Baby Hitler Parents Lose Custody of All Three of Their Kids

[Leefro]

Parents who named two of their children "Adolf Hitler" and "Aryan Nation" lost custody of all three of their children Thursday, even though they say a New Jersey appeals court found no evidence of abuse, ruling the children have been taken away without cause, MyFoxPhilly reports.

“Actually, the judge and DYFS told us that there was no evidence of abuse and that it was the names. They were taken over the children's names,” Heath Campbell told NBC 10 Tuesday.

However, the appeals court ruled last year that sufficient evidence of abuse or neglect existed because of domestic violence in the home, and removed the children from their Philipsburg, N.J.home.

In protest, Heath and Deborah Campbell picketed with three other people outside of child services offices in Flemington, N.J., Tuesday, saying that the state has no right to keep their children away from them now that the court allegedly ruled that the kids were taken away without cause, NBC 10 reports.

The case originated after the local ShopRite refused to decorate a birthday cake for the son, Adolf Hitler Campbell, and reported the incident. Adolf and siblings JoyceLynn Aryan Nation and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie have been in foster care since then.

In January 2009, the Campbells told MyFoxPhilly that Adolf Hitler Campbell is just like any other 3-year-old boy.

"It's not like he's growing up to be a killer or nothing like that," Deborah Campbell said.

"I went to just to get a cake... it was a circus of racism," Heath Campbell added.

At the time both parents acknowledge the hate behind their children's names. But say that was not their intention.

"This is America, they say it's free, you have the right to name your child whatever you want to name your child, no matter what," Heath Campbell said.

The parents say that a judge will decide by early December if the kids will eventually come home

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/baby-hitler-parents-lose-custody-kids-even-though-judge-says-no-abuse/

[Muddy]

Whilst I think these two parents are complete fucking idiots and it was reckless and damaging to stick these kids with these two shit names...

In America our Freedom of Speech can be a double edged sword that every now and then turns around and cuts us...

So on one hand, I agree with the parents rights.. On the other hand I agree with the state, because of the damage and trouble their reckless cavalier attitude with their childrens lives.. This WILL affect them in a major negative light as they get older.. So much for being born with a clean slate and being able to choose your own destiny.. These mother fuckers have already begun to pave the road to failure for these kids to travel down.

[Leefro]

As I stated on my twitter pager it's still a better name than Apple

[Muddy]

I disagree.

[MrsM]

As I stated on my twitter pager it's still a better name than Apple

Really? I disagree

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Whilst I think these two parents are complete fucking idiots and it was reckless and damaging to stick these kids with these two shit names...

In America our Freedom of Speech can be a double edged sword that every now and then turns around and cuts us...

So on one hand, I agree with the parents rights.. On the other hand I agree with the state, because of the damage and trouble their reckless cavalier attitude with their childrens lives.. This WILL affect them in a major negative light as they get older.. So much for being born with a clean slate and being able to choose your own destiny.. These mother fuckers have already begun to pave the road to failure for these kids to travel down.

Yeah, this is a dicey one for sure.

As much as I hate to say it, I think the state did the right thing. These people obviously should not be having children.

[MrsM]

Yeah, this is a dicey one for sure.

As much as I hate to say it, I think the state did the right thing. These people obviously should NOT be having children.

Fixed it for you

[Teh One Who Knocks]

That's what I said :-k

[MrsM]

That's what I said :-k

:)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:shifty:

[JoeyB]

Whilst I think these two parents are complete fucking idiots and it was reckless and damaging to stick these kids with these two shit names...

In America our Freedom of Speech can be a double edged sword that every now and then turns around and cuts us...

So on one hand, I agree with the parents rights.. On the other hand I agree with the state, because of the damage and trouble their reckless cavalier attitude with their childrens lives.. This WILL affect them in a major negative light as they get older.. So much for being born with a clean slate and being able to choose your own destiny.. These mother fuckers have already begun to pave the road to failure for these kids to travel down.

The names are a burden, and yet, that is not a crime...which is the real problem here. Where is the justification for taking them away?

It can't be racism...because nothing was proved in a court, and racism is, to the best of my knowledge, not a cause for taking children away from a parent anyway. If it was, the deep south would have nothing but orphans.

I'm sure a few of us remember the birthday cake story from a couple of years ago and at the time I posted in that other forum a few details never mentioned, such as that the parents did actually appear to care for and be taking good care of these children, despite the creepy nature of their Nazi obsessions.

This isn't France, and just being pro-Nazi is not a crime here. So, there is no reasonable explanation for this.

If the excuse is domestic violence, why were they not removed a year ago when it supposedly occurred?

I can't begin to understand why someone would seriously want to name their children after Hitler...or why anyone would hold the Nazi movement in such high regard. Nonetheless, there needs to be something more than mere ideological differences to justify taking three children from attentive parents.

Let me put it this way...many people feel children and family service employees are little Nazis themselves...and quick to act and abusive in their power. This situation only cements that image...you cannot arbitrarily remove children from a home, from their legal parents, over something like a name, NO MATTER HOW HATEFUL THAT NAME MAY SEEM TO YOU. Is this really a power we want the government to have?

Think about that...do you want the government to be able to judge you and take away your children based on the arbitrary feelings of the agent who happens to visit your home? Not on any concrete evidence of abuse, or any standardized methodology, but simply on random elements such as disliking a name? Somebody official had better come up with a real good explanation for this and right quick.

[Hal-9000]

"I went to just to get a cake... it was a circus of racism," Heath Campbell added.

No.Naming your children Adolph Hitler, Aryan Nation and Honszlynn Hinler is racist.

In fact, I can't think of a bigger racist than Adolph Hitler...

[Acid Trip]

The names are a burden, and yet, that is not a crime...which is the real problem here. Where is the justification for taking them away?

It can't be racism...because nothing was proved in a court, and racism is, to the best of my knowledge, not a cause for taking children away from a parent anyway. If it was, the deep south would have nothing but orphans.

I'm sure a few of us remember the birthday cake story from a couple of years ago and at the time I posted in that other forum a few details never mentioned, such as that the parents did actually appear to care for and be taking good care of these children, despite the creepy nature of their Nazi obsessions.

This isn't France, and just being pro-Nazi is not a crime here. So, there is no reasonable explanation for this.

If the excuse is domestic violence, why were they not removed a year ago when it supposedly occurred?

I can't begin to understand why someone would seriously want to name their children after Hitler...or why anyone would hold the Nazi's is such high regard. Nonetheless, there needs to be something more than mere ideological differences to justify taking three children from attentive parents.

Let me put it this way...many people feel children and family service employees are little Nazis themselves...and quick to act and abusive in their power. This situation only cements that image...you cannot arbitrarily remove children from a home, from their legal parents, over something like a name, NO MATTER HOW HATEFUL THAT NAME MAY SEEM TO YOU. Is this really a power we want the government to have?

Think about that...do you want the government to be able to judge you and take away your children based on the arbitrary feelings of the agent who happens to visit your home? Not on any concrete evidence of abuse, or any standardized methodology, but simply on random elements such as disliking a name? Somebody official had better come up with a real good explanation for this and right quick.

:+1:

Child names are not a crime and removing children from their parents without a crime having been committed is essentially abduction/kidnapping. If I was the parents I'd be suing the shit out of the state right about now.

I don't like the names the children were given but that doesn't mean the state has a right to rush in and take them away.

[RBP]

The state has no business taking away kids based on their names.

[Leefro]

They still should take away Chris Martins

[Hal-9000]

So I can name my child N_gger-lover?
Who cares if they suffer beatings and get ostracized from society their entire lives because of the name I gave them?

[Muddy]

So I can name my child N_gger-lover?
Who cares if they suffer beatings and get ostracized from society their entire lives because of the name I gave them?



Bing!

[Hal-9000]

:mrgreen:

[Leefro]

I think that was their cousins name

[Muddy]

:mrgreen:


I mean it is totally legal... But at what point does the childs welfare override their right to be fucking careless?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I mean it is totally legal... But at what point does the childs welfare override their right to be fucking careless?

Exactly...in fact, I would call it blatant child abuse

[Muddy]

Maybe indirect child abuse? I have no doubt that they dont love the children... They just (obviously) aren't capable of making sound judgment calls.

[Hal-9000]

I mean it is totally legal... But at what point does the childs welfare override their right to be fucking careless?


Exactly.

[Hal-9000]

Exactly...in fact, I would call it blatant child abuse

I was going to name my first son Lance, but common sense prevailed and we instead opted for a more masculine name - Richard Simmons RuPaul -9000.

[JoeyB]

So I can name my child N_gger-lover?
Who cares if they suffer beatings and get ostracized from society their entire lives because of the name I gave them?

There is a lot of evidence to suggest names really do have a lot of effect on children...and not just these blatant over the top ones.

But...they took the kids over a name Hal...

Is the government now going to legally rename them? How does this help the kids exactly? What right did the government have to do this? Were the kids being ostracized? Is that a crime? This whole thing is profoundly disturbing and a massive overreach of governmental authority.

Look...nobody can defend the logic of naming a kid Hitler...but if the parents are taking care of the kids, and if no abuse is present...then there exists no reason to take them away.

The concept of preventing the kids from suffering some imagined future abuse keeps popping up...but, that abuse is theoretical...you can't take kids away because someday something bad might happen to them. And bear in mind that abuse would be coming from other kids and not the parents...

Again...bad choice of name and it probably will have adverse effects for the children...but the parents were taking good care of them. Is our standard of forcibly removing children from caring, attentive parents now going to default to one mistake? One that is not even a crime?

If they were abusing these kids, fine, yank the children away. But abuse must be tangible, provable, and previously defined as abuse.

Certain countries, such as Germany, actually require all children's names to be approved before being legally applied to the child. Since some names could have negative ramifications for the child, this would be the logical step to follow in this regard, but it carries a few serious implications. Two in particular jump out right away; first, limiting name selection is a violation of constitutionally protected free speech, and second, you'd have to grandfather in all children named prior to the law passing anyway...meaning, still no crime here.

It may 'feel good' to separate these kids from those parents...but it is not legal, and based on the lack of abuse outside of the names themselves, probably not even ethical.

[Hal-9000]

"The concept of preventing the kids from suffering some imagined future abuse keeps popping up..."

One child is 3 presently and the father made some idiotic comment about how nothing has happened.I know it falls into the thought crime category of the maybe realm, but c'mon, Hitler was not a minor figure in history and he was responsible for at least 6 million deaths, based on racial hatred.

The kids will run into some flack.I agree taking the kids away is a heavy handed measure, but you can tell by the names of all of the children that the parents are making a statement about their racial views and by proxy, the children will suffer the brunt of it.

[Acid Trip]

"The concept of preventing the kids from suffering some imagined future abuse keeps popping up..."

One child is 3 presently and the father made some idiotic comment about how nothing has happened.I know it falls into the thought crime category of the maybe realm, but c'mon, Hitler was not a minor figure in history and he was responsible for at least 6 million deaths, based on racial hatred.

The kids will run into some flack.I agree taking the kids away is a heavy handed measure, but you can tell by the names of all of the children that the parents are making a statement about their racial views and by proxy, the children will suffer the brunt of it.

There is no law against giving kids stupid names like they have in Italy (a court told two parents the name "Sunday" wasn't allowed). Anyone who supports the removal of the children is projecting their morals on others and should be ashamed.

Do you like it when a Christian/Jehovas Witness/Mormon comes to your door and tries to force you to believe what they believe? What if they took your children away under the guise of "their future souls will be corrupted by staying in this home" and then everyone lined up supporting them and not you? Just because you're in the majority now doesn't mean you will be in the future.

Then again, I'm Pro-"Stay the fuck out of other peoples business" A rare trait apparently.

[Hal-9000]

There is no law against giving kids stupid names like they have in Italy (a court told two parents the name "Sunday" wasn't allowed). Anyone who supports the removal of the children is projecting their morals on others and should be ashamed.

Do you like it when a Christian/Jehovas Witness/Mormon comes to your door and tries to force you to believe what they believe? What if they took your children away under the guise of "their future souls will be corrupted by staying in this home" and then everyone lined up supporting them and not you? Just because you're in the majority now doesn't mean you will be in the future.

Then again, I'm Pro-"Stay the fuck out of other peoples business" A rare trait apparently.

I'm a Christian so yes, those people get welcomed into my home :lol:

The children in this story stand a real chance of getting hurt because of the names.No, I don't agree with taking anyone's children unless they're in an abusive or dangerous situation.The slippery slope here is - it's a potentially dangerous situation, tough call.

[Acid Trip]

I'm a Christian so yes, those people get welcomed into my home :lol:

The children in this story stand a real chance of getting hurt because of the names.No, I don't agree with taking anyone's children unless they're in an abusive or dangerous situation.The slippery slope here is - it's a potentially dangerous situation, tough call.

Potentially dangerous? You are removing someone's children do to what MIGHT happen? I guess you can see the future and have decided that it's just far too dangerous to leave these kids with their parents. Is this Minority Report or what?

Should we arrest every black man because they have the highest percentage of drug arrests? After all, they MIGHT be selling.

Enforcing laws based on what MIGHT happen is called profiling. Since they are white supremacists (and named their kids as such) you are assuming their kids MIGHT get hurt and MIGHT have problems down the road. Give me a break.

[Hal-9000]

Potentially dangerous? You are removing someone's children do to what MIGHT happen? I guess you can see the future and have decided that it's just far too dangerous to leave these kids with their parents. Is this Minority Report or what?

Should we arrest every black man because they have the highest percentage of drug arrests? After all, they MIGHT be selling.

Enforcing laws based on what MIGHT happen is called profiling. Since they are white supremacists (and named their kids as such) you are assuming their kids MIGHT get hurt and MIGHT have problems down the road. Give me a break.

Comparing this to a black person selling drugs is not a good analogy.


from hal's post:

"I know it falls into the thought crime category of the maybe realm..."


I can't give you a break AT unless we meet in person, but not seeing the potential for violence in this situation is far worse IMO...than crying foul about human rights or profiling.Simply put, these children will run into problems.

[Acid Trip]

Comparing this to a black person selling drugs is not a good analogy.


from hal's post:

"I know it falls into the thought crime category of the maybe realm..."


I can't give you a break AT unless we meet in person, but not seeing the potential for violence in this situation is far worse IMO...than crying foul about human rights or profiling.Simply put, these children will run into problems.

We'll agree to disagree then.

All I'm saying is that allowing police to remove children from a home based on what MIGHT happen is opening a door you don't want to open.

[Hal-9000]

We'll agree to disagree then.

All I'm saying is that allowing police to remove children from a home based on what MIGHT happen is opening a door you don't want to open.

Certainly, the precedent set by doing that could be harmful to everyone in the future.

Why don't they just force name changes on the brood and be done with it?

[Hal-9000]

I named my firstborn JoeyB and we were initially ok with him drinking his own bathwater and walking backwards.It's when he started eating every blue crayon and Smurf doll in sight, that we decided to rename him Norm-al, on his 6th birthday :thumbsup:

[Acid Trip]

Certainly, the precedent set by doing that could be harmful to everyone in the future.

Why don't they just force name changes on the brood and be done with it?

There is no legal precedent (that I know of) for forcing someone to change there name. What would the Judge base that decision off of?

I'll call it now. The Judge will dismiss the case (no matter how much he hates the names) because they broke no law and there is no legal precedent of forcing someone to change their name.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Yeah, this is a dicey one for sure.

As much as I hate to say it, I think the state did the right thing. These people obviously should not be having children.

:tup: So willing to give up your rights when you dont like someones choices :roll:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Potentially dangerous? You are removing someone's children do to what MIGHT happen? I guess you can see the future and have decided that it's just far too dangerous to leave these kids with their parents.

Yes, because we all know how great foster care is, second to none I would say :facepalm:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:tup: So willing to give up your rights when you dont like someones choices :roll:

If I ever have kids and I have a girl, Imma name her Cunt-Faced Crack-Whore.....don't forget to put the hyphens in :tup:

[Hal-9000]

There is no legal precedent (that I know of) for forcing someone to change there name. What would the Judge base that decision off of?

I'll call it now. The Judge will dismiss the case (no matter how much he hates the names) because they broke no law and there is no legal precedent of forcing someone to change their name.


Yes, lawfully that's how it will play out.

The children will bear the brunt of this in the future.Maybe when baby Adolph comes home from school with Jew Killer carved in his forehead, the folks will wise up.

[Hal-9000]

If I ever have kids and I have a girl, Imma name her Cunt-Faced Crack-Whore.....don't forget to put the hyphens in :tup:

On hotmail she's Cunt-Faced Crack-Whore01


:lol: DUDE!!!

[JoeyB]

Comparing this to a black person selling drugs is not a good analogy.


from hal's post:

"I know it falls into the thought crime category of the maybe realm..."


I can't give you a break AT unless we meet in person, but not seeing the potential for violence in this situation is far worse IMO...than crying foul about human rights or profiling.Simply put, these children will run into problems.

The black thing was a perfectly usable analogy actually...it's a theoretical outcome based on existing circumstances leading to arbitrary actions on the part of a social worker. I mean, if we open the door to letting them use NAMES why not race? When does that random, void of evidence profiling end?


I named my firstborn JoeyB and we were initially ok with him drinking his own bathwater and walking backwards.It's when he started eating every blue crayon and Smurf doll in sight, that we decided to rename him Norm-al, on his 6th birthday :thumbsup:

And now every time I walk into a bar people turn and shout out 'NORM!'.

I HATE YOU DADDY.


Yes, because we all know how great foster care is, second to none I would say :facepalm:

This has been bothering me since yesterday...the parents loved and cared for these kids...now, the kids are taken from their home, probably separated, and being tended to by strangers whose motivation is most likely a paycheck and not love.

As stupid as that Hitler name is...the state has done far more damage to these kids than the parents ever had.


Yes, lawfully that's how it will play out.

The children will bear the brunt of this in the future.Maybe when baby Adolph comes home from school with Jew Killer carved in his forehead, the folks will wise up.

Perhaps the person who carved JEW KILLER onto his forehead is the real criminal here though? Yeah?