US court denies parents custody of Hitler and sisters

The parent(s) can name their child or children whichever name(s) they choose to. I personally find it distasteful to name children after genocidal dictators. However, it is a parental right of the parent(s). The government, at any jurisdictional level, has no right to impede on this issue.

Everyone doesn't understand, you see we are all mentally Ill and need to be on medicine, that's why they are putting all these drugs in our water, like lithium this way we not forget to take our medicine and we will all be well and fine. I'm so thirsty right now I'm going to go drink a big glass of cold water.

This is absurd and a totally accurate reflection of just how out of control governmental meddling in our personal lives has gotten. One more loss for human rights.

I hear you all on the issue of free speech, and the right to name your child whatever you want.

And after some consideration, I agree to a certain degree, including to the degree of naming your child Adolf Hitler. But, as one poster said, that family should be carefully watched, and at any sign of abuse, those children's best must be seen to, even if it means taking them from their parents.

Originally posted by tonypazzo
um, you should be able to name your kids whatever you want. you made them. also, to the guy who said "letting your kids get fat" is child abuse is absurd.

Tonypazzo... if you let your kids get fat you are exposing them to bad health and shortening their lives. Being FAT is unhealthy. Letting your kids eat crap and get fat is disgusting behavior, the fact that you can't see this makes me believe... .... no, I won't go there.

I will add that the fat kid can't do a lot of things other kids can... sport, games etc

If you can't see that son then you need to give your head a shake.

Originally posted by Say_It_Already
The parent(s) can name their child or children whichever name(s) they choose to. I personally find it distasteful to name children after genocidal dictators. However, it is a parental right of the parent(s). The government, at any jurisdictional level, has no right to impede on this issue.

Would you agree that one person has the right to inflict negativity, damage and pain on someone's life? Didn't think so. Therefore just because they are parents it doesn't give them the right to inflict such crap onto the lives of others.

You could reply that these are just names but let's be honest, they are painful labels that will lead to potentially devastating results.

Originally posted by Say_It_Already
The parent(s) can name their child or children whichever name(s) they choose to. I personally find it distasteful to name children after genocidal dictators. However, it is a parental right of the parent(s). The government, at any jurisdictional level, has no right to impede on this issue.
Would you agree that one person has the right to inflict negativity, damage and pain on someone's life? Didn't think so. Therefore just because they are parents it doesn't give them the right to inflict such crap onto the lives of others.

First of all, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. As am I, sir. Obviously, you are a person who believes that your opinion is right and other peoples' opinions are wrong. This is the problem. If you had read what I had typed, you wouldn't have singled me out, sir, as others had posted similiar opinions.

As for the parents

inflict(ing) such crap onto the lives of others.

who are you to say it's crap? What you hold as right or wrong, others may not.

i guess i screwed that quote up- excuse me for it, it is my first day..it was a response to OP

[edit on 8/6/2010 by Say_It_Already]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I'll stay the course.

Children should not be considered the property of parents. Parents should not have the "right" to do things to the children that will cause them harm, cause them to be picked on and abused by others, etc.

Especially now that brain imaging and neuroscience shows that long term changes in the brain result from emotional and psychological abuse. Physical harm, from non physical abuse.

Children are a responsibility that parents choose to take on. Not a right. Not property. If you cannot handle the responsibility you choose to take on, those children should be removed from your care so that they do not suffer permanent harm at your hands (or from your actions and words)

The very same people who argue that "fetuses are people too" will then argue that these "people" once born should be treated like property. I say no. They shouldnt. If someone wants to name their child "Worthless piece of #," they should not be allowed to do so. And naming a child after someone most of the world reviles is right up there with naming them "worthless piece of #."

Parental "rights" needs an overhaul. And I know, from past experience, just how unpopular this idea is with parents who feel they should have the right to do anything they want with and to their children. So flame away. Raising children should be looked upon as a responsibility and a privilege. We are no longer living in the times when we need every single physical body possible to facilitate the survival of the group, and where it didnt matter how children were raised because a lot of them were going to die before adulthood anyway.

Society is now burdened with the results of horrible parenting, and it affects all of us when we allow incompetent and abusive people to do whatever they like to the future adults we will all have to deal with. It is our job to protect those children so that they have a chance to grow up to be good citizens.

I guess they forgot they are living in a country that had a
big war against Hitler and the nation's authorities will always
honor that fact.

Weather Hitler remained alive in a secret conspiracy to disprove
a war he better speak up now.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Hey.
I could not have said it better myself.

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet
www.katsandogz.com...

Edited for author and title.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by jeanvaljean]

Let's remember firstly that these children mightn't have been taken away from their parents just because of their names.

That being said, supposing that they were, then I offer the following thoughts:

Firstly, a government cannot decide what people you can call your children after, because where would you draw the line ?

Who deems what historical or contemporary figure is ''appropriate'' to name your child after ?
I'm sure there are many on here who'd think that calling your son ''George W. Bush'' or ''Barack Hussein Obama'' would be tantamount to child cruelty.
What about ''Washington'' or ''Jefferson'' ? People who thought it was acceptable to ''own'' other human beings as property.

Just where would you draw that line ?


Secondly, it's only a name. To those who say that it's child cruelty because the child may be teased or bullied; well, that's just shifting the blame from the offender onto the victim.

It is not the parents' or children's fault that some people are so uncivilised and prejudiced that they would pick on someone because of their name.
The blame for that is entirely at the feet of the bully.

Children with red-hair often get bullied and picked on, are parents that don't die their ginger child's hair guilty of child cruelty ?

Children with glasses often get teased and picked on, are parents that don't make their bespectacled child wear contact lenses guilty of child cruelty ?

Children who don't wear the ''in'' clothes are often bullied, are parents who don't buy their children the latest designer clothes guilty of child cruelty ?

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

reply to post by Say_It_Already

First of all, do not worry about getting the quote wrong.

I worry that there is even debate forming as to whether naming your children with said names is right or wrong, that troubles me.

It's also part of debate for you to state your opinions and then, if my viewpoint is different I will then state my opinions. I, like many others here, take pleasure when I think someone has differing opinions or is wrong on teh int3rnetz.

How ever judging by your reply I think you understand that and you will get along fine round here.



[edit on 6-8-2010 by and14263]

Should the children's be kept nameless until they are mature enough to name themselves? Or should the parents name their children? Why do you care what other people name their kids. It's not interfering with your life in anyway and more importantly is not against law.

Let the parents keep whatever they want to name their kids if the kids don't like it they can approach the social services and ask to get their names changed. Besides what's all the fuss about naming Adolf Hitler? It's a non issue and a regular name like any else.

There's a saying beauty lies in the eye of beholder likewise the meaning of name lies with the person judging them. Simply do not judge and mind your own business.

Originally posted by Sheol
Should the children's be kept nameless until they are mature enough to name themselves? Or should the parents name their children? Why do you care what other people name their kids. It's not interfering with your life in anyway and more importantly is not against law.

I'm not claiming to know answers however the bit in bold is crazy talk. Laws do not = morals. If you start your moral guidelines from this square you're going to a dark place.

Let the parents keep whatever they want to name their kids if the kids don't like it they can approach the social services and ask to get their names changed.

Yes, because children would do that wouldn't they? Even if they were compus enough to go to SS by that time damage has been done.

Besides what's all the fuss about naming Adolf Hitler? It's a non issue and a regular name like any else.

It's at this point I realised you were just trolling. As I'm this far I will add, it isn't a 'normal' (ahem) name. It has many horrendous connotations attached to it which, going by how most humans behave, is a signal for people to be prejudice towards the kid. It's wrong and people shouldn't do it but they will... especially other kids.

There's a saying beauty lies in the eye of beholder likewise the meaning of name lies with the person judging them. Simply do not judge and mind your own business.

I won't judge the child but I reckon millions will, humans are like that... hence the posting of the story.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by and14263]

Surely there is more to the story than is being reported...

If the children's names are the sole reason that custody was denied, then:

1. Why were the kids not immediately taken when the names were put on the birth certificates?

2. Why were they not taken when SS#s were issued for these kids?

Those were 2 distinct opportunities to have taken the kids IF name alone is the reason for the custody issue.

Edit to add:

After reading the OP article, these things stand out:

the parents, who both suffer from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities

Deborah Campbell had recently passed a letter to a neighbour saying her husband had threatened "to have me killed or kill me himself".

That alone is justification to take the kids.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by and14263
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

I'm all for rehabilitation over punishment but I think if we way up giving people freedom against potential harm coming to children, and if we look at the effects of not giving these people freedom and what it achieves then in my opinion it's ok to take action. Although I think the action should be some sort of rehabilitation.

First off if parents really wanted to prevent their children from being exposed to harm they would encase them in Nerf style rubber and never let them leave a concrete and steel reinforced closet size bunker until they turn 18.

There are no guarantees in life and Nietzsche (I know a Nazi in your mind) said “that which does not kill us only serves to make us stronger.” So some would argue exposing children to adversity is a wise part of their formative experience.

Further it is a politically motivated conclusion that they named their children as part of a hate game.

It shows a hateful bias on your own part, as like it or not, Hitler was twice Time’s Man of the Year in his early days and greatly admired by leaders the world over for his transformation of Germany from a hyperinflationary state of depression, chronic unemployment and street violence, to a well ordered, productive and employed society.

He is known for other things besides concentration camps that millions of Slavs, Gypsies, Gays, and Political dissidents died in as well as the Jews.

So there is nothing hateful about admiring someone, even if that person is generally now reviled.

There is something hateful though about your opening piece. Just wanted to point that out, and having not read the article (no interest) it’s safe to say the Judge ruled based on the parents physical and mental ailments and not how the children were named.

By the way I am not a fan of Hitler or Fascism but I do support parental rights, free will and the right to self determination.

Evidently you have a problem with those things.

Thanks.


[edit on 6/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

I think it's important to remember that we only have the father's claim that the names of the kids were the reason for their removal.

The Washington Post also has an article on this, including the partial contents of the note passed to a neighbor by the mother:

The judges considered a typo-riddled note signed by Deborah Campbell and given to a neighbor. In it, Campbell says that if she were found dead, her husband was to blame.

"Hes thrend to have me killed or kill me himself hes alread tried it a few times. Im afread that he might hurt my children if they are keeped in his care. He teaches my son how to kill someone at the age of 3," the letter read in part.

Deborah Campbell later acknowledged writing the letter but claimed it was all a lie.

I think the media latched onto this story for the sensationalist bit about the kids' names, but there's probably a lot more to the court's ruling that we're not seeing. The fact that the mother would write a note like that to begin with suggests something's not right in the household, whether you believe her later assertion that she was lying or not.

Originally posted by and14263
Laws do not = morals.

Everyone decides their own morals one does not have to submit to one particular moral. You cannot force your moral on some parents and deny them right to name their own kids which they have.

Yes, because children would do that wouldn't they? Even if they were compus enough to go to SS by that time damage has been done.

Why wouldn't they if they have any probs with the name? If they don't have any problem with the name they won't goto authorities.

It's at this point I realised you were just trolling. As I'm this far I will add, it isn't a 'normal' (ahem) name. It has many horrendous connotations attached to it which, going by how most humans behave, is a signal for people to be prejudice towards the kid. It's wrong and people shouldn't do it but they will... especially other kids.

If you cannot stand by your point you cannot save face by accusing other of trolling. Going by your same logic there was also an ugly side Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or even John Evans leading the massacre of millions of native Indians. Where is your cry for people naming their kids John, Thomas or George? See hypocrisy won't help you anyway.

Typo again and again

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Sheol]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Sheol]

reply to post by zroth



Thankya baby Jesus!! So many parents think I'm crazy for not telling my kids about Santa or the Easter Bunny. They're lies. I tell my children that 'you cant trust liars or thieves'. If they mess up in some way, take responsibility for their actions. How can I look them in the eye and tell a blatant lie and be okay with it? Especially when they'd eventually find out the truth. Some strange man or a 6' rabbit coming into your home is just plain creepy anyway.

My gf's son went to school one day and told all of the other 3rd graders how they were being deceived and it was his responsibility to inform them, they were being brainwashed!!! Sooo funny. Many, many very angry parents.

Kim

Originally posted by Faiol
to give your child a name like that is abuse, I am sorry but thats the TRUTH

...thats not the truth... thats selective prejudice and merely an opinion...

...do you take issue with people naming their children andrew, jackson, thomas, jefferson or george(ie: washington, custer, good ol' king george and gwb and his daddy)... no?... why not?... they all committed / condoned genocide... some even slaughtered more people than hitler...

Originally posted by Faiol
I am all for freedom

...an over-used faux patriot phrase that usually means you're all for your definition of freedom - and - that usually translates to your freedom to not be offended by what others do that you dont approve of... thats not freedom, not even close...

Originally posted by Faiol
but you cant USE your child like a toy, he is not a toy, he will have a life, and he will be hurt because of that, since our society will judge him

...if a child is bullied because of their name, their size, their intellect, the color of their skin, their religion, their culture, etc - it is 100% due to the prejudice expoused by the adults in society... so, if you want to be effective in teaching parents not to use their children "like a toy", start with the prejudiced who teach their children to hate...

...on topic - without knowing the full extent of the alleged "ailments" of the parents, as well as the full disclosure of who made the diagnosis and the criteria used, i dont think any of us can correctly judge whether or not the parents in question should retain custody of their kids...