Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 07:40
VIEWED: 6710
PAGE 3 of 10
I didn't say the names demonstrated malice. Did I say anywhere that I thought that? I said it was likely that specific details of the case are confidential. The only fact the public really has is the name thing, but that doesn't mean that's all there is to it. And like I said, without the name thing, no one would be demanding answers before there's been a trial that might free up confidential information.
I don't find it improbable that there's good reason for this. Not because the name scheme is insane, but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents. Their insistence on naming a child after Adolf Hitler may be an indication that they are not entirely stable, but it's possible - and even likely - that there are many other indications that we don't know because they are not matters of public record at this time, whereas the names of the children clearly are.
"Court records said that abuse and neglect, and the physical and mental disabilities of the parents were behind the children being taken away."
We don't have access to those court record, or the specific problems they cite. That doesn't mean they don't cite anything, just that we don't know what.
So I will ask again, if these people are in fact mentally unstable, is there any question about this? If the case was about a child named Janet Luise Smith, would it be causing so much stink? Or would you still insist on specific reasons beyond, "abuse, neglect, and the physical and mental disabilities of the parents"?
It seems to me that the public's own focus on this name scheme is what's causing accusations that Social Services is focused on the children's names.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I didn't say the names demonstrated malice. Did I say anywhere that I thought that?
No, I was just defining what I considered abuse.
It sounds like you agree with my definition.
Quote:
but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents.
This concerns me. I consider myself one of those people unfit to be parents, but until we can demonstrate harm, who are WE to judge?
Quote:
no one would be demanding answers before there's been a trial that might free up confidential information.
I responded to the confidentiality thing, I think it's a load of bull that we give CPS the benefit of the doubt. They are public servants. They are not allowed to operate with no transparency. If they must, if there are privacy issues to consider, they can use TACT, but the blue code on their part is unacceptable. Heck, the blue code in ANY public service organization is unacceptable.
Frankly, like I said, if it were neglect, physical abuse, or molestation, they would have been charged with a crime, confidentiality or no. This confidentiality argument is potentially a smokescreen, and I don't like it.
They say there has been abuse and neglect, but we hear nothing about criminal charges. Without criminal charges, we are given to think that the primary objection (what is being called "abuse and neglect") are the names.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents.
This concerns me. I consider myself one of those people unfit to be parents, but until we can demonstrate harm, who are WE to judge?
I'm not sure what your issue is, here. I didn't say anything about judging without observing harm. I don't define harm as simply bruises, though, perhaps that's your concern? Even if judgement was solely on a child having bruises, however, I would stand by my statement. Expand the definition to not providing nutritious food, letting a preteen roam heavily trafficked streets unsupervised (especially if they haven't been taught to look before crossing a street), or verbally insulting a child on a regular basis, and a lot of people are not fit to be parents. If you haven't seen this sort of behavior running rampant, well, then you probably haven't worked retail.
Also, confidentiality laws are incredibly strict. In cases involving children, non-disclosure is standard. This isn't the choice of Social Services, it's the bindings of law. The wrong kind of "tact" could easily lose a person their job, if not send them to prison. I would hate to be in that position.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't define harm as simply bruises, though, perhaps that's your concern?
Please don't mischaracterize me. I may have mentioned mostly physical abuse in a previous post, but that does NOT mean that I only consider physical abuse to qualify as abuse. Magons made this mistake as well.
My issue is the "not fit to be parents" argument. I know that incompetence CAN actually cause demonstrable harm, yet at the same time, I'm not sure incompetence alone (without demonstrable harm) is a sufficient reason to remove children. And I also know in the past that people who have been in the position to make judgments on whether someone was fit to be a parent have abused that power. I think this is very dangerous territory. I can only be sure of the rightness of the decision by some indication that there is sufficient evidence to justify it - such as there being sufficient evidence to take the case to trial.
If we don't hear an indication of sufficient evidence, ulterior motives becomes a concern.
Quote:
This isn't the choice of Social Services, it's the bindings of law.
The bindings of law in this case may very well be flawed. They can create additional dangers and concerns for the children.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons made this mistake as well.
It's possible that the way you're expressing yourself lends itself to that conclusion.
If your concern isn't solely with physical abuse, I don't really understand why you're arguing with me. I gave specific examples of some behaviors I thought fell into the domain of unfit parents. These behaviors cause harm or have incredibly high odds of causing harm (i.e. children often in situations where they could be hit by cars) but they aren't strictly illegal. If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not. If a parent lapses into tearful breakdowns or screaming fits, that would be a red flag, whether they insulted or hit their child or not. Such behavior would likely be causing some harm, but it might not be criminal in nature. If parents are mentally unstable or have shown themselves to be incompetent, I don't think it's wrong to take action, even if their actions don't fall into the realm of criminal behavior. It's important to learn lessons of history when it comes to what level of incompetence is most likely to cause a problem; there's nothing wrong with trying to prevent serious harm to health or well-being.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The bindings of law in this case may very well be flawed. They can create additional dangers and concerns for the children.
Whether that's true or not, it's not something the organization should be blamed for. They can't break those laws without penalty, so unless the laws are changed, they're bound by them. If they refuse to obey those laws, their job will be filled by someone who will. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that I think you're laying some blame where it doesn't belong. If the confidentiality laws bother you, write to congress rather than blaming the people subject to them.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not.
That is "neglect," which I mentioned above. Neglect is abuse if it is malicious. Neglect is still pretty serious even if it isn't. Also, we do have criminal charges that exist for neglect.
Quote:
If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not.
That may or may not be incompetence. It is incompetence if it can be shown to cause demonstrable harm.
If no damage has been done, there appears to be no basis for intervention.
Quote:
If parents are mentally unstable or have shown themselves to be incompetent, I don't think it's wrong to take action
Yes, I don't disagree.
But, evidence of harm is the key determining factor.
Though it wouldn't hurt people to listen to the kids themselves a little more than people do, with of course the allowance that not everything a kid says will actually be a justifiable case to remove them.
Quote:
I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that I think you're laying some blame where it doesn't belong.
...Eh... Okay. Agreed, with the stipulation that some people benefit from how the law is, to the detriment of children, and are likely to resist changes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I responded to the confidentiality thing, I think it's a load of bull that we give CPS the benefit of the doubt. They are public servants. They are not allowed to operate with no transparency. If they must, if there are privacy issues to consider, they can use TACT, but the blue code on their part is unacceptable. Heck, the blue code in ANY public service organization is unacceptable.
^This. And it's becoming the norm. Ask about our security theater apparatus, and you'll get shouted down with claims that you can't know about it, because of "NATIONAL SECURITY!" And it's spreading through every agency, bit by bit. You can't know about CPS because of confidentiality issues. You can't film the police because they passed a law that says you can't. Rather than just do their fucking jobs the right way in the first place, the norm now is to just make it illegal for you to ask if they're breaking the law.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with Byte that disgusting names alone shouldn't be enough to remove kids. If there are other things going wrong then okay, but we don't know whether there are or not. Because the sad thing is that ordinary abuse and neglect (ordinary?) is common and doesn't make the news. The only reason this case made the news is because of the names, so the other details of the case are not available to us to judge. Plus as Phoenix says there are rampant confidentiality rules there, some of which I approve of and some of which are weird and overkill.
PR, Byte agreed that neglect is a reason for children to be sent elsewhere, but there has to be a reason to look into it besides goofy names, the child has to look scrawny or malnourished or tell someone they aren't being fed etc. Otherwise DHS could just go knocking on random doors and inspecting random houses which is absolutely not okay.
The other thing is that maybe these parents had the kids when they were teenagers and so were being stupid to get attention. Too many 16 year old girls having babies give them names like Candy Cotton etc. for this theory to be overlooked. It would explain some of the whackiness of naming kids stupid things. But still that's just stupid. But the parents will be punished later by their children's anger for naming them that.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If there's more to this story than CPS taking the kids away from their parents for more than just their names, they'd better get some evidence out there pretty damn quick.
Do *I* think it's sick and fucked up to name a kid after Hitler? Sure. But I think it'd be kind of fucked up to name a kid after Lincoln, Jefferson, or Washington, too, not to mention Robert Lee, Jeff Davis, and a host of others.
Would you take away a Muslim's child if they named him Osama?
Would you take away a child named Jesus? What about a kid named God?
It's pretty obvious these people see Hitler as a hero. I think that's pretty fucked up, but they do indeed have a right to believe that. To paraphrase Patton Oswalt, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're fucking crazy to believe that. I acknowledge that you believe it, though, and please don't stop believing the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my life."
And if I was named Adolf Hitler Anything, you can best bet I'd be having that name legally changed the day I was of age to do so. In fact, I'd probably change it to Martin Luther King, Jr. or Al Sharpton, just to really cheese off the parents who would name a kid Adolf Hitler.
But I wouldn't take their kids away just for that.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME