Hitler's Family Struggle

People face tough decisions all the time. What's one of the best ways to address a particularly vexing problem? Delay. Avoid. Stall.

That's exactly what New Jersey Superior Court Judge Peter Buchsbaum is doing in an ongoing custody case involving three children. You might have heard about the kids, who are each named after infamous Nazi figures. Just so there's no confusion, this is the same family that experienced birthday cake discrimination back in December (Jacob Sullum wrote about it here).

Things stopped being funny when the three children—all under the age of 5—were taken by the state on January 9, after a neighbor accused their parents of abuse. Herrn and Frau Heath Campbell deny any wrongdoing. They say they're a target of public scorn.

The family is in a terrible position right now: separated and in legal purgatory. Division of Youth and Family Services officials have not said why the children were removed, and while Judge Buschsbaum failed to make a custody decision, he did hand down some good news: more visitations.

Now, instead of once-a-week family time, the Campbell's can get together three times a week. Total time the family gets to see one another? 270 minutes.

Something's not right here.

All things Nazi at Reason here, plus more coverage of Family Issues.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Yeah, these parents are dumb asses.

    But, by God, isn't it every american's right to be a dumb ass if they want to?

  • Paul||

    Only in America can we make Nazi's feel persecuted...

  • ||

    Damn, I really, really hate coming to the defense of ignorant racist fucktards like this, but dammit somebody has to. Giving a kid a fucked up name is not child abuse. If it were, half of the unwed mothers in Detroit would lose custody of their offspring.

    Are they beating the kids? Are the fourth reich urhins emotionally abused (a nebulous term prone to state abuse at best)? Are the little nazis malnourished? Since the state has presented no evidence that the future cleansers of America's ethnic pollution have suffered any of these crimes, the obviosly PC castrated judge should return the little fascists to their white trash parents.

    Remember the equally disgusting polygamous Mormons in Texas a year or so ago? The ones who brainwash their kids in the name of god so that church elders can get themselves some young poontang? I do. The kids are back home and not one fucking person in child protective services lost their job for overreaching and abusing their authority.

    Why wouldn't other fringe religious and political whackjobs be targeted next? Pentocostals? Libertarians? C'mon, you know statists want to.

  • Pol Pot Amin||

    Hey, I knew a Manny Lipschitz. He hated his name so he had it changed.
    Now he's Carl Lipschitz, and much happier..

  • Marshall||

    Makes me laugh a little that people who named their kids after some of the most famous pro-police state people in the world are getting, well, abused by the state.

    It'd be pretty chill if they rethought their political ideology after seeing what power the state can wield against minorities (ie, Nazi idiots) and renamed their kids things like "Milton Friedman" and "Thomas Paine."

    But in all seriousness, I think that it's probably worse for the kids in the long run to be hauled about by the state and totally confused through this process than growing up with some name like Hitler Rommel Himmler Mein Kampf III.

  • Lefiti||

    "But, by God, isn't it every american's right to be a dumb ass if they want to?"

    Yes! If Reason can keep going on donations, then Nazis should have the right to be idiots too. Supidity uber alles!

  • ||

    Things stopped being funny when the three children-all under the age of 5-were taken by the state on January 9, after a neighbor accused their parents of abuse. Herr and Frau Heath Campbell deny any wrongdoing. They say they're a target of public scorn.

    They're the targets of the State. In the case of child abuse, people are guilty until the State says otherwise - the children (their lives) belong to the State. The State is good. You must learn to love the State, it is here to take care of us . . .

    . . . Sorry, getting carried away there, for a while - I think I was channeling Joe.

  • ||

    I'm pretty hung up on the fact that the state can take their children and never acknowledge why... is being an idiot really enough now?

    Guilty until proven innocent so long as your views are unpopular enough. This is the new America...

  • ||

    Guilty until proven innocent so long as your views are unpopular enough. This is the new America...

    You have just taken the red pill . . .

  • anon||

    "Herrn and Frau Heath Campbell deny any wrongdoing"

    In German 'Herr' only becomes 'Herrn' when used in a case other than nominative. It should remain Herr Campbell.

  • ||

    the Campbell's can get together

    Campbells. No apostrophe.

  • Stagman||

    Do we know that there wasn't any actual abuse? it seems to me that the correlation between neo-Nazi's and child abusers is likely to be high.

  • ||

    Neverrrr trrrust a Campbell!

  • ||

    Since this thread is godwinned from the get-go:
    The State of New Jersey is being outright fascist here:

    They have not shown cause; they have made unproven assertions; they have used the authority of the state to crush "the enemies of the state;" and they are not being made accountable for their actions.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm sure all of the people who named their kids Josef or Vladmir are up next, right Jersey? h-hello?

  • ||

    But, by God, isn't it every american's right to be a dumb ass if they want to?

    Thus, RC'z Fourth Iron Law:

    You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.

  • wayne||

    "Division of Youth and Family..."

    Ironic name under the circumstances.

  • ||

    Do we know that there wasn't any actual abuse? it seems to me that the correlation between neo-Nazi's and child abusers is likely to be high.

    How does one counter an argument steeped in logic and intellectual rigor as this?

  • ||

    J sub D

    To paraphrase an old expression that you may be familiar with:

    "There are three ways of doing things: The Right Way; The Wrong Way: and The New Jersey Way."

  • anarch||

    the Campbell's can get together

    Campbells. No apostrophe.



    Wrong.

  • The Clan MacDonald||

    Figures it would be Campbells who get themselves and their kids into this kind of mess.

    Remember Glencoe!

  • ||

    From the description above, the kids were taken based on a neighbor's accusation that they were being abused. That's not the same thing as the state just deciding that they were offensive.

    The question is, is the neighbor credible? Why does the neighbor think the kids were in danger?

    I'm as anti-state as anyone here, but this doesn't sound like the welfare authorities were acting capriciously to me.

    -jcr

  • jcr\'s neighbor||

    How much will you give me not to say abuse is going on at your house?

  • Hello, 911?||

    There's child-abuse going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! Quick, do something!

  • Meh||

    I'm not a good enough libertarian to sympathize with the parents

  • ||

    jcr-

    The first phrase in your third paragraph is fightin' words!

    Seriously though, acting on the neighbor's allegation, wihtout more, is capricious.

  • ||

    I'm not a good enough libertarian to sympathize with the parents

    I'm not either. They're fucktard morons who brought this shit down upon themselves.

    I am a good enough libertarian to defend their rights.

  • ||

    Me and my two children Che Guevara McCracken and Mumia Abu Jamal McCracken approve of the state's actions here. It's reprehensible to name your children after known murderers.

  • jtuf||

    J sub D, your March 13, 2009, 6:06pm post is right on. I couldn't have expressed it better.

  • ||

    If the kids were named Pol Pot Campbell and Joseph Stalin Campbell and Mao Tse Tung Campbell, do you think that they would lose their kids? Naming you kids after right-wing mass murderers is bad, but naming your kids after left-wing mass murderers is perfictly alright and kinda cute.

  • B||

    "They say they're a target of public scorn."

    Fuck, are you serious? I can't possibly imagine why people who name their children after Hitler and other various Nazis would be subjected to scorn. Yet more evidence of intolerance in America's heartland (of New Jersey).

  • B||

    Fuck, if they named these kids Ernesto Guevara Campbell, people would be patting them on the fucking back and Danny Glover, Cameron Diaz and Harry Belafonte would be sending them fruit baskets.

  • B||

    "From the description above, the kids were taken based on a neighbor's accusation that they were being abused. That's not the same thing as the state just deciding that they were offensive."


    The State may not have "just" decided they were offensive, but taking the kids based on the allegations of one fucking neighbor is offensive.

  • ||

    acting on the neighbor's allegation, wihtout more, is capricious.

    We don't know that the authorities failed to investigate the plausibility of the accusation.

    taking the kids based on the allegations of one fucking neighbor is offensive.

    Oh, so you have to convene a quorum of witnesses first? Great, so anyone who abuses a kid just has to be careful not to do so in front of more than one neighbor.

    -jcr

  • ||

    How much will you give me not to say abuse is going on at your house?

    Just be prepared to defend yourself in a libel action if you're wrong.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Neverrrr trrrust a Campbell!

    Is this a Mother Night reference? If It should be.

  • ||

    If *not* it should be. And I Sugarfreed the link!

  • ||

    The book page doesn't mention and the movie page barely mentions "The Black Fuhrer of Harlem". (sigh)

    On topic, yeah these parents are dumbasses and they deserve whatever scorn the community heaps on them, but the state has no right to take their kids.

  • Protected whistleblower busybo||

    Just be prepared to defend yourself in a libel action if you're wrong.

    Only if you can identify me.

  • Mad Max||

    As far as I can tell, the child-welfare authorities never took the cartoonist Ho Che Anderson away from his parents.

  • ||

    I'm sure that during his rebellious teenage years, Mr. Ho Che Anderson was a disaster capitalist.

  • ||

    How much will you give me not to say abuse is going on at your house?

    Just be prepared to defend yourself in a libel action if you're wrong.


    Anyone making allegations of child abuse is generally immunized against liability.

  • Lafawnduh||

    Giving a kid a fucked up name is not child abuse

    That's easy for you to say.

  • ||

    White children are easy to take and profitable place for children's services. My guess is the surplus (governments never make a profit) for a healthy white child is like $100,000 each. Texas thought they hit the motherload with that mormon group. Didn't work out for Texas so far.

    A disturbing aspect to this is that the government of NJ is in effect declaring war on these white nationalists, in my name. I personally am appalled that the state is provoking these people for no reason. It also sets the precident for political child takings without evidence of abuse, or even suspicion of abuse. It is also worth noting that a name is only valid until adulthood when a name can be legally changed. The phone book shows a couple of other Hitler famillies?

    As far as poster anon's Pol Pot Camplell naming, I think Pol Pot is getting negative attention for some reason that the rest don't.

    There is also no question the parents are nuts.

  • ||

    jcr-12:36am-

    Allegations of child abuse are not an exception to the rule of liberty. Just cause some neighbor says he saw Uncle Long Dong displaying his ding a ling to his little niece Daisy does not mean that my money or yours should be confiscated in the name of the state "protecting" little Suzie by (a) having a child "welfare" or "family services" bureaucracy exist in the first place and (2) ever initiating an investigation, let alone a kidnapping raid, on the basis of one, uncorroborated complaint. At least not in a free society.

  • Hobo Chang Ba||

    Naming you (sic) kids after right-wing mass murderers...

    Hmm...were the Nazis Right-wing? I always thought that "Nazi" stood for "National Socialist" and the central theme of their platform was punishing the evil, rich Jews who had stolen away the national wealth and redistributing it to the poor, downtrodden Aryan working class...of course, most neo-Nazis are pretty right-wing, I guess...

    But yeah - the point stands that you could name your kid after any historical mass murderer, as long as it wasn't a Nazi or Osama Bin Laden, and probably get away with it...

  • The Sot-Weed Factor||

    This comes from JCR:

    "We don't know that the authorities failed to investigate the plausibility of the accusation.

    'taking the kids based on the allegations of one fucking neighbor is offensive'.

    Oh, so you have to convene a quorum of witnesses first? Great, so anyone who abuses a kid just has to be careful not to do so in front of more than one neighbor.

    -jcr"

    Can there truly be anyone so dense not to see that government action based on the mere assertions of a single person, not subject to cross-examination, fact checking or the presence of bias, is a frightening tool of oppression that is also ripe for abuse?

    In New Jersey, complaints to DYFS can be anonymous, and the complainants have generally been immune from suit (so you can't sue your neighbor for slander, JCR). That is why DYFS complaints are the weapon of choice in nasty divorce cases as well as in disputes between neighbors. DFYS does not even pause to ask if their might even possibly be an ulterior motive behind the complaint...seize first, ask questions later.

    When I was a teenager I worked in a factory in Long Branch that also employed a significant number of women. When they became angry with one another they would take turns reporting one another to DFYS, with no "cause" other than spite.

    That is why, JCR, we should not seize children from parents based on nothing more than a secret denunciation from a neighbor.

    However, JCR, when we report you to DFYS for allegedly having anal sex with children while making them smoke crack and filming it all to sell as an on-line kiddie porn video ... none of which is true, I assume ... I am sure you will nonetheless accept the resulting uproar in your life as a small price to pay for the comforts of the Nanny State.

  • MNG||

    "Sorry, getting carried away there, for a while - I think I was channeling Joe."

    I think were joe here he would condemn this action.

    Liberals are not for anything the State does. Go look at the ACLU's website if you believe that.

    My fellow liberals could be a lot better standing up for the 2nd Amendment and the 14th (to strike down affirmative action), but liberals have good stands on most of the rights protected in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

  • MNG||

    I mean, conservatives sure don't give a smelly rat's butt for the rights of the accused.

    As to this case, here is one liberal that says that if the state took these kids from their family solely because of the name thing, then that is an egregious wrong.

  • ||

    As to this case, here is one liberal that says that if the state took these kids from their family solely because of the name thing, then that is an egregious wrong.

    OK, but that's not what happened. What if there was another reason, like an unproven allegation by a neighbor?

  • MNG||

    That's a bit tougher.

    If a person alleges that a parent is actually harming their child you have a dilemma: you can take the kid until the allegation is investigated sufficiently or leave the child with the parent. If you take the child, then the event you have a false positive then you have taken a child away from its family when it was never in danger there. But if you don't take the kid and the parent was harming the child, then you've exposed the kid to more harm while the investigation takes place.

    Everyone would agree that to hand down a legal punishment, like a sentence, before an investigation and adjudication is complete would be crazy improper, and yes, taking the kid seems like a punishment, but it is meant to protect the child in case we didn't have a false positive all along...

  • Mad Max||

    From the article:

    'Due to privacy rules governing family court matters, [the parents' attorney, Pasquale] Giannetta said he was not allowed to discuss what occurred in the hearing before state Superior Court Judge Peter Buchsbaum.'

    The parents and their lawyer were in court for the hearing, so presumably they got to see the evidence against them. But apparently the evidence can't be disclosed to the general public.

    But here is what the father claims about the state's case:

    '"They said it's not about the newspaper articles, but they took them because of their name - I don't care what anybody says," Campbell told The Associated Press in January.

    'Campbell also told the AP that the state was relying on unproven accusations made by a neighbor and by an ex-wife who charged him with abusing her years ago.'

  • ||

    If a person alleges that a parent is actually harming their child you have a dilemma: you can take the kid until the allegation is investigated sufficiently or leave the child with the parent. If you take the child, then the event you have a false positive then you have taken a child away from its family when it was never in danger there. But if you don't take the kid and the parent was harming the child, then you've exposed the kid to more harm while the investigation takes place.

    Everyone would agree that to hand down a legal punishment, like a sentence, before an investigation and adjudication is complete would be crazy improper, and yes, taking the kid seems like a punishment, but it is meant to protect the child in case we didn't have a false positive all along...


    MNG, all of that assumes that a child is safe or at least safer under the auspices the child protective services. Sadly, we know from reading the papers that this ain't necessarily so. Children are beaten, molested, malnourished and murdered by state contracted foster parents, just as they are by biological ones.

  • MNG||

    J sub
    I see your point, but I ask you, what is the state to do when they have been given a complaint that a parent is harming their child?

    Must they wait until a guilty verdict in a court of law is gotten before they can remove the child? That would be nuts. Let's say CPS shows up after a complaint and the kid is black and blue and crying "please take me away from here." Such a rule would mean the authorities could do nothing until after judicial action is complete, and that seems wrong to me.

    Of course the f*cked up state of CPS needs reform. But certainly you don't think it must be abolished altogether because it is poorly run.

  • MNG||

    But I don't mean to say that there should be quite a heavy burden on the state to justify taking the child out of the home.

    "we think there parents have crazy ideas about Nazis" would certainly not cut it.

  • VM||

    so, who else thinks that Assmarques would have something "interesting" to say
    (by "interesting", it means "heaps and heaps of bloody stool covering a rotting corpse of his soul")

  • ||

    The State actors (DSS, police, the fucking judge himself) should be charged with violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242:
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

  • Underzog||

    MNG!

    What's the matter? Did the state take away your and Joe's child merely because you named him after a hero of you guys?

    You have my sympathy. Tell me where you and Joe are protesting for the return of your child and maybe I can bring a sign.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • Underzog||

    And why didn't you MNG and Joe name your kid Ernst or Rhoem? That would've been more accurate regarding what your Libertarian beliefs are.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • B||

    "I mean, conservatives sure don't give a smelly rat's butt for the rights of the accused."

    And given some of your statements on here, neither do you. But hey, go ahead and make nonsense blanket statements about conservatives. It seems you do that almost as well as you blame the jews for everything.

  • ||

    It's the fucking YFZ (Yearning For Zion) thing all over again -- some people, holding ideas most people view as reprehensible, have their children taken away despite said children not being harmed.

    The state has no business doing this. Holding extreme minority viewpoints is not a justification for taking children away from their parents.

    Actually harming the childen, or putting them in imminent danger of being harmed is one thing -- this does not meet that standard.

  • ||

    Liberals are not for anything the State does. Go look at the ACLU's website if you believe that.

    HAHAHA! Good one!

    Oh wait ... you actually believe that?

    My fellow liberals could be a lot better standing up for the 2nd Amendment and the 14th (to strike down affirmative action), but liberals have good stands on most of the rights protected in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

    Liberals totally suck at the 9th and 10th amendments.

    " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    Liberals suck pretty bad at portions of the First Amendment too -- McCain-Feingold and all the other abridgements of political free speech, plus the drive to force radio stations to provide free rebuttals by liberals of conservative viewpoints, instead of, you know, getting their own fucking radio stations instead -- these spring immediately to mind.

    As for the Fifth Amendment: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    Yeah, I recall the liberal outcry over this abuse of eminent domain solely by conservatives, and how Congress, since taken over by Democrats in 2006, has put getting rid of eminent domain abuse on the front burner.

    But if your point is that some very selective portions of the Bill of Rights are cherished, or at least given lip service, by liberals, then yeah, I'll agree there.

    I'll save the dissection of conservative abuses of the BoR for when somebody else has the chutzpah to claim Team Red is champions of the Constitution.

  • MJ||

    It does make a nice irony that admirers of a totalitarian regime were denounced to the Thought Police...er, Youth and Family Services by a neighbor. The Campbells did bring this down on themselves by calling discrimination for the birthday cake incident, there's a little karma at work here.

    The situation is still a little funny.

    It's not funny at all for the kids, though.

  • MNG||

    Prolfeed
    Do you deny that the ACLU has aggresively defended some of our important 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights? I'd love to see you try that. As the man said, go ahead, make my day...

    Now, liberals like the ACLU may not have defended all the rights you like (like the 2nd, where I said they suck), or may not have defended some interpretations of rights you have (like campaign finance), but you can't deny that liberals have fought the government on many occasions in the name of rights. Especially the rights of the accused.

  • MNG||

    "And given some of your statements on here, neither do you."

    B, if you have a point to make or care to argue with the points I have taken and carefully described here, then you are free to do so. Until then stop whining about your sore pussy.

  • MNG||

    "Actually harming the childen, or putting them in imminent danger of being harmed is one thing -- this does not meet that standard."

    How do you know that? As far as I can tell all we know is that a neighbor has alleged they are harming the kids. And they have been taken per investigation. I don't think it has been shown that they were taken solely for the name or the beliefs. In fact we don't know WHAT the charge is as far as I know...

    As I explained upthread, what do you think CPS should do in this situation? Yes, yes, we are all against them taking away the kids just because they named them horrible names and have stupid beliefs. But you're ducking the hard and interesting question: if you have a complaint that a parent is actually harming their child, should you take away the child until you fully investigate that possibility?

  • FTFY||

    My fellow liberals could be a lot better standing up for the 2nd Amendment and the 14th (to strike down affirmative action), but liberals have good stands on most of the rights protected in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th 16th Amendment.

  • ||

    I think were joe here he would condemn this action.

    Maybe. Hard to say. joe could be very inconsistent on similar cases. He was all for the state taking Elian Gonzalez, after all, even though there was still pending court action.

  • Dello||

    Sot-Weed:
    " DFYS does not even pause to ask if their might even possibly be an ulterior motive behind the complaint...seize first, ask questions later."

    seize first, JACK YOUR BUDGET UP, ask questions later.

  • Dello||

    MNG:
    "I mean, conservatives sure don't give a smelly rat's butt for the rights of the accused."

    Wasn't it Obama's folks that are speaking out against the DNA evidence that might free a man?

  • Underzog||

    B, if you have a point to make or care to argue with the points I have taken and carefully described here, then you are free to do so. Until then stop whining about your sore pussy.

    Yeppers.... It's all the fault of those Jew Zionists, eh?

    Look at it this way... one could say that MNG, Joe, Fluffy (shewolf of the S.S.), and Antelope bashing the Jews is merely part of their collective charm /sarcasm

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here.!"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement