It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baby Hitler Parents Lose Custody of All Three of Their Kids

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

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.


Source

OK, so this case has been ongoing, but here is an update.

What troubles me is the fact that, even though the court has ruled there was no evidence of abuse in the home, they are still denied custody of their children. No one agrees with the parents' politics of hate - however, are names enough to be considered endangering your child? To think of the thousands of children who suffer horrible abuse at the hands of their parents, who are failed to be taken from them (Baby Peter is a very tragic and horrifying example of this), why the fuss over names?


+11 more 
posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CodyOutlaw
 


Well lets be reasonable here.

what kind of life can these children honestly expect with those names? Seriously, think back to when you went to school how cruel they kids were to each other. Now imagine you are freaking named HITLER.

sorry, I agree with this and would probably take it beyond and have the court require mandatory mental evaluations on them.

This surprises me, as at least in Canada, they have already stopped people from naming their kids after Osama Bin Laden and other ridiculous things.

If you want to be an ignorant racist prick that's your choice, but naming your kids in a pathetic manner such as this, forcing them to be unwittingly, and unknowingly, part of your insanity IS abuse.

edit on 27-10-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


I can totally understand where you're coming from. Heh - I actually had a buddy in high school, a Jewish kid who refused to be called anything but Adolf Hitler. Ahhh, the old punk rock days.

Anyway, I digress. Why is this case so prominent, when thousands of children are abandoned by CPS every day? A kid can show up beaten and bruised and no one will lift a finger, but name your kid something stupid, and they're all over it.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 
Agreed. Let's be reasonable here.

What about equally unique, uncommon, or unpopular names that may be floating around out there (Espn, Apple, Moonbeam, Gaylord, etc.)? I would have to ask if there are laws on the books there - or anywhere - with a list of banned names, or those that might otherwise cause kids to poke similar amounts of fun or abuse. Where is the line drawn at which a state may seize your child over a name someone doesn't like, or something even more trivial?

If the children were not subject to any abuse and were otherwise not being verifiably indoctrinated or raised unlawfully, I cannot sanction this. I've heard of worse than silly names coming from state involvement with the seizure and 'protection' of children, and if it's not names, other children will always be able to find something else to be cruel about if they're so inclined - it's up to THEIR parents and overseers to make sure children are being equitable to each other and growing up right.

When we have recent reports of gay couples hormone-blocking their young children to delay puberty and obviously lending themselves to gender confusion, I view naming one's child Hitler a non-issue - regardless of how utterly idiotic it might be.


edit on 10/27/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Unless they can show/prove neglect, this is completely and totally unconstitutional and un-American.

I don't agree with the naming of their children but any of you who support a justice system that can control what free people name their children deserve to live in North Korea.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Although I agree that these are incredibly stupid and provocative names, I'm not surprised at all that the "Bolsheviks" abducted their children.

It's fine to name your child, "Israel", or "David", but when it's "Adolf", the state will take them away.
Reminds me of the case of Greek lawyer Plevris being imprisoned simply because he wrote a book against Zionism.

Oh, BTW, if you dispute the facts of the Holocaust, you go to jail, too.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
This is wrong. i don't care what their names are, if they aren't being abused why destabilize the family? This is absurd.

And who gives a f*** about what kids at school say, most of the rabble will end up working at gas stations and fast food places. Maybe a wal-mart if they're lucky. You go to school to learn, not feel good about yourself.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CodyOutlaw
 


I have to agree. If there is no evidence of child abuse, then these people should get their children back. We have plenty of kids with perfectly normal names who are indoctrinated with hate against one group or another, so where is the Government when it is supposedly needed? The names are a very poor choice considering history, but if the parents aren't participating in hate crimes and teaching their children to commit such crimes, where is the harm? Name-calling is a fact of life in school for many children. You don't have to have a stupid name to become victim of bullies. These names (although a poor choice) are not racist in and of themselves. They reflect the parents' views, but when the kids get older and these names present a problem, they can get their names changed to whatever they want.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
In Québec, Canada, there is a governmental office that can say no to a first name if they think the name will cause troubles to the child.

Its better than taking the child after the naming...



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Though there was no "abuse" by the parents, someone has to intervene, before the children get older and then are abused by others. I am sure that at some point people will realize, or just label the children as they become adults due to the stupidity of the parents, and assume that they are racist. Even if the children decide later not to be, their names will say it all.

Then child protection services will have to do something. Maybe taking their kids was a bit much, but at least have the decency to think of your child's future. At least in that aspect the children were being neglectful.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
We all know precisely who the banksters are, where they've come from and exactly how they've managed to corrupt our nations and economies yet it is a nameless enemy we are fighting. How can we emancipate ourselves when it is taboo to even name our oppressor?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


I can totally understand where you're coming from. Heh - I actually had a buddy in high school, a Jewish kid who refused to be called anything but Adolf Hitler. Ahhh, the old punk rock days.

Anyway, I digress. Why is this case so prominent, when thousands of children are abandoned by CPS every day? A kid can show up beaten and bruised and no one will lift a finger, but name your kid something stupid, and they're all over it.


So true, so true........

I may not agree with the choice of names, but the government has no right to take kids away from their parents because of their names. That is lunacy.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


Your definition of neglect is a slippery slope. Child protective services should not do a thing, they have no business in interfering beyond the point of determining there was no abuse.

Like I said, this is absurd. Who cares what the kids names are, they're not being hurt and they're not being abused, people need to mind their own business.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CodyOutlaw
 


reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



you're actually both right. there's no argument here, you know. just raising of awareness.
although, as we know. sometimes some things are more important..
wish the MSM would get with it, FOCUS on # .
I'm sick of running to the end of each year.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


What do you think is going to happen when those kids go to school? Do you think that parents are not going to call protective services anyway? Are there supposed to be children pulled out of school because these parents decided to use their children as badges of proof that they are racist?

This will ultimately scar the kids, whether or not they grow up to fully understand and stand by their names or not.

Maybe they should not have been taken from home for abuse, but to be able to protect the children for what would be awaiting them is just as important.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
DISGUSTING!
how can this happen in this day and age ... they werent being abused or in danger ... i agree the names are slightly unusual to say the least but does that justify the intervention of the authorities to remove them from their parents care... NOT in my book.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 
1) Names can legally be changed.

2) Are we going to have police yanking kids out of homes if parents with bad style dress the children in untrendy or lame fashions that other kids might make fun of, or any of a multitude of other things that someone can be picked on or labelled for? Goofy haircuts? No rhythm?

Can some people not see how silly this issue is, and how applicable it is to a good many other characteristics? Deal with the children or adults causing undue grief over a name, don't wreck a family because they exercised their freedom over something that can be changed later or merely overwritten by a nickname, etc.

edit on 10/27/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I live less than a football field away from the Nazis (as we call them). They don't make any trouble in the neighborhood, but it gets a tad tense when you see them at the Dr's office and there's a WWII vet sitting nearby eyeing up the swastika on Mr. Campbell's neck. Or when you're stuck in a huge traffic jam an hour away, and you finally get to the intersection and there's the Nazis, broken down, blockin' traffic, ya gotta laugh.

What I really wonder, and hasn't been addressed in any press I've read, is if they were given a chance to change the children's names and keep them or not? I mean, they'd have to choose the kids over the names, right? And if they didn't, it would seem right to remove them.

While I definitely am opposed to the right of the state to remove children over the names only, Mr. Campbell certainly aims to be provacative. What brought this into the spotlight was when they tried to get the kid's full name on a birthday cake. Who the heck puts a kid's middle name on a cake?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
How does that saying go

"I might not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

That is one thing I really respect is the constitutional right to free speech.
This is a form of that.

When you start saying what names are okay, soon you will have the name chosen for you.

edit on 27-10-2011 by KingAtlas because: G&S



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


My point is that there is a danger in something like this. There would be just as much outrage when the kids come home beaten up, or worse. What would the headline be for young "Adolph Hitler" and "Aryan Nation" beaten or worse by others?

Do you think that there would be no pressure against the authorities or parents for this? Who would be blamed for the repercussions for this, and if it got to out of control, how much further into peoples lives with the authorities be then?

There are thousands of acts of abuse everyday, and though this story didn't start off that way, how can we not see it end that way?

NRE.




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join