Adolf Hitler Taken Away!

[kirbyfan]

Crazy, interesting story! I wish there were more information given on the parents. So not quite knowing the whole story just yet it raises some interesting questions...

Should DYFS be able to take children away from parents because of the name they gave the child? Would the Doctor have called if they children didnt have Nazi inspired names? Would the DYFS have even care if not for the names?

Here's the story:
New Jersey Parents Who Named Child 'Adolf Hitler' Lose Custody of Newborn



Link here

[james]

what's in a name?

[Michele]

Agreed. It's just a name.

[melliedee]

It's not clear to me from the story that the main reason the children were taken away had to do anything with their names? From the link:

A panel of three appellate judges ruled in August 2010 that the DYFS was correct in removing the three children from the Campbells' custody because Heath Campbell was "a risk of harm to his children" and Deborah Campbell's "denials of her husband's history of violence also made her a risk of harm to the children," according to The Star-Ledger.

And from ABC:

A DYFS spokesperson told ABCNews.com in 2009 that she could not comment on a specific case, but said children are only taken into custody if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.

“We would never remove a child simply based on their name,” the spokeswoman said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...dy-of-newborn/

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by melliedee

It's not clear to me from the story that the main reason the children were taken away had to do anything with their names? From the link:



And from ABC:



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...dy-of-newborn/

So you are saying that if they had been named Bob or Mary, that they still would have been taken away? That the Doctor would have still called in? Could be....I guess thats part of the question.

[Mogley]

I would say many government child type services have been blamed for ignoring things a lot worse than a name. In this case I would think that the parents are asking to be scrutinized. No it is not just a name, it is a name that instantly brings to mind the most evil of mankind….probably a wee bit more of a burden than an innocent child deserves, being as how it’s a rather avoidable obstacle.
Its not just a boy named Sue.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

So you are saying that if they had been named Bob or Mary, that they still would have been taken away? That the Doctor would have still called in? Could be....I guess thats part of the question.

I have no idea because the story is not clear about what the charges are. If abuse or neglect was going on, then child services may have had something much more substantial to go on beyond being horrified by the names. It's possible that awareness of the the names triggered an initial investigation which then revealed real signs of abuse? Hard to say with so few facts.

Legally, there is nothing the state can do about the names these parents chose for their kids.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I have no idea because the story is not clear about what the charges are. If abuse or neglect was going on, then child services may have had something much more substantial to go on beyond being horrified by the names. It's possible that awareness of the the names triggered an initial investigation which then revealed real signs of abuse? Hard to say with so few facts.

Legally, there is nothing the state can do about the names these parents chose for their kids.

Could naming your child something horrific be grounds for emotional abuse? How different is it from making your child wear a sign around their neck to school that says, "I'm stupid"?

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by james

what's in a name?

Whats in a word?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Could naming your child something horrific be grounds for emotional abuse? How different is it from making your child wear a sign around their neck to school that says, "I'm stupid"?

Yes, but I think that would be very difficult to prove. There is some indication there may have been abuse/neglect going on, and that would be a much stronger legal leg for child services to stand when defending the decision to remove these kids from the home.

In most cases, what we find "horrific" is subjective. There are a few Hollywood kid names that I think border on emotional abuse, but I would not want to take away parents' right to name their kids whatever they want. With Hitler, I think most people (save neo-Nazis) agree on the "horrific" part. But is it grounds to remove the kids? If it's their only justification, I say no. If it was a trigger to investigate these parents and they found real abuse, I have no problem with that.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Yes, but I think that would be very difficult to prove. There is some indication there may have been abuse/neglect going on, and that would be a much stronger legal leg for child services to stand when defending the decision to remove these kids from the home.

In most cases, what we find "horrific" is subjective. There are a few Hollywood kid names that I think border on emotional abuse, but I would not want to take away parents' right to name their kids whatever they want. With Hitler, I think most people (save neo-Nazis) agree on the "horrific" part. But is it grounds to remove the kids? If it's their only justification, I say no. If it was a trigger to investigate these parents and they found real abuse, I have no problem with that.

Ok and agreed.

What about the second part of my question though? How is putting a sign on your child that says, "I'm stupid" different than naming your daughter "douchebag" or your son "dumbass"? Are those names so different than Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson? Isnt there similar social embarassment and stigma either way?

[Mexivoof]

Adolph Hitler ... wrong! What about my cousin who named his kid after his uncle and himself ... Jack Daniel. How about Candy Cane? All are inadviseable. Where do we let an omnipresent all seeing all knowing government draw the line? I'm glad I'm not in charge, of course my judgement IS right, but I'm also sure 99.9% of you disagree.

Thanks for making me think!

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Ok and agreed.

What about the second part of my question though? How is putting a sign on your child that says, "I'm stupid" different than naming your daughter "douchebag" or your son "dumbass"? Are those names so different than Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson? Isnt there similar social embarassment and stigma either way?

I think the situations are very similar. But, it is also not against the law to name your kid "douchebag" or "dumbass," is it? Are you asking if I think it should be? I don't. Or are you asking if I think it burdens the child with a social stigma they must bear through no fault of their own? Yes, I agree with that totally. I also don't have a problem if a name prompts authorities to investigate the parents.

Do you think legal action should be taken against parents who choose names like those examples?

[Rissask]

It reminds me of the case a few years ago in Canada where child welfare seized the daughter of white supremacist parents...she was going to school with swaztikas drawn on her like tattoos...

Manitoba goverment seeks to ban media from 'white pride' custody trial - Manitoba - CBC News


The question is, how far does the government get to go to protect children from being raised in toxic environments?

It's a tough one....how do we determine what is child abuse? Is being raised by rabid bigots defined as abuse? (I would hope it is clear that parents who name their child Adolf Hitler is a rabid bigot?)

[roni]

If it was in a country with socialized mental health care, then I might be able to support the name. If not, then the government should forcibly re-name the child , at a minimum