Adolf Hitler, Sisters Taken from Parents' Home

I saw this on the morning news. I'd say that they were kidnapped. They've done no wrong. I'm sure if they had broken any serious law, that the media would be all over it. This is against the freedom of speech and if you love freedom you must agree that it is illegal for them to take their child away.
If you remove someone else's freedom, you have removed your own.

By naming their children the way they did, these people made some very clear public statements. If Mom and Dad subscribe to the white supremacist ideology there are various organizations and associations they could simply quietly join. There is even an 'American Nazi Party'.
But politically influencing and naming the children in a manner that would automatically put them on a path of confrontation with society and thereby drive them to likely committ crimainal acts is mentally abusing these children. Nothing less. I hope they find good foster parents. I personally see a cycle that needs to be broken.

reply to post by lupusyonderboy

---

sorry guy,but they work under the guise of "children first"
they yank the kids on a whim, then you have to prove you are a good parent. suing doesn't enter into it.
i cant tell you how wrong these people are.they are monsters.
they create exactly what they are designed to prevent.
and once they have you,they're like a virus embedded in your registry. rooted into your life forever.

Wow, if that is the way the state runs their child services, then people need to start suing over that! That is outrageous. I can not believe that it is run that way in the U.S.

Yet there are children that are being terribly abused and neglected elsewhere and the state doesn't do anything about it.

"...a New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services spokeswoman said that the agency would not remove children from a home based on their names alone."

"Just to be clear, removal of a child from a family is only done when there's an imminent danger to a child and that wouldn't include the child's name alone," spokeswoman Kate Bernyk said. "We wouldn't remove a child based on their name."

See: NJ.Com Article

Also, for the comment about how the State runs it's DYFS program...NJ just split DYFS off of the rest of the Department of Human Services due to a handful of death & mismanagement leading to Federal oversight for a period of time. A majority of administrative staff who were involved in the mess still managed to keep their jobs or were re-hired after being "publicly" fired. It's also a governor election year...

It's obvious the parents are idiots - they're just protecting the children.
Probably a wise move judging on their decision to name their child after a sociopathic mass murderer, and architect of aggressive genocide.
The Nazionals might have been on to something with eugenics...

reply to post by Blaine91555

---

This certainly is a very polarizing issue but I don't think anyone here is arguing for the sake of arguing. I think the debate comes down to who is responsible for raising ones children, the state or the parents. Our nation has a precedence of allowing the parents to raise their own children.

You feel the state should regulate the naming of the child. How about clothing? After all there have been more then a few kids that have had a terrible time growing up simply because of the clothing their parents provided. How involved should the state be in parental affairs?

reply to post by GamerGal

---

It is relatively clear that the parents at the very least hold admiration for the Nazi party. And arguing to the contrary is a little absurd.



What evidence do you have of brain washing? I am assuming that you are referring to the ideology they are most likely teaching their children. In this Country parents are free to teach their children any ideology they deem appropriate (for now anyway).

I believe that some religious organizations that make children feel guilty over very human behavior causes untold damages. However it is not my place nor the states place to intervene because it is the parents prerogative to raise their children however they see fit regardless of how offensive I find it.



[edit on 15-1-2009 by harvib]

I just had one more quick thought. I was reading up on this family, they have been getting death threaths from people. Would the state remove the kids to protect them?

I mean if I was the family in this story I would place the kids with relatives if the death threats were that bad. The state said they would only remove the kids if their lives were in imminent danger, could that have something to do with the death threats, and possible harassment?

I mean the dad won't comment, but at one point he says they were not taken, another source is saying they were taken, the police are saying that there are no reports of abuse, etc. (So if there are no reports of abuse, why were they taken?)

They have a hearing on Thursday so maybe we will learn more. It's unusual however, cause there is not a lot being said from the family. If they were forcefully removed then why not speak out?

I wonder if they were removed for their protection, like witness protection, but would they do that to kids, and would the family not just go and stay with other family?

Also the father and mother in this story can not work, or are not working due to disabilities of some kind, like a bad back or something, so they are being assisted by the state. If the kids were taken forcefully, then I am not sure if they could get a good lawyer, but the first story where the dad commented, it didn't sound like they were taken by force, yet something doesn't add up. I really want to see more details about this, but I can confirm they were getting harassment and death threats, actual death threats.

Speaking of the state stepping in again, they just made some kid get a different hair cut, because he said the shapes cut into his hairstyle might be mistaken for Gang Signs and again, I wonder where it will end. It probably started with tee-shirts and not it's the hair cut.

If this case does have something to do with the name in any capacity, then we still need to voice how wrong that is, because once they start stepping in, the state does not stop.

reply to post by questioningall

---

Lets be real, the name is offensive and will always be so..the parents are fools to think that in so naming an innocent for the evil of the past that they are keeping something of value alive. Yes the parents deserve to have their children taken away for protection from the ignorance and hate that their parents quite obviously espouse. Err on the side of caution..an open and fair hearing..and if community standards are not respected..and hate is being forced on the children then..thats it

www.nj.com...



So the childs name could have been a part of the reason. What kind of imminent danger was this kid in. His birthday was the 14th of December, they got removed last week, I am guessing around the 7th. So withing the three weeks of the story in the newspaper what imminent danger could they have been in?

www.nj.com...



You talk about these parents being messed up, but when you start to threaten a family for having the poor taste of naming their kids names that we don't like or approve of, then who is the sick person?

To threaten to kill the kids, that's crazy. I can see them not liking the mom and dad for the bad baby name choices, but it's still a choice, and b, who is the monster when you start threatening to kill kids? That's messed up.

If the state thought someone was really going to follow through on one of the death threats, cause apparently there were others, do you think that could have been the imminent danger?



[edit on 15-1-2009 by Harassment101]

The name is offensive only if we give it value, and power to be so. If people had decided not to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, cause his middle name was part of Saddam Hussain, and his last name reminded them of Osama Bin Ladin, which a few times they did call him Osama, then it's the same kind of ignorance.

I mean what if you are named Roger Moore, and tomorrow there is a leader who has the same name who turns out to be a monster, are you and everyone else who shares the name going to change it?

What if this family had the last name of Hitler, and decided that Adolf was a good first name, then what? Should that kid still be abused, cause the family like Adolf as a name, and what if that family wants a cake with the child's full name?

In this case, it was not a wise thing to do, naming your child Hitler, but it's still a choice, and in a democratic country if we don't stand up for that choice, we will loose our choices in the future, so in standing up for their rights, I am standing up for my own. That's the way I see it.

I don't want to be told which religious principles or names to choose for children, people should be able to name their kid mango if they want. (Not my choice, I'm just saying.)

What about the family who's last name is Dahmer and decide they want the first name of their child to be Jeffery? What then, should the kid expect to be beaten up, and have a state investigation opened on him while in the cradle, cause his name might make him a monster some day? We as a society create monsters in many cases, and we have also the ability to stop this from happening.

If these kids were removed from their family for the name, then we have taught the family about ignorance and intolerance by our very actions, that we are accusing them of. Think about that.

I don't know all the circumstances in this case, I wish I did, but till more is known, it is speculation. I am trying to see if I can put together the pieces of the puzzle, but I would like to hear from the family and the state about what is going on, before passing full judgement.

For the time being, I have to agree with the decision to remove these children. Any parent stupid enough to name their children like that cannot, in my mind, facilitate a healthy environment for the children to live. That they would not even have the foresight to understand the verbal and physical abuse it will bring them, nor do they care, all for the sake of making a political statement rather than looking out for the best interest of the child.

While I cannot find a moral or legal platform sturdy enough to justify the removal of these children (rather than, say, requiring a name change) - I have little doubt that earlier publication of their names via the birthday cake stories raised more than a few red flags at Child Welfare Services and put the family under watch. The decision to remove the children was likely based on evidence turned up by the investigation. I will reserve final judgment on the matter until further details are available, but from what I've heard thus far, I see no reason to damn the government for pulling innocent children from potentially very abusive situation.

reply to post by Harassment101

---

Wrong. Abuse of a child is not a right. You can uphold your first ammendment rights all you want on your OWN behalf, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But when your first ammendment rights put the life and mental state of your children in jeopardy, good people cannot sit around and let it happen. Any parent who thinks it is okay to inflict any sort of abuse on a child is not fit to be a good, loving parent and therefore should not be allowed to look after a child, especially when their own mental state is questionable.

I agree that they did open an investigation. The birthday cake incident drew lot's of attention to this family that might otherwise not have been given, and it probably also allowed several people who are I don't want to say busy bodies, but people who assumed they were harming the kids or teaching them hate, to go about finding a way to get these kids removed.

I found this.


www.nj.com...



Judging the families motivation. Saying that they don't have the best interest of their kids at heart. Should the parents of children name dick now also be worried?

I will also wait for more on the story, but I do know what my opinion will still be in regards to pulling children from a home, based on their names if this was the case.

If there are other reasons involved then I would like to hear them. The parents did not choose the names well, the same is true for naming your child Saten, Lucifer, etc, but it's still a choice.

reply to post by SUNRAY06

---

And what legislation allows this. An open and fair hearing for what crime? What you are proposing is unlawful.