New Jersey child services seizes boy named after Hitler from parents
posted at 12:50 pm on January 14, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
No word on the cause, but it can’t be because of the names. Can it?
Holland Township Police Sgt. John Harris says he was there to keep order Tuesday when 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.
Harris says DYFS did not tell police the reason the children were removed. At least one officer who helped take the kids out of the house said they did not show outward signs of abuse or neglect.
Listen to the audio at the link and you’ll hear one of the cops say the kids were “happy” and playing when they got there. The state statute defines child cruelty to include the infliction of “unnecessary suffering or pain, either mental or physical” — like naming a kid after Hitler? — but it also defines “child abuse” to include, er, the habitual use of profanity. (Yes, really.) I poked around to find a Supreme Court precedent that’s on point, but the truth is you don’t need it: If being a Nazi sympathizer is grounds per se for having your parental custody terminated, then as a practical matter, Nazis aren’t allowed to have families in America. And as far as I know, the right to privacy means that everyone’s allowed to have a family in America. Exit question: Did they trump up some other grounds as a pretext? Too much cussin’ by dad, maybe?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I’m actually hard of hearing from M249s being fired right next to my head. Good try though. I think it’s great that you’re typing like that in a feeble attempt to either take a shot at my southern heritage, or be a spitting image of John Kerry (the asshat that suggested that a lack of education is connected with military service). Either way it’s cute, and it exposes your douchebaggery.
Yes, Thank you for catching my mistake. Too bad you weren’t paying enough attention to catch the point.
In my state we have what’s called the Castle doctrine. It’s a shame you choose to live in a liberal la la land. Now run along and sip your latte before you go see the doctor for that wrist problem of yours.
So a gun owner that believes in the right to defend himself and not have his home invaded makes the NRA weak? A gun owner That’s rich.
Does making fun of southern people make you feel big? You’re the epitome of crass.
Methinks you resorted to such Ad hominem attacks to compensate for the absence of a substantial argument.
leetpriest on January 14, 2009 at 5:24 PM
The irony, Nazis are socialists, it seems the socialists ( over reaching social workers ) are eating their own, probably because they believe the lie that Nazis are conservative.
And yes, I fully admit my bias that they only went in because of the name.
Conservative Voice on January 14, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I stand corrected. And then there’s al-Bashir and Mugabe.
scalleywag on January 14, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Not knowing the details, just from report, will the ACLU take the case for the parents?
Entelechy on January 14, 2009 at 5:32 PM
right2bright,
You are missing my point, this isn’t about a name or whether someone is on welfare.
I also find it interesting that someone would believe that if a family accepts welfare it means the state owns you and can do whatever they want with you. State Slavery? No thanks. This lifelong taxpayer does not believe a family must give up their rights because they accept welfare.
But then as a parent, I’m also thinking of two small children who are being used as an example like pawns by the state with little regard for their emotions which are probably in turmoil right now. If that’s not abuse, what would you call it?
Done That on January 14, 2009 at 5:38 PM
If pervasive cursing leads to your child being taken away, then all the Hood Rats would have to be sterilized. The same would be true if dumb names was considered child cruelty.
Zaire67 on January 14, 2009 at 5:51 PM
No, I caught your ‘point.’
It was just neither interesting nor worthy of comment.
Religious_Zealot on January 14, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Why does it matter that Stalin killed more people than Hitler? Hitler rounded up innocent people including women and children, gassed them, tortured them and then burned their bodies up. He attempted to wipe out entire races of people, primarily the Jewish people! That alone puts him in a class by himself. You must be a retard or totally depraved to put his name on your child!
But, again, being stupid is not something the Government can regulate and before we know it they will be taking away the children of Christians because we don’t accept the Homosexual Lifestyle! It is coming so watch for it! We will be persecuted and it will eventually be illegal to even be a Christian unless the American people do something about it NOW!
sabbott on January 14, 2009 at 5:58 PM
On the one hand, the parents are undeniably idiots. But on the other, the name is NOT abuse.
Never thought I’d be defending these nutjobs…but they do have the same right to name their kid Hitler as others would to name their kid Jesus.
Dark-Star on January 14, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Actually you missed my point…you would wantonly shoot at a 9 year old, I live in NC, I don’t know any state that allows you to shoot at a young child…too bad you don’t understand restraint. And before you shoot whatever, better check your statutes on shooting unarmed children, whether they are in your home uninvited or not.
So here is my substantial argument, boiled down so you understand it.
Shooting someone is not the only answer…comprehende senior?
That is where you and I disagree…now my latte is getting cold, and your possum is ready…and how did I guess you were from the south? Maybe stereotypes are accurate after all…
right2bright on January 14, 2009 at 6:02 PM
No I didn’t miss your point…read my other posts. It was more of an academic question…if you solely live off the state on welfare, do they have a vested interest in how your family is raised?
If you fully supported your children, don’t you have a say in what they do? That is the problem with a “nanny state”.
I also stated the the CPS will take children, then decide what to charge the parent with after they have “interviewed” the children. You got in the middle of these posts and missed a lot of information that misled you.
I also gave an example of the CPS with my neighbors, doing exactly what you state…but still, if you live off the gov. you have to expect them to try to control you.
Which is why taxes are so insidious.
right2bright on January 14, 2009 at 6:07 PM
If there were some way to keep the contents of the test politically neutral and free from tampering, I’d be all for it. It is insane that we require strict testing for driving/flying, professional licenses and all sorts of other things because we realize the consequences…yet any moron with a few body parts can as many kids as they want and recieve all kinds of benefits for doing so without any sort of oversight.
Dark-Star on January 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Which is funny, because so many Hispanics (read Mexicans) name their son Jesus.
But there is a difference (don’t ask how you tell) between being really stupid and borderline abusive, and being ignorant or foolish.
I doubt to many would think it okay to name a kid dumbsh*t, or stinky vag*na…there is a line that society can draw…and often it has to measure intent.
We do have a responsibility to protect the ones who can not defend for themselves.
right2bright on January 14, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Be careful what you wish for. Who determines the criteria? What do we do with those who fail the test? Sterilization? What if they manage conceive anyway? Forced abortion?
Sounds an awful lot like Communist China to me.
Disturb the Universe on January 14, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Should read: “Nazi’s Steal Child from Morons”
JellyToast on January 14, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Most liberals only get mad at NAZI’s, that want to kill Jews.
Johan Klaus on January 14, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Or NAZI Germany.
Johan Klaus on January 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM
I share your concern about the expansive definition of “abuse” in NJ, but I somehow doubt child protective services really needed to trump up a reason to remove the children from the home of these ghastly people. It’s not just that they’ve given their children names that will subject them to contempt, ridicule and abuse, it’s that they seem (based on the birthcake episode) inclined to use the children in bizarre publicity stunts.
It’s a tough call, but I can see where NJ is coming from.
Infidoll on January 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM
If a 9 year old is illegally entering my home, yes. Probably not with a shotgun, more like a 22. The fact still remains that the child is breaking the law. If you think a 9 year old is incapable of murdering an adult, think again.
Besides, any idiot that would break into a place that’s got a car out front with NRA stickers all over the place, and Iraq vet plates is asking to die.
I understand restraint. I also understand obeying the law.
My state doesn’t add children into the equation. The law is loose enough to assist in making criminals think twice before entering a home illegally.
Please read:
By law, If I even think that the 9 year old and his father have intent to kill me (being that I’ve had plenty of children try to kill me in Iraq, it wouldn’t be farfetched to believe that I think a child is trying to kill me), the law is on my side if I shoot at them for illegally entering my domicile.
In all reality, I wouldn’t shoot a child unless the child had a weapon pointed at me, and looked like they’d fire at me. Even then, I’d more than likely shoot the child with my 22, and save the buckshot rounds for Daddy, this way I’d only injure the child enough to prevent them from firing at me.
Sorry, I don’t speak that language. Shooting someone breaking into my house is the only answer. Just like every other liberal whack job, until your life is in danger, you’ll never figure out why.
And more ad hominem attacks from the guy with no argument. Bravo, kid, you’re a class act.
leetpriest on January 14, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Could have fooled me:
Says the guy that commented back 5 times.
leetpriest on January 14, 2009 at 7:12 PM
I believe the post starts out with the phrase “No word on the cause”
From the linked article:
They’re going to get a hearing.
I think I’ll wait until I find out what the reason was for removing these children from their home before I make a judgment on this, unlike so many of you who jumped to conclusions.
JannyMae on January 14, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Dude looks like a lady and lady looks like Karl Rove.
(Kid looks cute. Poor thing.)
Tzetzes on January 14, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Short of physical abuse, no pretext is sufficient to warrant such action by the government.
Sir Andrew on January 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM
What if they named the kid peek-a-boo? I mean how idiotic and stupid would that be? That kid would be beaten daily and scrrred for life. Probably finish up in some sort of reform school, followed by federal prison.
ONLY the government can stop this kind of tragedy!
ONLY the government can prevent this kind of abuse!
ONLY the government can get this mess straightened out!
Freddy on January 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM
How on God’s green planet is this a tough call? This government intrusion if (as reported) the only reason for taking the children is the “unique” names given by their parents.
By your standards we should replace GITMO with a detention facility for children removed from “unfit” homes. The new detainees would include:
Most children of Hollywood stars who name their kids like most people name pets.
Kids with “ethnic” names like Tawana, Letisha, or other name that labels them black inner-city ghetto. Can’t get ahead in the world with a gang-banger name.
Seriously, I’ve worked close enough to the system in DC (just as socialist as NJ) and if the only crime that the parents of these otherwise happy children is naming their kid Adolph- it’s steps ahead from the abusive situations I saw where hate-filled (anti-white and anti-establishment) parents doomed their kids but did so under conventional naming criteria.
highhopes on January 14, 2009 at 8:12 PM
My middle name is after Kaiser Wilhelm and I have only killed three people.
Johan Klaus on January 14, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Ah, but by law, the records and hearing will be sealed.
In fact, I bet the judge will slap an gag order on the parents… or at least warn them that talking to the public could jeopordize their case…
Saw it happen to a friend of mine… guy couldn’t even really defend himself as most of the case against him was hearsay… which family courts do allow…
Romeo13 on January 14, 2009 at 11:30 PM
They aren’t just unconventional names, Highhopes. They’re names that will, without any doubt, subject these poor children to contempt and abuse. Any parent insensitive to that fact, and who also seem to have no appreciation as to how these highjinks might affect their children, could probably benefit from some sort of mental health intervention and/or parenting class.
But don’t fret. After some pitiful and unsuccessful attempt by NJ to make these pathetic deadbeats understand that you shouldn’t use your kids to act out your bizarre obsessions, they’ll be free to screw their kids as much as they want.
Infidoll on January 15, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Screw UP their kids, I mean.
Infidoll on January 15, 2009 at 12:30 AM
So now our kids can be taken away if a name isn’t acceptable?
You all just elected a damn President with the name O
sbama. It should take the Supreme Court about 3 seconds to rule for these parents. You can’t take a kid away for someone because you don’t like the name and what about the kids named Ziggy, Moonbeam, and Wombat?This country has gone insane with itself.
johnnyU on January 15, 2009 at 7:38 AM
oh I left out Dweasle.
johnnyU on January 15, 2009 at 7:40 AM
Well kiddo, you state I am a liberal, but then you say “ad hominem”…so anyone who thinks that it is wrong to shoot a child who breaks into a house is the only answer, is now a liberal?
You’re a class act, lets hope some kid, like the one in Virginia in diabetes shock doesn’t stumble into your house…they won’t die of diabetes shock, they will be killed by you…
And my young naive friend, better check the court cases before you rely on statutes…I will assure you, shooting a 7 year old in your house will not garner you any medals…
I think you better check your “the Iraqis children are out to kill me” at the border, this is America, and guns are not the first resort, they are the last resort.
right2bright on January 15, 2009 at 11:03 AM
You aren’t wrong, but neither is the other side…we don’t want to end up supporting this family, then there kids, and then their kids…the odds of this guys kids not being in and out of jail is probably about 90% in jail, 10% out of jail.
That is why these things concern some of us, it is the long term affect…the counter to this is that the gov. is no more responsible then the parents, a true Catch 22.
Which is worse, abusive parents, or abusive Government…take your poison, either way we pay.
right2bright on January 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I’m sure it’s already been said here, but I’ll say it again.
CPS in any state can pretty much do as they please if they ‘perceive’ a child being in ‘danger’. That can be anything they want just about.
There basically no repercussions for:
a. a case worker with a grudge
b. a stupid caseworker
c. an overloaded caseworker (negligence)
d. your next door neighbor, ex-wife/husband etc accusing you falsely of some imagined heinous crime toward a child (or your own child)
These agencies, all over the US, have invaded the sanctity of the family (& their Constitutional rights) for YEARS.
THIS IS NOTHING NEW. IT GOES ON ALL THE TIME.
I worked with a man who was accused of molesting his 5yo daughter by a disgruntled parent (he was a football coach) who happened to work as an aide in his daughter’s classroom.
They immediately took the child from the home (2 days before the Easter holiday).
They left the 3rd grade twin daughters in the home, however.
The mother, who was not accused of anything was refused access to her 5yo.
It took 2 WEEKS for the mother was allowed to SEE her daughter. After almost a month they managed to get the father’s brother & his wife designated as the foster parents. After 2 months they got their daughter back as CPS could find no evidence against the father.
Did anything happen to CPS? Did anything happen to the ‘anonymous’ reporter for making a false allegation? NO.
If you were not aware of this, get aware.
It could happen to you at any time.
Piss of your neighbor: they call CPS on you.
There are no consequences in the Family Courts & all of the agencies.
The govt could take your child anytime they want to for no apparent reason other than they ‘are in danger’.
It happens all the time, you just don’t hear about it!
Badger40 on January 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I was thinking the same thing.. or anyone naming their child after B Hussein Obama.
Dasher on January 15, 2009 at 2:52 PM
With emphasis on “all the time”…it is a “cry wolf” scenario, the minute you decide not to follow through, it will be an actual case.
That is what makes this so emotionally charged.
If these “parents” decide to pull the Nazi stunt of killing the kids and them in a Nazi pact, then everyone would be hollering of why the state didn’t step in to protect the children…remember Jones Town?
So they overreact, with ill trained people…and you get chaos.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
right2bright on January 15, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Badger40 on January 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Like I said, it is a Catch 22, by time you get proof, the damage may be done…and you may have survived, but many don’t, at least as a whole person…and each abuse is different, on a different person, in different circumstances, etc.
We have to protect the least among us, yet we can’t…
right2bright on January 15, 2009 at 5:26 PM
What the heck happened to the UPDATE thread on this? What is going on here?
The update thread noted that a spokesman for the child protective services said that they would NOT remove children from their home because of their names. The reason for the seizure of the children was NOT REVEALED.
We can what if until we’re blue in the face, but how about having some basic knowledge before we do so?
JannyMae on January 15, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Found it in my history in my browser. How is it that the update thread is off the front page and this one is still sitting here?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/14/new-jersey-official-we-didnt-take-the-kid-because-hes-named-after-hitler/
JannyMae on January 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3