Nj Authorities Take Little Adolf H. Away

Lounge By this-mama-rocks Updated 15 Jan 2009 , 2:01am by Ruth0209

this-mama-rocks Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 9:22pm
post #1 of 16

hmmm, wonder what's behind this development?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28655143/?GT1=43001

15 replies
jenncowin Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 9:29pm
post #2 of 16

I remember reading about the cake incident. Who would name their child after such a horrible man? Each to their own I suppose. I shall pass no judgement, so my Granny always told me...

racechick311x Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 9:41pm
post #3 of 16

Good for the children! After the birth parents named the children those names they should have immediately been taken because they obviously did not have the best interest of the child in mind! I hope the children are put in foster care and given to a wonderful family, that is the only way they might have a chance to be normal.

cakeschmake Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 11:22pm
post #4 of 16

I read about this too. The article I saw said that they wouldnt take the kids just because of their names, so it makes you really wonder why they were taken away from the parents. No one would comment on exactly why but I 'll bet the reason comes out soon.
I wish the best for those babies!

Kitagrl Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 11:32pm
post #5 of 16

I haven't quite figured out how that helped anything though...since the articles say the only "abuse" found was the names of the kids....so....what is the foster family going to do...rename them?

I think they took them due to all the excess public attention.

Don't get me wrong, I think the family is nuts....I just think if they are actually saying "We haven't found any abuse" then its kinda scary they can still just go in there and take people's kids. Even the police officer said he'd known the family for years and had never seen anything wrong with the way the children were treated.

summernoelle Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 11:36pm
post #6 of 16

I posted this in the other thread, but wanted to post it here, too. I think this is a pretty serious issue-way more so than what we were talking about a few weeks ago with the bakery refusing to make the cake!

I just heard this on the news. Yes, these parents are disgusting "human" beings, are are what I would call white trash. But, what right does the state have to take away a child over a name? NONE! You can name your child whatever you want. Look at Nicholas Cage-his kid's name is Pilot Inspektor. That is a terrible name, but nothing you can remove the child for.

Was there any physical or sexual abuse? Any drug usage in the home? Any neglect? CPS is overloaded with real cases of sexual abuse, physical abuse, meth head parents. Why are they wasting time on a kid with a bad name?

You all need to realize that if your child can be taken away for a name, they can be taken away for just about anything. I think this is a violation of rights, and who knows what else they will start taking kids away for.

CakeMakar Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 11:48pm
post #7 of 16

Maybe it has something to do with the escalated threats the parents were saying they've been receiving?

meganmo27 Posted 14 Jan 2009 , 11:50pm
post #8 of 16

I would have to agree that naming your kids after a horrible man isn't the greatest thing to do. That being said...it's not illegal. Poor judgement, yes, illegal, no. I wonder if the state stepped in just because of the highly inflammatory names the kids were given? I certainly don't think that children should be left in unsafe environments. So far I haven't heard anything other than the poor judgement of the names that would indicate they were in an unsafe environment. Call me crazy but I don't think those babies should have been taken away from their parents.
As my father used to say...being stupid isn't a crime.

CakeMakar Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 12:57am
post #9 of 16

They did show in the news for the cake that they had swastikas in their house. I remember a skull with one on the forehead.

meganmo27 Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 1:02am
post #10 of 16

Freedom of Speech applies to everyone even Nazi loving white supremisists. Unless those people were abusing their children in some way or another they should not have been removed.

mbelgard Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 1:12am
post #11 of 16

As terrible as these names might be I really hope the kids weren't taken away over it.

What's next if it's a case over anything to do with parental beliefs?

CakeMakar Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 1:13am
post #12 of 16

I'm sure the agency got lots of pressure from the rest of society, it was a high profile case.

Kitagrl Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 1:32am
post #13 of 16

Down south, parents have tons of confederate flags and skull and crossbones and KKK stuff....I don't think they take kids over that.

It really IS kinda scary....I mean what next....taking kids away for having Bible names, because its too religious? Or any number of other various beliefs.

In any of the photos shown, the children looked loved and cared for, even if the family looked weird.

cakesbycathy Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 1:38am
post #14 of 16

Maybe it wasn't so much an issue of something the parents were doing. My guess is that the state considered the kids to be in danger since the parents have been the target of harrassment, damage to their property and death threats.

Of course what do you expect when you give your kids those kind of names and on top of that pull an attention seeking stunt. icon_confused.gif

Amia Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 1:46am
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by summernoelle

Look at Nicholas Cage-his kid's name is Pilot Inspektor.




Actually that is Jason Lee's son. Nic Cage named his son Kal El after Superman.

While the names given to those children were terrible, it's not like a name isn't something that is permanent. Those children can legally change their names later. Even if the parents are idiots, as long as they're providing a loving, stable home for their children, there is no reason for the state to take away their children.

Ruth0209 Posted 15 Jan 2009 , 2:01am
post #16 of 16

I can assure you that the authorities did NOT remove these children just because of their names. I was a Guardian Ad Litem for several years (that's the court appointed advocate for children who have been removed from their parents' custody), and it is extremely difficult to remove children from their homes. They have to be considered in imminent danger due to abuse or neglect. The cases I dealt with involved children who were burned, molested, malnourished, had parents using drugs in the home (almost all of them), and in homes that were so disgustingly dirty you can't even imagine it. A court proceeding occurs very quickly after the children are removed to confirm that the removal was warranted. Trust me, no one has done these parents wrong.

I can also tell you that almost 100% of the time these poor little souls get returned to their lame *ss disgusting parents because it is extremely difficult to terminate parental rights. The parents are given all kinds of chances to show they've changed their ways, and the threshold is pretty low. The laws are definitely in favor of parents' rights over those of their children.

My hat is off to the social workers who handle these cases for a living. I was a volunteer as long as I could stand to do it before I burned out on seeing innocent kids going back to awful parents. It's pretty hard to see.

I'll watch this case with great interest.

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%