason. Frank Zappa's kids would have been taken for that.

If that's their only excuse, the sick Nazi bastard needs to own the state when this is over.

I named my oldest daughter after a witch and my youngest after an angry femimist poet. Is that reason? My sister named hers after a country singer. A good one, at least. Yeah, Hitler is way beyond them, but you are talking about degree, not about essence. For everyone, there is some evil figure whose name would offend someone.

Naming is not abuse. There has to be something else. CPS shouldn't be in the business of approving or disproving of parental decisions or lifestyles, they should only be there to step in when a child is in danger--and danger of being picked on in school isn't enough, or none of us are safe.

[charlie and algernon]

26. it's all about degree

you shouldn't able to call your kids hitler, shithead, fuckstick, etc, and any parent that does has problems and you have to question their parenting ability.

[jobycom]

28. If it's about degree, then they can draw the line on the other side of you if they want.

It's never about degree. That's how fascism starts in the first place. Are you a good enough Christian, are you a good enough American, do we approve of the names you've chosen or the church you've chosen or the foods you've chosen or the political party you've chosen. If you aren't afraid of that, then I'm happy for you, because you live in a less scary place than I do.

[charlie and algernon]

30. you make good points, but there are plenty of degrees in society

you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you can't go on national TV and say John Q Congressman is a rapist if you have no proof, nor can a newspaper print that unless that's the last day they want to exist as a newspaper. We live in a democracy with lots of freedoms, yet are still things you absolutely cannot do.

Do you honestly think that a parent who names their kid Adolf Hitler Campbell has the capacity to parent effectively?

[jobycom]

60. Those aren't questions of degree, they are questions of essence.

You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (unless it's true) because you are not trying to express yourself, you are trying to create a panic in which people are expected to get hurt. You actually can call John Q a rapist without proof (the Republicans did it to Clinton), but you can't call him a rapist without proof with intention of malice--again, because the intention isn't to express yourself, but to hurt the Congressman. That's why libel and slander are difficult to prove, as the continued existence of magazines like The National Enquirer and The Washington Post proves--it's difficult to prove that a person made an untrue statement for the purpose of hurting someone.

You can, however, yell "Fire!" if you believe there is a fire, even if it turns out that you were mistaken, and even if people are harmed by your action, because your action in that case was to express a truth to help people, not to harm them (of course, you'd have to have a good reason for believing there was a fire). For that matter, you can yell "Fire!" if there is a fire, even though people may still be hurt as a result of your actions, as they stampede away.

Likewise, if you name your child something you believe is right, and it turns out to have negative consequences anyway, that's hardly grounds to take your child. As for Mr. Campbell's ability to parent effectively, I don't know anything about him except what is revealed by his naming patterns, and while that doesn't inspire confidence, there are a lot of indicators that I believe bode poorly for parenting skills that I would still not use to remove children from parents. Voting Republican. Belonging to a fundamentalist church. Home schooling. Feeding children meat. Owning guns.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are people who believe that I must be a bad parent, as an atheist and a vegetarian and a liberal.

Therefore I don't think any of those "indicators" should be grounds for removing children. Only clear cases of abuse should be, and I hope that's the case. There has to be more than an offensive name. I suspect there was in this case, since the names were so far out as to imply that the man may not be balanced mentally. But the names alone shouldn't be the proof of that.

[CreekDog]

42. I'm thinking about Alec Baldwin now

what did he call his kid? :hide:

[Demoiselle]

38. Don't forget Ima Hogg...

That's right. Papa Hogg named his daughter Ima.
In Texas, Many years ago. She was an oil heiress and a philanthropist and not bitter. Even though
her brothers were given names like William and Michael. Chheesh, not only is ima Hogg child abuse, it's SEXIST child abuse!!
I agree with jobycom...I think that these Jersey people got their kids taken away for some other reason.
It's just coincidence that they made the wire services with the birthday cake thing a few weeks ago.
We'll see.

[Bucky]

49. Of course he named her Ima Hogg to encourage her to get married soon in life

Sadly, once Ima found the right fella, ol' Governor Hogg turned out not to approve of her choice, Mr Robert Slutt.

[mainegreen]

52. Can't be name. Too many people walking around called "Misty Dakota Unicorn Rainbow Fart"

walking around who grew up with their parents with no state intervention.

[Oeditpus Rex]

17. I hope it's for more than just the names

Vile though I think it may be to saddle one's kids with names like that, it's still a free-speech issue.

[BarenakedLady]

18. Those poor kids...all around

:(

[jobycom]

21. yeah, that's the best post on this thread. thanks. nt

[Celeborn Skywalker]

22. Eh.

I don't really agree with this.

[no name no slogan]

24. At first I thought it was Hi Hitler, the KKK guy

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/bigofme.htm
(Ctrl+F on "Klan Attire Requested During Trial", read next paragraph)


But apparently there is no shortage of assclowns in the world

[cynatnite]

29. If parents would name their kids like this, it makes me wonder what else they were doing n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. That's sieg heil-arious.

:hide:

[Bucky]

50. !

:rofl: !

[rcrush]

37. Are they gonna go after that guy that named his daughter Sarah McCain Palin?

Seriously I hope it was for more than just the names.

[Danger Mouse]

43. I'm sure there's more to it than just the names, so people need to cool the knee-jerking. However...

I think naming a child 'Adolf Hitler' is child abuse.

[philosophie_en_rose]

45. There is no way this is just about the names.

If it's just about the names, the dumbass racists will get their children back straight away. It's despicable and abusive and intentional (this isn't just a kid named Adolf or Nazi or another name that isn't meant to be about the Nazis or Hitler), but probably not the kind of abuse that the court can address.

However, I would not be surprised that someone who doesn't understand why people don't just celebrate the name Adolf Hitler might not be quite right in the parenting arena. The courts will decide whether there's enough evidence.

[rug]

47. The parents of Pol Pot Gillespie have cancelled their trip to the Jersey Shore.

[Redstone]

55. Those kids are better off. Their parents are hateful fucking lunatics.

Redstone

[crimsonblue]

77. being a hateful lunatic doesn't make somebody unfit to parent..

if that were the case, then most christian children would be orphans.

[Odin2005]

59. Good. The names given to the kids is itself child abuse.

Call me a totalitarian dickwad if you must, but some people should simply not be allowed to be parents.

[coyotespaw]

63. What about naming your kids Karl Marx Whateverthehell yourlastnameis...

or Josef Stalin Whateverthehellyourlastnameis; or, perhaps even more eerie, George Walker Bush Whateverthehellyourlastnameis. Inability to come up with a decent name does not equal bad parenting.

[wickerwoman]

92. It does equal bad parenting...

it just doesn't equal actionably bad parenting. Just like letting your child scream endlessly in a supermarket is bad parenting, or feeding them nothing but junk food is bad parenting... but not to the degree that they should be taken away from their parents.

I would say naming your kid Adolf Hitler equals emotional abuse but not to the degree that the state should act on it.

It's pretty obvious here that there were other kinds of abuse going on and clearly that's what the state acted on.

[skygazer]

79. Why does everyone assume the kids were taken because of their names?

What a bunch of reactionaries. You'd think none of you had ever experienced the way news outlets sensationalize the news.

I know a lady who drove an Audi. Her child was also taken by CPS. Therefore, they must have taken the child because she drove an Audi. :eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

83. Some people feel the need to feel outraged over something.

:shrug:

[Fire Walk With Me]

86. I, for example, am outraged over your having twice used both the word feel and the word some

in the same sentence.

[Left Is Write]

91. Good question.

The authorities are not releasing the reason for this action. I am operating on the assumption that there is much more going on than the children's names.

[Lorien]

97. They only read the headline then jumped to a conclusion?

hard to say. :shrug:

[stewartcolbert08]

88. WTF

[3dogday]

93. I bet Rick Warren would be happy to look after them

}(