Have you heard...?This past December, the Campbells could not get a ShopRite supermarket to decorate a birthday cake for their son because of his name: Adolf Hilter Campbell.
While their cake dilemma ended with Wal-Mart's compliance with their request, they now are in a fight for custody of their children. They do not know what the pretenses were for their removal but believe the sole-reason was because of their children's names, all of which have Nazi roots.
The Division of Youth and Family Services has not stated why the children have been removed (and may be prohibited of doing so by law), leaving the rest of us to question the Campbell's outcries:
- Could this be discrimination?
- Were these children safe in their previous environment or were they in "imminent danger" in their parent's custody?
Here's the story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/hitler_cake
I am a little suspicious myself. While I am opposed to the ideologies and values of white-supremacy, I wonder if the children were removed under false pretenses. But are they false if "imminent danger" could be classified by a upbringing in a hateful and often violent belief system?
What are your thoughts on this controversy?
After looking at other articles on this case, I read on newsday.com that the Campbell's neighbors possibly were the ones who reported child abuse to the Division of Youth and Family Services. Mrs. Campbell fully denies the claim and reports that Mr. Campbell has been "hospitalized because of the stress" the situation has caused him.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newsday.com/iphone/ny-usnazi0122,0,4863099.story
It's a tough case. My gut says that these kids were in a household filled with harmful and dangerous ideas--I can't help but be glad they were taken. BUT--it is not enough to say that harmful and dangerous ideas warrant the removal of children. IF the parents were abusive and/or neglectful then this was the right decision. If not, then as much as it pains me to say it, the children should be returned.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely discrimination. The DYFS didn't give any reasons that they think the children were in danger. I don't necessarily think that the children were in any danger at their homes. I think that they were just using that as an excuse to take the children away from their parents, simply because of their names. The ShopRite was discriminating against the children because of their names, even though the boy is only three years old. Unless the DYFS supplies specific reasons that the children are in "imminent danger," they should be returned to their home.
ReplyDeleteI agree with ms. Biondi. I am totally against what the parents are doing. Who names there kids middle name "aryan nation?" It is rediculous and uncalled for, but since there is no proof as of now, that they abused or neglected their children, I disagree with the removal of the kids.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe the government took the Campbell children just because of their names. I definitely don't agree with the parents naming one of their kids after such a terrible man and the other after the "super race"; however, unless the children were neglected or abused by their parents they should have never been removed from their home.
ReplyDeletei think perosnaly that the kids were removed from their parents household for their name rather than a dangerous and harmful ideas within the household. but mostly i agree with ms.biondi they wrere in a unsafe eneviorment but i think it wasn't enought for the children to be removed.
ReplyDeleteI can't exactly say what I would think. I wouldn't base their parenting off a name that they gave to their kid, however you'd honestly have to be asking for trouble if you named your child after such a largely despised person. I think it's a pretty bad idea to name you child that, but if you can live with it, more power to you. The company that wouldn't make them a cake was a little riduculous. The kid is 3 years old; it's a little silly to not make a cake for a three year old. Another point that is a little messed up is the removal of their children. If they haven't been involved with the family for three years, what other than their children's names would be the reason to take them?
ReplyDeleteWell i think they might have been removed under false pretences. But they could eventually be in imment danger if the are recieving threats. But i think that the children were removed because of their names. And from the sound of the article the children just had a common cold and possibly a dirty diaper (not very hard to chang).The world today is so discriminant torwards names/things pertaining to anything of that nature.
ReplyDeleteTo me, there would have to somethings that happened for the fight for custody by the parents. IF the children were subject to abuse then it could warrant the removal of the children. Also, if the children were being taught lessons like that of Hitler, then there could e reason for their removal. But on the basis of just their names, they should not be moved out of their home. Even though I find it appalling that a parent would name their son after a mass murderer.
ReplyDeleteI think it's terrible to name your kids the way these parents have. But i think it is discrimination to take their kids away. if their lives are in danger, that's one thing. But if they are only taking the children because of how they were named, the children should be returned to their parents.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what to think. One side of me believes that they had every right to name their child however they wanted. The other side of me thinks that if the parents were abusive or neglectful, I am glad that the children were taken away. Unless the government can find evidence of child abuse, who is to say what they can or cannot name their children.
ReplyDeleteWell I think that the parents are on drugs if they name their kids after a group of people that killed a lot of innocent people. I think they may have removed the children from the place due to names and just used the "imminent danger" as a cover up. But if they have evidence that the kids were neglected then I can fully understand the removal of the kids, if not then they shouldn't do anything because they are not the parents. But I agree with them taking the kids away. Because of todays society they will be looked down upon because of their names, their parents gave them.
ReplyDeleteWell i think they might have been removed under false pretences. But they could eventually be in imment danger if the are recieving threats. But i think that the children were removed because of their names. And from the sound of the article the children just had a common cold and possibly a dirty diaper (not very hard to chang).The world today is so discriminant torwards names/things pertaining to anything of that nature.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know if we can make a decision based on what we know. Obviously the parents aren't going to say that they did anything wrong, and from the sound of of it, the DYFS can't tell what the grounds were for the children being taken away. The way that I see it, just because they can't tell why they took the kids away doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate reason.
ReplyDeleteUnless the Campbells were abusing their children, I don't see how the removal of their three children is warranted. I don't agree with Nazi ideals or beliefs and I'm sure most, if not all, of the people associated with the Division of Youth and Family Services don't either, but we have to accept that people can believe whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the fact that the Campbells may believe in some questionable things, they appear to have done an okay job of raising their children so far, so I think they should be returned to them soon.
It's hard to know what's really going on because it never said if the parents were abusive or not. I'm leaning more toward the discrimination against the parents, due to the childrens names, and the lack of evidence against the parents. I don't know why anyone would name their children names that relate to the Nazi's but it's not against the law to do so, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. If there is evidence of the parents teaching the children Nazi ways, or of them being harmful to the children, then by all means the children should go to a new family.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why someone would name their child Adolf Hitler in the first place. However, whether this family believed Nazism or not, I don't believe it was right to have the children taken away. You don't see many children taken away from parents who participate in the Ku Klux Klan for example.
ReplyDelete-Nadia
I agree with Ms. Biondi. Why would you name your kids Adolf hitler and Aryan Nation. My thought on the situation would be leave them there for now but once they get proof that the parents are abusing then the children should be removed.
ReplyDeleteThis case is of ethical belief. On one hand, two parents name their kids whatever they want based on the Constitutional Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteOn the other, some kids named Adolf Hitler and JoyceLynn Aryan Nation will have to grow up and try to apply for a job. If there is no sign of abuse, custody should be returned. Its a violation of rights.
Legal name changes though?
I can't decide whether or not the act was justified. If the Constitution and Bill of Rights are being taken into consideration, the kids should not have been taken from the Campbells; it is their right to name their kids what they like. Based on what the articles tell me, the children were not in direct danger when living with their parents.
ReplyDeleteCommon sense, however, has to be taken into consideration. These kids are young now, but eventually will have to apply to college and try to find jobs. These parents (and whatever affiliations they may have with the Nazi party) have done nothing but put a label on their children and set them up for certain discrimination. The names themselves are ridiculous and irresponsible; you wouldn't name your kids John Josef Stalin Smith and Jane Soviet Union Smith. If the kids are in fact not being abused, then they should be returned to the parents, but I would be in favour of legally changing their names to remove the Nazi paraphernalia. Naming a child after an anti-semitic mass murderer could be considered abuse.
Why didn't the government do something when these names were written on their birth certificates?
The only reason the children should be removed is if there is evidence of abuse. What parents name their children is their business. On the news, there were reports of a child named after a nascar race(Nextel 500). In my opinion, it is the parents decision to have any name in the world for their children. This violates our freedoms defined by the CONSTITUTION!!! :]]
ReplyDeleteThey are discriminating.
I think there was definately discrimination involved, but there was no way to actually tell if there was any abuse involved. It doesn't really specify why they were taken or if they were actually being abused. I'm not really sure why they would name their children after the nazi's but that doesn't mean that they are being abused.
ReplyDeleteGabby.
That poor boy! First of all, what parents in their right mind would name their child after a mass murder such as Adolf Hitler? Second, little boy Campbell had his birthday runined because the once beloved Wal-Mart would not sell him a cake. It was wrong for them to do so just beacuse of his name, however,his parents should have known that when they named him Adolf Hitler, he would have some trouble somewhere down the road. Basiclly, no one was the so called "right person" or "better person" in my mind. Wal-Mart was worng in doing what they did as where the parents in giving their child such a name.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is discrimination. Although the parents named these children an inappropriate name the DYFS had no reason to take their children away. There is no immediate danger to these children so they should be allowed to stay with their parents.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this family was greatly discriminated just because one of their children has the same name of a famous Nazi leader. I dont understand why the government would allow this situation to occur. The article made it seem as if there were no problems with the childrens previous location, so why were they taken in the first place?
ReplyDeleteAndrew