Adolf Hitler and Siblings Taken From Parents by DYFS

yuck

This is so wrong.

So you have to get name approval now?

Kind of like the USA is becoming occupied Germany.

Would you agree if parents in Iraq named their child George Bush and the same thing happened?

Just because its not popular doesnt mean we as a society have the right to impose moral judment and deem the parent unworthy.

What if all parents who let their kids stay up past 9pm had their kids taken away.

What a bunch of hypocrits we are.

And when you consider there are REAL cases of child abuse out there that result in a childs death and states do nothing about it.

But name your kid what society deems inappropriate and they take the kids.

What a screwed up system we have.

I'm with Lori on this. Although I think it was an awful thing to do, giving the children such names, I don't think it is grounds for abuse charges, and if they are actually pursuing such charges, they'd better have more than that to use against them. Some civil rights lawyer will have a field day with this one.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If they made such a stupid decision in the naming, chances are they've made other stupid decisions.

Yes, a name alone isn't enough reason to take a kid away. I mean if some geek names his kid Obi-Wan Kenobi is that child abuse? (Presuming a geek could ever mate, of course...)

Look at how many people name there kids Espn. Like the tv sports channel.

Sharon I disagree. Look at that celebrity that named their kid Apple. Should we assume that child is abused also?

Or if you name your child Michael then you are OK and above suspicion because you chose a biblical name?

I think if they were taken away over just their names, that's going a bit far... although I do agree with Sharon, what else would they show bad judgement or neglect for their kids after naming their children names like that???

There's gotta be more to it...but the naming thing is bad enough.

Just because its not popular doesnt mean we as a society have the right to impose moral judment and deem the parent unworthy.

This isn't an issue of popularity. This is an issue of naming your children in such a manner as to deliberately and with malice cause emotional harm. This is emotional child abuse. You are deliberately subjecting a child (three children) to emotional damage by giving them names like this.

There is a difference between naming your daughter Apple (which is weird) and naming her ARYAN NATION. Unfortunately, we live in a society where we "don't want to pass judgement" because we are too intellectually lazy to make the differentiation between the two.

Names have power. They are an immediate identifier of who a person is...for good or ill. Name your child "Moonbeam", OK, your parents are ex-hippies. name your kid ADOLF HITLER, it sends an immediate message as to the type of household you come from. Imagine little Adolf, at 18, sending out job resumes trying to get a job. Imagine little Aryan Nation going to a typical public school.

I mean if some geek names his kid Obi-Wan Kenobi is that child abuse?

No, but it would be trademark infringement. I'd rather take my chances with DYFS than face off against George Lucas.

Julie you are right names have power.....I mean no one EVER that had one of their names Hussein would ever be elected President of the United States...right.

Names have NO power...people do.

If you are going to be held back because of your name then you can change it.

There are many children in Germany that have the surname Hitler.

And many children there are named Adolph.

If the Germans dont have issues with that then why do we?

I remember reading something like similar to this but it happened in New Zealand I think but the parents had named their child - get this - Tulula likes to hula.... That was her name. A sentence! A court took the child into custody and demanded the child's name be changed and once this occurred then she could be remanded back to her parents. The reasoning was the same as what we suspect is the reason here. This is the second article I have read about the children being taken away and other than the assumption it is because of the names nothing else has been proven. Maybe there is something else going on here and their names is what brought the attention needed to get to the root of the problem.

It says they don't know why they were taken. It doesn't say because of their names.

I have to admit that when I saw pictures of these parents the first thing I thought of was that they were meth heads.

I mean no one EVER that had one of their names Hussein would ever be elected President of the United States...right.

And just look at the crap he took because of that middle name. Does anyone really think the election would have been as close as it was if his name was Barry O'Brien?

Your comparison is weak, however, because it fails to take into account context. Obama was named decades ago, before anyone in the U.S. knew who Saddam Hussein was or what the word Taliban meant. Obama was the victim of unfortunate timing. These children are victims of parents trying to make a racist point at the expense of their children.

Would you consider it OK for a parent to name his son Osama Taliban Jones or his daughter Al Queda Miller, knowing the historical and psychological weight of those words? You don't think that child would suffer ridicule, scorn, and embarassment for years until he or she was legally able to change their name?

It's about damned time the DYFS caught up with those idiots!

Lori, it's not just the names. Neither of the parents works, they have a history of not working, and they've been using the names of their children to get themselves in the public eye. And having read the numerous news articles on this situation, and also after having watched two different TV interviews with the father, I'd say Lisa has a good point. There's something seriously wrong with those parents.

Roy,

Thanks for the additional insight. I think everyone in fact assumes this was not JUST about the names. The names ar merely a tool the parents use to get attention for themselves and feign some level of control. But the names ARE, in fact, indicative of the type of people they are.

Roy then by your definition any mother who doesnt work but allows her child to be in movies or beauty pagents should have those kids taken away right?

It is a name. Barack Obama did pretty well with that name.

When Child Services ignore things like children being repeatedly raped by a parent or step parent or a child with hundreds of cigarette burns on their bodies...but when there is public outcry over a name.

Come on.

What other "crimes" have these parents committed?

Being lazy and not working is NOT against the law.

According to Kate Bernyk, spokeswoman for the New Jersey DYFS: "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. We wouldn't remove a child based on their name."

I've watched Heath Campbell's TV interviews, and I've read the local Lehigh Valley, PA, and NJ (Easton is right on PA/NJ border) news media. According to all accounts, both Heath and Deborah Campbell have a history of irresponsible behavior - the fact that Heath has never been able to hold a job more than a couple of months is one example; ditto for Deborah. Naming their children after the 20th century's most notorious mass murderers and then parading them in front of the cameras of the press is just one more example of their instability.

Being lazy and not working is NOT against the law.
On its own, no. But by most US states' child welfare laws, yes it is, at least if you want to have children. In RI the behavior patterns of Heath and Deborah Campbell (aside from the name issue) would get the children removed from the home and put into foster care. Apparently the same is true in NJ.

From the FOXNews.com article: "A paper to be published in March in Social Sciences Journal by economists David E. Kalist and Daniel Y. Lee of Shippensburg University found that unpopular first names, when mixed with factors like a disadvantaged home life, can increase the tendency toward juvenile delinquency."

Laziness, irresponsibility, childishness on their own are not crimes. When all it affects is the person being juvenile, the only person being harmed is the offender. But when you add children, especially infants and toddlers, the mix becomes toxic. Then the children MUST be removed before irreparable damage occurs.

I agree with Julie on this one. If they want to make a statement, then they can change their own names, and not screw up their kids lives anymore than they probably will be. I am not for intervention in every little thing when it comes to messing with families and their children, but I think this is a matter of common sense. Children have a hard enough time as it is.

There is a whole other way to look at this: without the names being in question and bringing this family into the public eye, IF the children are indeed being abused in any way, there is a good possibility that no one would have noticed.

I am sure that there was more than just the names of the children, but, to name your child something like that, just sets them up to be in trouble, teachers, school mates, can you imagine what those kids would go thru, and with parents that obviously believe in hate, with that hate ingrained in them from birth, they would not have it easy, other childrens parents wouldnt want there kids around them, school teachers, health care providers, jobs, all kinds of repercussions from just stating your name somewhere.... it shows that the parents are really not thinking, and just spreading hate.... it was a very irresponsible thing to do to all of the children, why wouldnt they have changed there names???? I will say that, there had to be more than just the childrens names to cause the state to remove them, and I dont even want to know, what was going on in that home, just from what I have read, there is much more to this story, pray for the kids, they are the ones suffering from ignorance

the parents ignorance, sorry bout that