"Anti-Government" Couple on Run After Kidnapping Their Own Children From Court-Appointed Guardian

ABC Action NewsABC Action News

[Read our update on this story here.]

This story probably isn't going to end well: Joshua Michael Hakken and his wife Sharyn Hakken are on the run in Florida after kidnapping their own two children from Sharyn's mother this morning. Patricia Hauser has had legal custody of her grandchildren, four-year-old Cole and two-year-old Chase, since 2012, when Joshua and Sharyn lost custody for displaying pot in front of their sons at an "anti-government rally" in Louisianna. ABC Action News has more

Investigators say Joshua Michael Hakken, 35 entered the home of Patricia Hauser at 14040 Shady Shores Drive around 6:30 a.m. Hauser is the maternal grandmother of Chase Hakken, 2, and Cole Hakken, 4. It's believed Hakken's wife, 34-year-old Sharyn Hakken was waiting outside.

Investigators did not know if the children were taken at gunpoint and it was not clear if the mother was directly involved in the abduction.

Reporters were told at a Wednesday afternoon news conference the State of Louisiana took away the parents' parental rights and gave Hauser temporary custody. 

Joshua Hakken tied up Hauser, took the children and fled in Hauser's 2009 silver Toyota Camry, which was later found a few blocks away.   

According to investigators, the couple lost custody of the two boys after an anti-government rally in Louisiana. The father was charged was possession of marijuana in the presence of the children.

Afterward, Joshua Hakken tried to take the children, reportedly at gunpoint, from a Louisiana foster care facility, but was thwarted, according to the sheriff's office.

There aren't a lot of details out there right now, so it's possible that the Hakkens really were a danger to their kids. But it will be just so goddamn awful if all of this is the result of them using some marijuana at a rally in front of their kids. 

According to the Tampa Bay Times, the Hakkens run an engineering firm in the Tampa area. Their parental rights were terminated by a Louisiana court yesterday. 

Update: More on Hakken's June 17, 2012 drug charge that may have gotten his kids taken away, from the Time-Picayune police blotter: "Joshua M. Hakken, age 34 of 3609 S Sterling Avenue, Tampa, FL, was arrested for Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession of a controlled dangerous substance in the presence of a minor."

Update II: Florida media outlets are really playing up the anti-government angle. This is at the top of the Orlando Sentinel's home page.

Orlando SentinelOrlando Sentinel

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.

  • $park¥||

    According to investigators, the couple lost custody of the two boys after an anti-government rally in Louisiana. The father was charged was possession of marijuana in the presence of the children.

    Go go gadget limited government.

  • ||

    It works out so well, doesn't it?

  • John||

    No private party ever took anyone's children or created an organization that didn't allow people to leave. And the clowns who did this would totally change their ways and never interfere with others if we just took away government.

    The sun is always shining on rainbow puppy island.

  • ||

    Ah, John is as predictable as ever. His system can be utterly flawed, and that's fine; but describe another system, and he demands it be perfect.

    How utterly unsurprising. Your abject fear of not having authority drives you out of your mind on this subject.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Well, they can both be flawed.

    And FWIW, I doubt that anyone on this board ('cept maybe Tony) thinks this is an example of proper governance.

  • Gladstone||

    You know while I wouldn't call myself an "anarchist" I am quite sympathetic to the anarcho-capitalists I've never been too found of the fact that many of their rebuttals seem to boil down to "the status quo sucks, ancap is change ergo ancap is better."

    Need I remind you who else thought the status quo of his country sucked and wanted to change it?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's more or less where I'm at. I'm under no illusions that there is some hallowed attribute of government which uniquely makes it a capable or moral user of force, and there are some circumstances where anarchy or its proximate works very well (frontier societies, for example).

    The invokation of anarchy as a salve for all the problems with the use of force today is... not convincing.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I'm a minarchist, but I would take anarchy over this non-minarchist shit going on right now.

  • cryptarchy||

    The issue with Minarcy is that sure everything starts small, but govt is akin to parasite. It begins small at first, but as it feeds it gradually becomes larger and larger, until finally it kills its host

  • Juice||

    No private party ever took anyone's children or created an organization that didn't allow people to leave.

    What? I guess slavers weren't considered private parties.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I believe the remark you're quoting was sarcastic.

  • wwhorton||

    Let's not lose sight of what this is really about. With the limited information available, it appears that these people lost their children because they had pot on them, which was found as the result of police interest in an "anti-government" rally. So, I think it's fairly safe to assume that there might have been a little bit of "harass the protesters" going on on the one side, as well as "thumb your nose at The Man" on the other.

    So, do you think that these people should lose their children because they have different political beliefs than the government of their state? Do you think they should lose their children because they smoke pot?

    You don't have to somehow prove the viability of global anarchy to truthfully say that this was probably an unjust abuse of power by the local authorities, and that said abuse of power happened with the full blessing of the law. That, then, would represent an example of government severely impacting the rights of citizens through the use of force.

  • ||

    these people lost their children because they trusted our system. I donated to this system and unfortunately It is corrupt and needs to be fixed but each state has their own agenda.
    Once the parents were identified as poor/low income and had a verifieable illegal habit the CPS system was on them

  • CE||

    So they committed no real crime, and now picked up their children from their grandmother, and they're fugitives? Why exactly?

    The headline should read "Renegade government agents pursue peaceful couple for exercising 1st Amendment, 9th Amendment and paternal/maternal rights".

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Riggs: Regardless, can you blame them for doing whatever the hell it takes to get their kids back? Jesus.

    Jesus: No, I really can't blame them for invoking Satan and all his minions to take back their offspring. Back to you, Riggs.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Is that all they did? Had some pot around the kids? You can lose custody for that? Seems a bit much to me.

  • Mike Riggs||

    But it was at an anti-government rally! Makes all the difference.

  • ||

    So, they weren't even showing them marijuana in their home, or smoking marijuana in front of them. They were merely EXPRESSING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. In front of their children!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "There aren't a lot of details out there right now, so it's possible that the Hakkens really were a danger to their kids."

    If it's not too late, let's not get our virtual panties in a wad before we get all the facts.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I did ask whether it was all they did. If that's it, fuck the government. If they're crazy, dangerous people for more traditional reasons, then fuck them.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    So far, the only thing I can find is this arrest report:

    "June 17th, 2012:

    Joshua M. Hakken, age 34 of 3609 S Sterling Avenue, Tampa, FL, was arrested for Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession of a controlled dangerous substance in the presence of a minor"

    http://www.nola.com/crime/inde.....issue.html

    And this:
    "According to a sheriff's statement, "Both suspects are anti-government and have attempted a previous abduction at gunpoint in Louisiana."

    http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/s.....z2PQtIxJ3K

  • Duke||

    I fail to see the relevance of being labeled "anti-government." Not a crime to have an opinion. Or is it?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not unusual at all to paint people as dangerous because they're "anti-government." Of course, that's an absurdly broad brush, because there are "anti-government" people who favor limited government, then there are anti-government people who want to blow up buildings. Kinda different.

  • ||

    Right but so far the only evidence of either of these people's "anti-government"-ness is their apparant lack of fear of the Demon Weed.

    That and Because the Government Said So.

  • CatoTheElder||

    You'd think the State would have an interest in getting the details out there.

    Burden of proof, and so forth.

    Based on what I see here, I wouldn't rat them out if I happened to see them at the gas station.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, yes, known libertarians shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of kids, true.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    But it was at an anti-government rally!

    Anti-government kooks! Libertarians! Drug users! Right-wing militias! Preppers! Hoarders!

    /objective media analysis

  • ||

    Peter Wehner nods approvingly

  • Lea||

    Yes you CAN lose custody for much less than that! I was lied about by my roommate, who wanted revenge when he was asked to move (he'd been causing trouble & stealing which is why he was asked in the first place). He said we do drugs in front of our daughter & that I was stealing & swapping my meds, & basically just lied & grossly exaggerated some other things as well. Even though my husband & I both tested negative for drugs, & even after no proof was found that I had been swapping or selling my meds (if I'd been doing so there would be criminal charges, there aren't) they still have my daughter and are unapologetic about it. Their indication? "Risk of Harm" which basically means your kid might have been at risk in the future. You don't take a child because of what MIGHT happen! DCFS/CPS is out of control! They can present hearsay in court, unlike a criminal investigation where wrongdoing needs to be proven! My daughter isn't allowed to speak of her predicament when she sees us, & neither are we, on threat of ending what little time we get with her (1 hr/wk). A family member was finally allowed to see her alone for the first time recently, & said as soon as they had her alone, she immediately began saying she missed us & wanted to go home! This is so very wrong! There is so much more but you get the idea... the government is taking children for ridiculous reasons, the public needs to be made aware of this, & something needs to be done!

  • From the Tundra||

    Shit. On top of the earlier thread - this is really fucked up. Guess we were due for another Ruby Ridge...

  • ||

    I hope this story gets a lot more media attention.

    They took their kids because they showed them some marijuana?????
    What the fuck kind of facist country do we live in?

    Out of curiosity, why don't children fall under the takings clause?
    They can't take your house without just compensation and due process, but they can seize your children because you showed them some marijuana?

  • ant1sthenes||

    They should at least give you market value for them.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Since labor laws won't let me put them to work in my coal mine, they're not worth much to me.

  • CE||

    I pay orphans 2.50 an hour to work in my coal mines 50 hours a week. With two weeks off per year (without pay), that works out to 6,250 bucks per year. Assuming a 5 percent rate of return, each could should be worth 125 grand. Pay up, CPS!

  • ||

    If CPS had to financial compensate parents for seizing their children unjustly, that would certainly deter taking kids away unless they were damn certain they were being abused.
    Mere "neglect" wouldn't even register.

  • yonemoto||

    treble damages.

  • tarran||

    Welcome to the wonderful world where children are denied agency and their best interests are simultaneously given highest priority.

    Thus their opinions as to what they want are ignored, and the views of total strangers are given highest priority.

    It's like the witch finders running around Europe a few centuries ago.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If you want to prove you aren't an unfit parent, all you have to do is drown.

  • Matrix||

    When I was younger, I wanted to live with my father. But the courts decided that I was better suited with my poverty stricken mother and abusive step-father. Shortly after they were awarded custody, they illegally took me out of state for a year (kidnapping).

    You think the courts changed their minds after my father was finally able to get me back? Pfft

    That was the 80s, of course, when men had few rights in family court.

  • Alan||

    Well said.

    Here's hoping that the pursuers step into an open manhole and die.

  • John Galt||

    No. By comparison witch hunters were nice people.

  • Xenocles||

    "Thus their opinions as to what they want are ignored..."

    Do you have kids? Because good parents actually do this all the time. Kids want every goddamn thing. It's in their nature, and it takes time to teach them to be reasonable by any standard.

  • Lea||

    quote by tarran: "Welcome to the wonderful world where children are denied agency and their best interests are simultaneously given highest priority.

    Thus their opinions as to what they want are ignored, and the views of total strangers are given highest priority.

    It's like the witch finders running around Europe a few centuries ago."

    ..........
    I couldn't have said it better!

  • Brandybuck||

    I am coming to suspect that our decline birthrates is not due to our increasing wealth, but simply because so many parents are don't want to inflict the insanity of our society on their children.

  • Alan||

    Certainly a factor in my case.

    I am hoping to emigrate because I would like to have children.

  • cryptarchy||

    I have similar reasoning for not having kids, that and I can barely afford to support myself, supporting little ones and potentially the mother is out of the fucking question

  • jb4479||

    That would be nice, but I don't think Mars is open for colonization yet, unless you were thinking your own private island, because their really isn't anywhere else to go.

  • John Galt||

    I am coming to suspect you are indeed correct.

  • Loki||

    I hope this story gets a lot more media attention.

    I don't. They were at an "anti-government" rally. Anti-government for Christ's sake! Clearly they were/ are monsters who deserve to die in a hail of police gunfire. Preferably in front of the children so that they can see what happens to those who DISOBEY. /sarc

    Seriously though, no matter how this turns out you know the'll be portrayed as monsters by the state fellating media.

  • Gladstone||

    Yeah you seriously expect the media to defend "anti-government" extremists? They might even be libertarians! Might as well expect them to admit that the economy is shit, spending is not actually being cut and regulations are bad.

  • ||

    So the government can punish you for exercising your First Amendment rights by taking your children away?

  • Alan||

    Yes? and?

  • CatoTheElder||

    What the fuck kind of facist country do we live in?

    The kind of fascism where the voters can elect a black president to be their Fuhrer.

  • Jordan||

    Breaking up families is a small price to pay for preventing somebody, somewhere from getting high.

    "If it saves just one life..." /Derpgressive

  • Anonymous Coward||

    the couple lost custody of the two boys after an anti-government rally in Louisiana.

    By opposing the government, you demonstrate ipso facto your unfitness to raise children.

  • GILMORE||

    "...Investigators did not know if the children were taken at gunpoint and it was not clear if the mother was directly involved in the abduction."

    "Additionally = it is also unclear whether the children may have been anally raped by their parents, who chanted their loyalties to satan while strangling the children's kitten. It is also unknown whether Al Qaeda may have assisted them in any way."

    Seriously, is this what passes for 'journalism'? Was there any actual *evidence* of a gun being somehow involved? Then WTF does that sentence mean? It strikes me as the sort of passive presumption-of-guilt that is so common in the news... I mean, wouldn't you just *assume* that parents would USE A GUN when retrieving their CHILDREN from MOM?? Geez, that's how I got picked up from school every day! I had a bag thrown over my head and was dragged screaming into the back of a van, where I was given Chloroform and locked in a closet until dinnertime...

    And their crime... was "displaying" marijuana to kids? Is that the same Marijuwana that's now like, legal and shit, in a large number of places? God almighty - they might have even *shown* them brown sugar and told them it was quality Lebanese heroin! Then they'd be even MORE horribly scarred.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm suspending judgement on this one until we get some more information. Which will come from the law enforcement authorities and reported by local news stations, so it's sure to be both accurate and measured.

  • GILMORE||

    It will be neat soon when the State combines Child Protective Services with Asset Forfeiture... you violate regulations? they take your kids, and then SELL THEM (presumably for the harvesting of organs)...but no - that's actually too sensible. They'd have to do something far more retarded and wasteful and cruel. Most likely? NK Style Concentration Camp. Re-education until death! For their own good.

  • db||

    Worst. Episode of Burn Notice. Ever.

  • Tonio||

    Not that it's likely to happen, but I would never cooperate with CPS or LEOs acting on their behalf. "Nope, didn't see anything. Can't help you."

  • Ken Shultz||

    If they weren't anti-government before, then they sure as hell should be if the government took their children away for just that reason.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed.

  • SumpTump||

    Lets roll with it good one time. WOw.

    www.GoPrivacy.tk

  • Rod Flash||

    I'm with you, Sump. Roll me a good one too. But don't take my kids.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    If I was in this kind of situation when I was a child, I would make any government prick's job as difficult or painful as possible if they got near me.

  • ||

    Wouldn't it be delicious if the "anti-government" group they belonged to turned out to be Occupy Wall Street?

    Who else is down with smoking the ganja?

  • CM Rocks||

    Florida took their kids away for peaceable assembly and being in possession of the most medicinal plant on the planet? You guys sure are hitting on the "anti-government" angle. Here's a little story from history. In 1776, the Society for the Protection of Loyal Colonists (SPLC) issued a report warning of the rise of the so-called "patriot movement." SPLC spokesman Marcus Potok announced his organization had been monitoring the takeover of royal legislatures, militias and town councils by anti-government extremists. "Dangerous men such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin have stoked the fires of sedition and radicalism among the King's subjects. As a result, illegal militias have seen explosive growth, fueled by a furious reaction to much-needed revenue laws duly enacted on the authority of the King." Potok promised that his organization, in close coordination with the King's government, would work to end extremist activity in the colonies. "I want to say that our aim is to destroy these groups. After all, we're talking about the mightiest empire in the world, one that a vast majority of it's subjects will remain loyal to, despite the heated rhetoric of a few rabble-rousers." Loyalists were assured that the "patriot movement," while boisterous and potentially violent, had little chance of success. "The SPLC will expose these self-styled 'patriots' for what they are, dangerous, hateful radicals." Is history repeating?

  • JSebastian||

    I am hoping that we live long enough to see the time where the people have had enough...and resort to armed insurrection where these fascist government pigs are dragged from their offices and homes and executed in the town square, after being pilloried and a list of their crimes against others read against them. Perhaps the people that they have victimized will stone them to death, or burn them at the stake.

  • Harvard||

    You can start anytime dude.

  • Sharke||

    "But it will be just so goddamn awful if all of this is the result of them using some marijuana at a rally in front of their kids."

    Mike, did you even read your own post? In particular, the following quote:

    "Afterward, Joshua Hakken tried to take the children, reportedly at gunpoint, from a Louisiana foster care facility, but was thwarted, according to the sheriff's office."

    Regardless of how unjust this all was to begin with, I'm sorry but trying to snatch them back at gunpoint like that betrays a complete and utter disregard for their kid's safety, for their future and of consequence in general. If your children are in immediate physical danger then by all means go in with guns blazing and do what you have to do. But to walk into a foster care facility with a gun and demand your kids at gunpoint...well I'm not sure you're the right kind of person to take care of a child. I think everyone's letting their judgment be clouded by the fact that this couple are being described as "anti-government." Great, so they're on our side politically. That doesn't mean they're not nutcases, dangerous, or a threat to the welfare and safety of their own children.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm not by any means endorsing this sort of behavior as a philosophical matter. But I notice that nobody seems to have gotten hurt, by parents who were simply trying to recover their own children, so no harm no foul.

  • JSebastian||

    What do you expect people thrown into this Alice in Wonderland topsy turvy world will do? Rational people are not going to possibly conceive that the State (no doubt represented by some egomaniacal faggot wearing a black dress), is going to kidnap their kids.

    What are rational people supposed to do against an insane system? There is no justification to engage the insane in their scheme...the insane MUST DIE. We must kill off people who behave irrationally and are a threat to others, as the individuals who are agents of the State are.

  • Harvard||

    [ I'm sorry but trying to snatch them back at gunpoint like that betrays a complete and utter disregard for their kid's safety, for their future and of consequence in general.]

    Better he should have capped the cop(s) who arrested him on the cop's front porch and capped the CPS cootch in the parking lot of her office building. THEN gathered his children and came to live in my basement.

  • Lea||

    In response to Sharke:

    You'd be surprised what having your children stolen from you will do to your state of mind. It is pure hell. And when DCFS/CPS has them, they are at a higher risk of harm, molestation, even death. I myself would not do this, but they most likely felt they were doing it to protect their children. It's the most helpless feeling in the world to have your children snatched and not be able to see to their care. This does not mean they're dangerous, it means they're desperate.

  • JSebastian||

    I think what is clear is that individuals who serve the State who conspire to kidnap children from their parents because they oppose the government and have a plant, need to be killed dead ASAP. Moreover, these individuals involved in the conspiracy need to be killed publicly, and their executions widely distributed, along with the context - that they are being killed for their crimes against other humans, including kidnapping, terrorism, inflicting emotional distress, assault, intimidation under the color of authority, etc.

    I hope that anyone encountering these valiant parents will lend them the support, moral or physical, that they need to resist and overcome government agents attempting to again kidnap their children.

  • LDS Libertarian||

    It is very curious that the MSM keeps saying "anti-government" instead of KKK, or Neo-NASI or the "so and so" militia. They just keep saying anti-government, as if they are trying to place in the mind of the reader and/or viewer that this rally they went to was indeed anti-government, so at a later date when they FINALLY reveal who sponsored said rally methinks they will say it was a Tea Party rally...you know because everyone refuses to believe that this anti-government, racist and borderline terrorist organization is actually the anti-government, racist and borderline terrorist organization they insist it is!
    All you idiots BELIEVE WHAT WE TELL YOU DANGGIT!

  • John Galt||

    It's not possible for parents to "kidnap" their own children.

    Run long and free you rebels!

  • ||

    Well the extremes this couple qwent to are natural, parents go insane when the children are taken from them. And under title four of the current social security act the state can doubled dip from federal funding and from the parents for child support.
    Some thing simular happened to a lady I know except the case was fabricated against her in Alabama, not one reason to endanger her children was proven, she was declared a drug abuser,jailed for non payment of child support and accused of being a prostitude. the notification of tpr was sent down fro Ohio not Alabama..DHR or the Govenor's office is willing to discuss this in Alabam

  • ||

    Well the extremes this couple qwent to are natural, parents go insane when the children are taken from them. And under title four of the current social security act the state can doubled dip from federal funding and from the parents for child support.
    Some thing simular happened to a lady I know except the case was fabricated against her in Alabama, not one reason to endanger her children was proven, she was declared a drug abuser,jailed for non payment of child support and accused of being a prostitude. the notification of tpr was sent down from Ohio not Alabama..DHR or the Govenor's office is not willing to discuss this in Alabama. Nor explain why this has happened to a disabeled woman who is under a doctors care and was indirectly asalted by a sexual pervert who uses DHR to shut his victims up. Third family he has done this to but Alabama DHR would look bad they got the children case closed

    reply to this

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