What is the truth here?

Brittany - posted on 11/20/2011 ( 30 moms have responded )

531

9

14

They say it is not based on the names but, read the article...the child was 17 hours old when he was taken away from his parents......I remember when this happened years back and from reports there was "abuse" going on in the home, although nothing was ever released.....what do you ladies think?

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/par...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Kellie - posted on 11/20/2011

1,994

8

175

It's called media sensationalism beautiful.

They focus on the names because a) thats the attention getter designed to whip up hate and intolerance and b) they don't have a lot of other info to go on as it hasn't been released to them.

Jane - posted on 11/22/2011

2,390

262

487

Since the parents are still insisting that the children were taken solely because of the names, I suspect they have been resistant to making the changes needed to make a safe home for the kids, including this newest one.

You can't force someone to change, even if the changes will improve their life, their health, or some other aspect of their world.

Becky - posted on 11/21/2011

2,892

44

93

I have apprehended plenty of newborns from the hospital, who had perfectly normal names. So I doubt the names had anything to do with this. We apprehend newborns because of previous history, because we have reason to believe they are at risk if sent home with their parents, and because of drug and alcohol use by the mother during pregnancy.

Confidentiality laws would prevent the media from obtaining many details about why these children were removed from their parents' care, so they are going to focus on the little detail that they do know.
I am almost 100% positive that these children were not removed because their parents gave them stupid names. However, the lack of judgement and common sense shown in choosing those names for their children could very well spill over into other areas of their parenting and give cause for removing the children.
We apprehended a boy named Marijuana once. I can assure you, it had nothing to do with his name! Might have had something to do with how much of said substance his parents were smoking though! :)

Jane - posted on 11/20/2011

2,390

262

487

American media knows what sells the news, and it isn't a garden-variety child abuse case. It has to have something special about it, and with this case it is the names. Quite frankly, with the history behind the name Adolf Hitler, the parents were pretty much guilty of condemning their first born to a life time of teasing and bullying, rather like the song "Boy Named Sue" but in real life.

Even Hitler's own last surviving relatives don't name their kids Adolf, and changed their name from Hitler to something else. They live in Long Island, by the way.

Jodi - posted on 11/20/2011

3,562

36

3907

According to this news article, the reason they lost custody of the other 3 children in the first place was due to evidence of abuse and neglect, as well as domestic violence in the home:
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_ne...

This article cites the reasoning as the parent's disabilities and risk of harming the children:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug...

I sincerely doubt it is the name alone that resulted in this action.

30 Comments

View replies by

Jodi - posted on 11/22/2011

3,562

36

3907

Given the children were originally removed from the home nearly 3 years ago, and the children have never been returned, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that the parents have never addressed the issues that caused the children to be removed in the first place. THREE YEARS. As parents, you'd think they would be co-operating with Child Protection to focus on getting their children back, but obviously not. Or at least, not to the satisfaction of Child Protection. If that were the case, why on earth would they NOT remove another baby from their care? No brainer......



Seriously, if it was about the names, it would be as simple as having the names changed to get their kids back, right?

[deleted account]

The children depending on how well parents cooperate with help/counselling are let back to the family home.They are kept away until there 100% sure the children are in no danger.I think obviously there is a big problem in WHY there not being let back.There is a reason and we don't and probably won't ever know why.

I choose to believe there(child protection) are doing there job to the highest standards and in the best interest of the children involed.If they are i am happy.

Becky - posted on 11/22/2011

2,892

44

93

My guess would be that they likely were given the opportunity to make changes so that their home would be safe for their children. Sadly, not all parents are willing to do this. Some parents are so blinded to reality or steeped in their ways that even losing their children is not enough to get them making positive changes in their lives. I cannot tell you how many children we have had to remove from their homes permanently because of issues the parents could have changed - domestic violence, drug or alcohol use, allowing a child molester access to their child, physical abuse, etc. I firmly believe that people can change. I have seen them do it. Sadly, when you work in child welfare long enough, you realize, more often than not, they don't.

Jeannette - posted on 11/22/2011

911

3

78

Okay, so if the parents were violent with each other in front of the children, would they not then be required to take some sort of parenting classes or counseling to possibly get their children back? Could the parents refuse to do something like this?
I thought the purpose of the system was to keep the best interest of the children and I think being raised by our parents is in our best interest; provided parents who have been found guilty of abuse got help. Now, I am not saying all abusive parents should just take a class or go to counseling, because there are some levels of abuse that watching videos and listening to people will not help with. Some abuse is incredibly traumatizing and I wouldn't subject the children to their abuser further.
I wonder if these parents have just not fought or tried hard enough to get their children back. In which case, I would make the leap that they really did not care.

[deleted account]

If the parents argued violently etc the safety of the children would be a concern.So i believe the children were taken for the right reasons.With a newborn its emotional anyway, with the parents history of domestic abuse etc its safer to step in now then when its to late.



I believe its way more than just about the name of the child.I don't believe authorities are that stupid to remove a child etc just based on a name a lone.



Sure legally they would not have a leg to stand on if that were the case.There not stupid there very intelligent people(well a lot of them) if not corrupt lol.

Jane - posted on 11/21/2011

2,390

262

487

@Jeannette - According to earlier articles, the parents fought loudly and violently in front of the kids, and the mother admitted to a neighbor that her husband had been violent with her. This can be considered a form of child abuse if this is what the kids are exposed to often. That was the reason the original kids were removed.

Jane - posted on 11/21/2011

2,390

262

487

@Rebecca - The last name Hitler is not an uncommon name in Germany, although it is more commonly spelled Heidler, which means heath-dweller. Some sources say it derives from Hittler, which means either hut-dweller or shepherd.

Adolf Hitler's grandfather's last name actually was Heidler, which was a wide-spread last name especially in Austria. Hitler's father didn't get to bear that name until he was 35 because his parents weren't married at the time of his birth. Thus, he was known by his mother's maiden name, Schickelgruber, for the first half of his life.

However, Hitler's father always spelled the family name Hitler, supposedly because it was miss-spelled on a government form and he didn't bother to change it. Direct descendants of Adolf Hitler are few, but there may be more distant relatives under Heidler, Schickelgruber (his grandmother's maiden name), and other maiden names.

Hitler only had one male descendent (a nephew) to bear the name Hitler. He emigrated to the US, served in the US Navy, and then changed his name. He is the one who fathered the current Long Island branch of the family.

Odds are, the lawyer you mention was no relation at all.

Becky - posted on 11/21/2011

2,892

44

93

Generally, it would be illegal to publish those reasons. They are kept confidential for the protection of the children.

Jeannette - posted on 11/21/2011

911

3

78

I wish there were published reasons as to why the other children were removed from the home. Stating 'abuse' but not clarifying, makes me question the sincerity and truth of the accusations. Did they beat, starve, emotionally abuse, or sexually abuse these kids? What happened?

Lacye - posted on 11/21/2011

2,011

31

164

I hate to say this because I just love debating with Jenny, but I have to agree with her. It was in extremely bad taste, yes but a name is a name. Just because one man, who was a bastard from hell, had that name shouldn't hold this stigma over the name. It's kinda like Kane, Mussolini, Charles Manson, Lucifer, or any other name that has something to do with a person or being that was evil or just bad. The parents might be complete dumb asses but that's not really the point.

As for the children being taken away, one article said that there was a gag enforced on the case. Nobody is allowed to talk about it. So of course the newspapers won't know what the real story is and with the child's name being Adolf Hitler, they don't care. It's a circus for them.

Jenny - posted on 11/21/2011

4,426

16

129

I named one my cats Satan once. When i had him fixed the vet spelled it Satin lol. Really I just liked making my rooomates yell "Here Satan" when it was time for him to come in.

Anyways, a name is a name is a name. If Hitler's name was John Smith would we ban that name forever too? I would like to see more people use it and take the stigma out. It's just a combination of letters and much ado about nothing. Hitler was a maniac because of what he did, not what he was called.

[deleted account]

Actually, I came across a lawyer with the last name Hitler when I was practicing law. There were a lot of people in my firm who were very up in arms about it. So at least some people out there have that family name still (not sure of his actual relation to Adolf Hitler, though -- he may have not been related). He wasn't given the name as a first name by his bonehead parents, of course.

Jane - posted on 11/20/2011

2,390

262

487

@Emma - They lay very low. Technically they are the inheritors of his estate, worth about $15 million, but they prefer to be unknown and not claim it. The New Yorker tracked them down some 11 years ago but by agreement did not reveal their current names or precisely where they are living. They are descended from Adolf's nephew William, who served in the US Navy under the name of Hitler, but who changed his last name in 1947. They aren't particularly sorry for what their uncle did, being rather anti-Semitic, but they also believe strongly in self-preservation.

Ez - posted on 11/20/2011

6,569

25

237

As someone who has a degree in Journalism and PR, I can guarantee you these reporters couldn't give two shits about the details of why the children were removed. They see those outrageous names and a huge byline flashes before their eyes.

And quite frankly, even if it was just for the name, I would be ok with that. The level of idiocy required for a couple to name their children this is enough of an indicator that they shouldn't be responsible for a house plant, let alone 4 children.

Stifler's - posted on 11/20/2011

15,141

154

604

I never even thought of where Hitler's relatives would live. Are they well known or lay low?

[deleted account]

I completely agree with that Jane. The name Adolf Hitler.. not to mention the other names, were a real shitty choice in names, I'm all for unique names and all but have some sense... either way I feel bad for the kids.

Stifler's - posted on 11/20/2011

15,141

154

604

I can't believe that article. What a fucked up pair of bogans. It's not like he's' growing up to be a killer or nothing like that," said mother Deborah Campbell.

"I went to just to get a cake... it was a circus of racism," said Heath Campbell, little Adolph's dad.

At the time Heath and Deborah Campbell acknowledge the hate behind their children's names. But say that was not their intention.

So why the names?

"This is America, they say it's free, you have the right to name your child whatever you want to name your child, no matter what," Heath Campbell said.

[deleted account]

Thank you for the links Jodi



The appeals court ruled Thursday that sufficient evidence of abuse or neglect existed because of domestic violence in the home.



I don't know how it is in other states but where I live, its considered domestic violence if parents/couples even argue in front of the children.



You guys may get pretty pissed at what I'm about to say but these three articles just are not sitting right with me. Every single one of them goes right back to the names. I just don't like it either way its spun. In fact I'm kind of uncomfortable forming an opinion on this one. If I agree, I'm questioning why the names are so much of a big deal that they have to be continually mentioned. But If I disagree then it appears I'm just dismissing possible child abuse which is the LAST thing I would ever do...

This is making my stomach turn

Stifler's - posted on 11/20/2011

15,141

154

604

I think they are taking the bits people will find amusing and not saying what really went on aswell. They aren't going tot take the kids away over their name when they leave heaps of kids who are being physically and emotionally abused in their homes.

Medic - posted on 11/20/2011

3,922

19

552

I do think that there is a lot to this story we are not being told. I also do not think that an under paid over worked over crowded system would just take kids for their names. Four of them at that.

[deleted account]

I'd like to know why the article mentions ONLY the names and being taken, all in the same breath yet mention nothing about possible abuse.... when every alleged abuse case I read about mentions the suspicion? Granted the names were a terrible terrible choice, but their choice. Please dont think im condoning any kind of abuse but I would seriously question WHY the article says nothing of possible abuse, neglect etc.



As for the children having limited freedom.... well neither do mine. I'm what some would call a helicopter parent. My children are never out of my sight so I don't think having limited freedom should even be an issue.

Kellie - posted on 11/20/2011

1,994

8

175

I agree Hope. There is so much about these people and teir parenting we are not privy to. Nor should we be, what makes you think we should know all the details Brittany?

No way, even with the mistakes humans make did these people have their child taken off them a few hours after he was born simply because of a name.

Hope - posted on 11/20/2011

255

17

13

An over worked under paid government department is not going to make more work for itself unless it has good reason.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms