3 Children removed from NJ parents

[kandrathe]

Yes people should be treated as innocent until found guilty, but keep your common sense too. Since when does the allegation of being a neo-nazi even remotely in the same ballpark as a pro life\pro choice bumper sticker?

Yes, I know it doesn't. When I wrote that I was thinking of the extremes that some people will go with their beliefs. Clinics have been burned, and people have been shot by anti-abortion fanatics. What I was trying to get to there was, that I believe it is the fanatic (the guy with the rifle) that should be stopped, not the person (clinic worker) with the "legal" and "unpopular" viewpoint.

Shadow basically already summed up a salient point you seem to either ignore or don't get. Parents do have rights (more importantly responsibilities) but so do the kids. Birthing children does not give one complete and total ownership over them. In the past and in some places that's still the sad and brutal rule of the day. Unless that's what you meant by defending freedom and fighting tyranny.

I really think there should be an agreed upon and legal process for taking away a persons children. It should involve insuring the parents are fully apprised of their rights, and have legal (or court appointed) representation. There should quickly be a doctors visit, or whatever other investigations need to occur, to assess whether any allegation of physical abuse has occurred. You know, due process. Rather it seems the procedure is that CPS takes your kids, and then you fight to get them back after months of legal wrangling, or you lose your kids.

I'll try it from another perspective. Would you have reacted the same way if the kids are not blood relation, but were up for adoption by the same set of people?

No. It seems weird, but I don't think people have the inherent right to adopt children. When the children are wards of the state, the state has the responsibility to insure the children are going to a good home. But, I don't think the state has the inherent right to arbitrarily judge that a particular home is not good, without having some incriminating evidence of parental abuse or neglect.

At the very least, I'm going to guess that you will at least agree that there should be a very thorough check and investigations in any prospective parents. This is a kid we're talking about after all, not a dog. Hell, my relatives went through a pretty thorough interview when they adopted a cat from the shelter! I would hope the standard would be at least that high if not higher for a human.

Yes, again, it makes sense when the children are wards of the state.

We're not talking about the parent's 'minority' views, we're really talking about the potential extreme-ness (and not in a good Mountain Dew X-treme) and the red flags of the allegations in that article.

Look, these are not the kind of people I would welcome to come and move into my neighborhood. If I could call up the Campbell's today, I'd tell them a) change your kids names. If your attitude is "Hey, its just a name" then why these names. They shouldn't care. Call the boy Thor, and the girls Ariana, and Eva. Still Germanic, and yet the kids can get a birthday cake without causing a Walmart conniption. b) Move to Oregon, or Utah and get a compound. They are used to nut jobs out there. NJ is the too near the mecca of liberalism in the world. c) If you are going to do this crap, at least understand your history and don't waffle about it. You are either a big fan of Hitler, or you think he was a scum bag. I almost snorted out my coffee when Heath mentioned that he might move to Germany, as if, you know, Nazism is embraced there. d) Don't use your kids to do crap you should do yourself. If you want to reclaim the swastika, and the right to name your boys Adolf, then change your own name first. Don't force your kid to do the heavy lifting for you.

In a way, I feel sorry for the Campbell's. Not that their publicity ploy backfired, but that they are probably too clueless to figure out how to get themselves out of the mess they've made for themselves. I feel sorry for them that they are such pathetic losers. But, I'd still fight for their rights. Stupid isn't illegal yet.

I'm still waiting for more news.

[Chesspiece_face]

I really think there should be an agreed upon and legal process for taking away a persons children. It should involve insuring the parents are fully apprised of their rights, and have legal (or court appointed) representation. There should quickly be a doctors visit, or whatever other investigations need to occur, to assess whether any allegation of physical abuse has occurred. You know, due process.

Just from what i've read about this issue I don't know if there is any belief of outright abuse. I believe the concern is more negligence.

If i call the cops on some concern and when they get here they see my house is full of trash with rodents walking around and feces on the floor they will call child protective services and take away children in the house (not that I have kids, just an example.) There is no outright abuse in that case but i have acted negligently and created an unsafe environment which puts the children in reasonable risk.

The same could be said for what happened with this situation. Although, i admit, it is somewhat greyer in some areas. It wasn't enough to take their kids away because they named one of them adolf hitler. If that were the case something would have been done when they submitted the birth certificate. It's also not enough to take their kids away because they display nazi or hateful propoganda on their cars, etc. But when these parants began to publicize thier apparent intolerances and began recieving death threats the safety of the environment that they create for their children comes into question. At least enough for child protective services to come in and investigate. And yes, if CPS feels that there is imminent danger to the children they can remove them in such a way.

[Hammerskjold]

edited because original tag quote got mangled.

I really think there should be an agreed upon and legal process for taking away a persons children. It should involve insuring the parents are fully apprised of their rights, and have legal (or court appointed) representation. There should quickly be a doctors visit, or whatever other investigations need to occur, to assess whether any allegation of physical abuse has occurred. You know, due process.

I'd halfway agree, and only add and substitute, 'it should involve insuring -the children- are fully apprised of their rights, and have legal or court appointed representation.'

I'll be blunt here. We're both talking about citizen's rights. And I doubt you'd disagree that a kid also happens to be a citizen. They don't have full rights and responsibilities like an adult, but they're still citizens nonetheless. If anything they need extra protection in mind because they may not have the same level of physical, emotional, or financial resources of most adults.

I'm betting that you probably agree to that much.

No. It seems weird, but I don't think people have the inherent right to adopt children.

And not everyone have either the instinct to nurture and protect or desire to learn those parenting skills. Having the physical ability to pop out kids doesn't automagically make one a good parent.

At least in some of the cases I've read in North America, the courts seems to regard more and more that blood is not necessarily thicker than water, at least when it comes to the level and quality of parental care and custody.

Don't use your kids...

This is basically the heart of what I think is really at stake, and in general we both agree on that point. These parents seem to either lack the capacity or don't care that they might be using their kids, and exposing them to a very bad and unnecessary kind of danger.

Satire aside, Hussein is not the same as Hitler. Neither is Michael Collins, or Osama. Hitler = Hitler. Whether or not the Voldemortization of the name 'Hitler' is good or bad in the long run is horse glue for another day. Adolf is probably a more common name, but I wouldn't be surprised if people changed it to 'Adolphus' or something else. But even Adolf is not in the same league as Hitler.

By 'Hitlering' that kid's name even just a middle name, gives a heavy burden they have to carry. Whether that's to do such incredibly positive things to erase the tremendous negative connotation, or to try to shoehorn him into a group that's rightly despised by most folks.

And that's what I find to be a big red flag with the parents. Based on the limited info presented so far, the problem seems to me is not necessarily shielding the kids from potential violent anti-nazi actions.

It's the signal that the parents seems to be sending that they either are neo nazis, or want to be identified as such. The danger is not just violent reprisal, but the invitation to be affiliated with a group that is not known for their non-violence or stability.

The group that first comes to my mind are not necessarily violent fanatic anti-nazis, but violent fanatic -neo nazis- themselves. We're not talking about a family that wants to join the circus to perform as a trapeze troupe, it's the f*&^ing neo nazis. It's a very bad kind of potential risk to introduce to children. A trapeze troupe isn't 100% safe, but it's sure ain't the neo nazis either.

From previous communications, I think you mentioned you're a father. You can certainly imagine and empathize if your kid is unfairly, unlawfully, and with no real evidence taken away from you.

And from previous communications, I also don't doubt that you do care for your child, and would likely not hesitate to take on harm yourself if it meant saving your own kids. Or make financial sacrifices if it meant your kid can have that super awesome christmas gift, or help in their education fund. They're your kids after all. They can be bratty, snotty, and a pain sometimes, but in general you do care for them. Whether it's by natural instinct or learned, these are common to what most people would consider good parenting traits\skills.
Based on the info presented so far, I'm not convinced these parents share the same qualities.

You say these folks in question seems to be pathetic losers. I say the biggest potential loser are the kids, because they seem to be dealt a crap hand when it comes to the family tree lottery. From the limited info I can see, there's already some big red flags that these people seem to regard their kids as more property or a project.

Not even a project like 'Son, I want you to be a doctor someday'. I think you of all people would vigorously defend that once a child reach a certain maturity level, they have the right to choose what they want to be. And this parent wants to loudly proclaim one of his kid is named Hitler, albeit just a middle name and maybe just on a cake, cause you know he could still be a doctor. He's so smart and 'Aryan' after all.

You already have the perspective of a parent, try to see it from the kid's (aka Citizen Jr.) or your own younger self in the same situation. What do the kids have to say? And those young citizens do have a say in this matter. If anything, what they have to say in this matter trumps any of our online blatherings and speculations.

You can choose to see my writing as scolding or sarcastic or part of a mob, this isn't a putdown or challenge, but I don't care. I've been trying to play by the exact same rules you're playing with, and we're after the same goal, the protection of citizens rights.

I just happen to ask you maybe in a not so patient tone, to consider ALL the citizens in question. Because if you really believe your own heart on your sleeve, the only feelings to be seriously considered and weighed is the family\party in question, including the childrens and not exclusively the parents.

[Crusader]

Is it illegal to display a swastika, or have a swastika tattoo? Is being hated grounds for having your children taken from you?

In The Netherlands: Yes it's illegal to have Nazi symbols, Yes, it's illegal to have a swastika tattoo but only if you display it (but good luck finding a tattooer willing to risk his licence), Sometimes being hated is ground enough to have the children taken, but only if the child suffers enough as a consequence. (for instanc,e is threatened physically). And since judges here are quite politically left oriented (American left is still our right winged equivalent), it has to be preeeetty bad before a child can be taken. A source of much frustration in our society, because some children have died as a result in order to 'protect the rights of the parents'

And yes, the use of Nazi symbolism is outlawed in most of Europe. Maybe even all of it. But the Dutch were occupied and victimized by the nazis, so we're especially unfond of Nazi sypathisers even today. As a result they're also quite rare here. Plenty of extreme-right-winged skinheads, but very few neo-nazis. Especially since the proof of their crimes is still here on our soil for all to see and recollections of their crimes were passed on from generation to generation and the second world war is still an important subject in high school. some Dutch even revile current generation Germans for the crimes of their (grand-)parents. WWII is still alive in the collective memory.

[kandrathe]

I'd halfway agree, and only add and substitute, 'it should involve insuring -the children- are fully apprised of their rights, and have legal or court appointed representation.'

The state has already assumed that responsibility, but yes, I think the children if old enough should understand their rights.

I'll be blunt here. We're both talking about citizen's rights. And I doubt you'd disagree that a kid also happens to be a citizen. They don't have full rights and responsibilities like an adult, but they're still citizens nonetheless. If anything they need extra protection in mind because they may not have the same level of physical, emotional, or financial resources of most adults. I'm betting that you probably agree to that much. And not everyone have either the instinct to nurture and protect or desire to learn those parenting skills. Having the physical ability to pop out kids doesn't automagically make one a good parent.

Yes, I agree, on natural rights. Although children's legal rights might extend through their parent or guardian. There is no litmus test on fitness for parenting, and it would be worrisome to see one implemented. I do think that having children is one main thing that converts the youth into a mature and useful citizen. Being a good parent is an incredibly unselfish act.

At least in some of the cases I've read in North America, the courts seems to regard more and more that blood is not necessarily thicker than water, at least when it comes to the level and quality of parental care and custody. By 'Hitlering' that kid's name even just a middle name, gives a heavy burden they have to carry. Whether that's to do such incredibly positive things to erase the tremendous negative connotation, or to try to shoehorn him into a group that's rightly despised by most folks.

As a parent, I did choose an unusual name for my first son. It's an old Scandinavian name that is seldom used. But, I think it makes him unique. But, I also gave him two middle names that he might choose if the first name becomes a burden to him. There are plenty of F. Scott Fitzgerald's, and even a T. Woodrow Wilson. And, if the name is really an abomination (and I agree this one is) then the child can arrange to change it upon hitting the age of emancipation (which can be less than legal age). The biggest strike against these children is the ignorance of their parents, but then I feel that way for the children of most of the struggling, poor and ignorant people in the world. No, young Adolf Hitler Campbell is from birth probably not destined to Harvard, but it might be that he can overcome his trailer park roots. William Jefferson Blythe III overcame his trashy past, so I expect almost anyone can do it given a leg up.

I just happen to ask you maybe in a not so patient tone, to consider ALL the citizens in question. Because if you really believe your own heart on your sleeve, the only feelings to be seriously considered and weighed is the family\party in question, including the children's and not exclusively the parents.

I am considering ALL the citizens actually. There is nothing more traumatic to a child than to separate it from the only source of nurture and love that it knows. Especially, when those children are so young. Unless there was a realistic threat that the parents would harm the children in the few days it would take for the CPS to determine if their was just cause to consider separation, then I would opt to leave the children in the home. During that few days the parents could obtain counsel, the children could be submitted to examinations by professionals to determine if any harm has been done to them, and the home can be visited to see that it a proper environment. I'm not asking for much here, just an orderly process that respects the parents rights to prove they are good parents before their children are taken away from them. This is why it resonates with the FLDS case. The same thing happened there, where the armada of police show up and drive off the children, and only after excessive legal wrangling to appeals courts are the families reunited.

[Tal]

Just my view from the outside but sarcasm (especially as heavily applied as yours was) tends to a barrier to communication. If we're not here to discuss things civilly on the Lounge then why arrrrre we here? Aside from Bolty that is who is making mad paychecks off the place.

[Hammerskjold]

There is no litmus test on fitness for parenting, and it would be worrisome to see one implemented.

Well most gov't could not do so out of practical reasons anyway. It has to assume that most people would want to take care of their kids, because aside from major legal overreach, it would take way too much resource and staff to check every single family. Even most of the agencies set up to investigate and monitor problem situations are usually understaffed, overworked, and underfunded.

I'm not saying it's impossible, or gov't always has the people's best interest at heart. But let's get some perspective. Even if the gov't wants to enact such draconian measures, it doesn't have enough treasures to do so.

Unless there was a realistic threat that the parents would harm the children in the few days it would take for the CPS to determine if their was just cause to consider separation, then I would opt to leave the children in the home.

Others already pointed out that neglect (or at least a severe case of inadequate or lapsed judgement) seems to be a bigger concern here than outright direct abuse. At least on the limited info so far.

I mean, really, a Hitler cake? Even if it's with super vanilla frosting, most people would know it's going to be in bad taste. Unless you're trying to do it as a social satire or something, but the elder Campbells are not exactly convincing me they're the satirizing type. Hey I'd be glad if I was proven wrong in this case.

[kandrathe]

I mean, really, a Hitler cake? Even if it's with super vanilla frosting, most people would know it's going to be in bad taste. Unless you're trying to do it as a social satire or something, but the elder Campbells are not exactly convincing me they're the satirizing type. Hey I'd be glad if I was proven wrong in this case.

Mmmm, yes the cake. How scrumptious is a white cake with white frosting anyway. Not much.

[Hammerskjold]

Mmmm, yes the cake. How scrumptious is a white cake with white frosting anyway. Not much.

I agree. Though I do wonder what really triggered the cake shop refusal...did Campbell Sr. beligerently insist the cake be made with WHITE FLOUR! WHITE FLOUR! WHITE FLOUR!

(Sorry, I could not resist going there. I mean as far as genocidal themed pastries go, it's just too tempting a target.)

[Chesspiece_face]

I agree. Though I do wonder what really triggered the cake shop refusal...did Campbell Sr. beligerently insist the cake be made with WHITE FLOUR! WHITE FLOUR! WHITE FLOUR!

(Sorry, I could not resist going there. I mean as far as genocidal themed pastries go, it's just too tempting a target.)

hehe. And why do they need to spell out the kids full name on the cake? is the kid going to be confused and think it's a party for the Adolf Hitler that lives next door?

[shoju]

I freely admit that my opinion on this is very biased. My wife and her best friends are children's case manager for a mental health facility. My son was taken away from his mother by CPS 2 and a half years ago as well, and I was granted custody. At the time that he was taken away, no laws had been 'discovered' as broken. That came out much later, but at the time it was CPS intervening for the welfare of my son and his 2 siblings because their mom is a wackjob.

Protecting children is more important than 'rights of parents'.

THIS. THIS AND ONLY THIS matters. I can understand the fears of a totalitarian state stealing your rights. I get it. I understand the fear. I'm a freedom of speech nut and anti-censorship freak.

If you want to spout on about your racist views, FINE. Don't involve innocent children in it. These children have become targets just by the name that their idiot parents gave them. If the car has nazi symbols on it, and the parents are using these naming conventions, the state should be obligated to take these children from them. These are actions being taken by the parents that can have catastrophic psychological and or physical ramifications to them.

...but what law was broken by naming your kid Adolf Hitler, or putting swastika's on your car?

There is no law against this. There is also no law that says I can't let my children play on the roof of the house that I own. If I did this though, I would obviously have my children taken from me.

...If there is negligent behavior, then make the charge so that the accused can begin to defend themselves.

Their actions are the very definition of negligent behavior.

...You know, there are satanists who name their babies Lucifer, or worse, but you don't really hear about the state removing their kids much. Maybe they do, and it just doesn't make the national news. It really doesn't matter why they named their children as they did. Did they break any law?

There wasn't a crime committed by doing these things. But it does infringe on the safety of the children. What if some guy is so sickened by this that he decides to take matters into his own hands and T-bone the car on the way to school in the morning. He was taking action against the parents and their beliefs. Those beliefs then put the children in harms way. Plus, and take this for what you will, Do you have to worry about a bunch of Christians killing the kids because of the name? No. I think it's safe to say that 90+% of the christians in the U.S. haven't gotten past the 1980's mentality that could lead to this kind of behavior.

Hitler, Aryan Nation, nazi symbols, and like terms/symbols are despised by the majority. These things are synonymous with the torture and mass murder of millions of people, There is a big difference between naming your son lucifer and Adolph Hilter.

We don't know because the state refuses to state their case.

And this is the government that you are talking about. If you want to talk about how the government needs to be more transparent about things, that's fine. I for one, think that some opacity in government functions is better than complete transparency.

[Occhidiangela]

I was under the impression that the vast majority of the children in that case were returned in the last half year ago, after the ruling declaring that the authorities had overstepped their bounds. Is that not the case?

-Jester

That they were ever taken in the first place, due to a fraudulent tip, is a non trivial issue.

To illustrate.

Jester, I'll confiscate your entire bank balance, due to someone telling me you stole it all anyway.

I am sure you'll be pleased if you get it back seven months from now. Won't mind that I took it in the least, surely.

As to the parents who named their kids after Germans of the Third Reich: what the hell is wrong with them.

They could at least have done the boy a favor and named him Sue, or even Occhidiangela.

That the state went after the parents for being stupid ... glass houses and stones is all I have to say. The law is a ass, yet again.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Yes, I've heard horrible anecdotes from acquaintances who stand both sides of the issues as well. The most egregious was in a bitter divorce (began by the guy because she was cheating), she claimed he was sexually molesting his son. He didn't regain even visitation rights until 5 years later, when he proved the charges were fictitious and she had to recant her position in court. Did she suffer from that? No. He had his parental rights restored, and continued to pay alimony and child support.

By your argument then, anyone who takes a controversial political position, who also has children, risks losing them due to the jeopardy which may be caused. This would include most politicians, and the judges and prosecutors of high profile crime cases.

One simple remedy would be that the court could order the parents to give the children non-offensive names, right? So, I doubt this is the issue that made the government (state) take the kids. It is probably as the mother is claiming, that a neighbor reported that the children are abused. The strange part of that claim then is that the abuser has not been charged with a crime (probably because there is no evidence of abuse).

So back to your case. The wacko mother of your son might have accused you of being a child abuser, and a frequently assaulting her as well. Then, you might be trying to reclaim your good name and your freedom while sitting in a jail cell. As you know, these things are not pretty. Foster homes are no guarantee of "safety" for children either. So, your position is no matter what, when in doubt (which is most of the time), grab the kids. I don't support that position. I think there should be evidence (not hearsay), and if there is suspicion then a quick investigation (ala crime scene) should occur to determine if the children are at imminent risk of harm by the parents.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I'm not sure how parent actions resulting in death threats cannot be considered risk of immediate harm.

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure how parent actions resulting in death threats cannot be considered risk of immediate harm.

So then you would agree that people who engage in activities, such as abortion doctors, politicians, prosecutors, judges, etc should have their children taken from them. Because, they get death threats, and their children are in harms way.

[Swiss Mercenary]

So then you would agree that people who engage in activities, such as abortion doctors, politicians, prosecutors, judges, etc should have their children taken from them. Because, they get death threats, and their children are in harms way.

Except that this situation is far more similar to "Sending your kids to play on your roof", rather then the hazards of making a living in any of your listed occupations. What you have is a failure to distinguish between self-destructive behaviour and employment. (Society's failure to differentiate certain forms of employment from self-destructive behaviour is another story alltogether)

To continue the rooftop analogy, if you had a very good reason to send your kids up on your roof, Child Services shouldn't be touching the kids. If you were doing so to make a political statement... Take them away.

[kandrathe]

Except that this situation is far more similar to "Sending your kids to play on your roof", rather then the hazards of making a living in any of your listed occupations. What you have is a failure to distinguish between self-destructive behavior and employment. (Society's failure to differentiate certain forms of employment from self-destructive behavior is another story altogether)

To continue the rooftop analogy, if you had a very good reason to send your kids up on your roof, Child Services shouldn't be touching the kids. If you were doing so to make a political statement... Take them away.

I see your point, but it is not quite like the roof top. More like having them wear clothing with unpopular political expressions in an area of town where it will get noticed. So the question is more the utility of the political risk, and whether it was their intention to bring the political spotlight upon themselves and their family. I'm thinking it is too fine a line to try to define politically safe expression in these terms. The state would be likely to interfere in peoples lives, like political activists where it is not their job, but their passion to speak out against what they perceive as unfairness from the government.

I do agree though that they should have not involved their infants in this mess. I wish at some level that "idiocy" was a crime.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I see your point, but it is not quite like the roof top. More like having them wear clothing with unpopular political expressions in an area of town where it will get noticed. So the question is more the utility of the political risk, and whether it was their intention to bring the political spotlight upon themselves and their family. I'm thinking it is too fine a line to try to define politically safe expression in these terms. The state would be likely to interfere in peoples lives, like political activists where it is not their job, but their passion to speak out against what they perceive as unfairness from the government.

I do agree though that they should have not involved their infants in this mess. I wish at some level that "idiocy" was a crime.

It seems that we're in agreement in principle - just haggling over the price. After all, if they would take their kids with them, when walking around bad, bad, minority neighbourhoods, with clothing that said "_______ are all (racial slurs)", which would carry a good risk of earning some form of reprisal (Even if the kids would be left alone), I'd consider that to be highly reckless behaviour. Much moreso then wearing a BUSH/CHENEY 2004 t-shirt at a hippie college campus.

After all, I'm pretty sure that more then a few of my countrymen are under the impression that the best way to deal with Nazis is with bricks and bats.

[kandrathe]

It seems that we're in agreement in principle - just haggling over the price. After all, if they would take their kids with them, when walking around bad, bad, minority neighbourhoods, with clothing that said "_______ are all (racial slurs)", which would carry a good risk of earning some form of reprisal (Even if the kids would be left alone), I'd consider that to be highly reckless behaviour. Much moreso then wearing a BUSH/CHENEY 2004 t-shirt at a hippie college campus.

After all, I'm pretty sure that more then a few of my countrymen are under the impression that the best way to deal with Nazis is with bricks and bats.

So what you are saying is, "Yes you have the right to hold a Nazi march, but not necessarily the right to bring your children along."

I found a similar case from Manitoba (Rick Ross research on Neo-Nazi's) In that case it seems the government removed the children because of the parents beliefs. (More on that story...). Another take on it from a Blog for the Center for Children, Law & Policy at the University of Houston Law Center

Then again, with all due respect, Canada is Canada, and has a different idea of liberty than the USA.

[Swiss Mercenary]

So what you are saying is, "Yes you have the right to hold a Nazi march, but not necessarily the right to bring your children along."

Anyone in particular disagreement with that?