Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 07:40
VIEWED: 6710
PAGE 4 of 10
You want to know something funny Quicko? One of my step relatives happens to have the same first and last name as a historical figure who is of lesser repute. The last name is a common one and his parents just really liked the first name and couldn't get around it because they liked the first name so much and they weren't going to change their last name. Surprisingly he's had little trouble in life from it, occasionally he is asked if he's related to this historical figure or if he was named after him and he answers no, which is the truth. Its been no biggie for him. But Adolph Hitler is a whole nother level, but still not grounds in itself to have kids taken away, maybe in creepy name-control Norway but not in this country.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: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.
That's what I call mens rea in action, you ask me - ain't never the crime, it's the cover up.
Speakin O which...
Behind Closed Doors
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/11/20/behind-closed-doors.aspx
Quote:
I've been to Family Court a few times over the years, but it was never a place where I felt at home. Everything about it felt wrong, from the essential absence of anything remotely resembling rights, to the way everyone in the room talked down to children as if they existed so every adult in the room could lecture them. The one aspect of Family Court that I never gave much thought was that the courtrooms were closed.
Closed courtrooms in criminal court are bad, where the constitutional right to a public trial is violated by the secret happenings behind closed doors. The only time they were allowed to throw everybody out and close the courtroom was when the undercover took the stand, and then only when he remained active and could articulate a threat, either to him or his assignment. When the prosecutor asked that the courtroom be closed, we fought it. No star chamber would be allowed without a fight.
Somehow, this never translated to Family Court. I never gave it any thought, as it seemed appropriate when the subject was children that their identities not be made public, that their future not be burned for something that happened when they thought like a child. I was wrong.
This article also references other events within Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, to a degree no one else has addressed and those references name names, which frees me from any concern of doing so at this time either, given that said blog is run by lawyer type folk.
Where Ethics Go To Die
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/07/where-ethics-go-to-die.aspx
Quote:
But it isn't all that was happening in Luzerne County, as unbelievable as that may seem. This place is a judicial cesspool, and the only reason there hasn't been an overwhelming outcry is that Ciavarella and Conahan were such outrageous criminals that they dwarf pretty much any other impropriety one can think of. That doesn't make Judge Michael T. Toole look any better, however, and it would be wrong to ignore his misconduct just because it didn't rise to the level of his fellow judges.
***
And if this plain vanilla corruption isn't enough to make you angry, consider this: Toole entered into his plea agreement on September 25, yet continued to sit on the bench as a judge. Let that one sink in. The judge signed a plea agreement and continued as a judge for months.
6,500 Convictions Overturned
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11/02/6500-convictions-overturned.as
px
Quote:
The decision means all convictions within that time frame will be vacated and the records of the juveniles expunged, or erased. Prosecutors also were barred from retrying any juveniles other than those that remain incarcerated or owe restitution or fines.
***
That leaves about 100 cases that may be reopened - serious offenses in which the defendaNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thought as much.
And THAT is why this whole thing is so dangerous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But then you violate the privacy rights of the parents. You can't have things both ways. If CPS were to release their side of the story, you would turn around and pillory them for violating parents' rights, would you not? Don't tell me you wouldn't.
They are not allowed to operate with no transparency.
The child being taken away is not YET at the point of trial. So, should the parents... or CPS... be tried by the media? Because the media is crooked too, they spin anything any way that will get them more revenue. Transparency is all well and good, but it does conflict with privacy.
As far as invisible damage... it is possible that the child was being kept in conditions similar to sensory deprivation.
The point is, we don't know, and we SHOULDN'T know, until this becomes a matter of a hearing when all sides are represented and ALL of the facts can come out. Until then, everyone is just riding their particular hobby-horse of prejudice (prejudice, to prejudge, to judge before the fact) and individual experience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I'm not so sure. We are talking about the government seizing people and detaining them. I want to know why they are doing this from the moment it happens. I want to know the status of persons seized and the details of their treatment. I want to know the specifics of any charges being brought. I'd like to know that the subject(s) have legal representation to protect their interests. Whenever the government seizes someone, this is information I'd like to have access to.
Men from the government came to take someone away. Transparency is essential.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If your children were taken away for some reason... say, you were accused of sexually abusing them... and it became a matter of public record which was then found to be false... your reputation would be besmirched, because everyone would remember the accusation but nobody would publish or remember the outcome.
I guarantee you that the people who NEED to know the reason(s) for the child being taken away... i.e. the parents ... know the reason(s). The parents themselves can make the facts known to the press, if they choose to do so. Your insistence on "transparency" is misplaced, as the parents have full access to the press if they choose to use it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll agree you have points all around, but all I'm saying is, there has to be a better way of doing this, because I've heard some monstrous stories where CPS has screwed up or done something more based on local politics than what's really good for the kids. Not only that, Frem's stories and my own mother's work with Foster Care Review have suggested to me that the Foster Care system is horrific and messed up and no kid should be put through that unless necessary.
So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.
In fact, I'm just not sure kids SHOULD be taken away UNLESS there's criminal charges, there's justification to institutionalize a caregiver, and/or there's no other capable family members.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If your children were taken away for some reason... say, you were accused of sexually abusing them... and it became a matter of public record which was then found to be false... your reputation would be besmirched, because everyone would remember the accusation but nobody would publish or remember the outcome.
Obviously better systematic elements would need to be designed here as well. Ultimately I see these as two different problems, and the existing system fails in addressing both.
As for damaged reputation, civil suits for slander and libel are intended to bring monetary redress sufficient to compensate for damages, and also tend to be fairly public. Of course, a problem arises when the accuser is much more wealthy than the falsely accused, which from what I understand happens often in small towns between generations of rich socialites and generations of social outsiders. Perhaps such civil cases should be automatic, and also not handled by (potentially crooked and biased) local judges.
Quote:
I guarantee you that the people who NEED to know the reason(s) for the child being taken away... i.e. the parents ... know the reason(s). The parents themselves can make the facts known to the press, if they choose to do so. Your insistence on "transparency" is misplaced, as the parents have full access to the press if they choose to use it.
This is fair, to a degree, but also implies a guilty conscience if the parents DON'T go to the press. Which is potentially a faulty conclusion.
It also assumes that the parents are savvy enough to use that resource. They might not be, whether through inexperience, or personal beliefs, or maybe questions of mental health (which may or may not be sufficient justification to remove the kids).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.
So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.
And what happens if there is good evidence that criminal activity IS taking place, but the child is left in the home and is killed before charges can be brought? CPS once again becomes "the enemy".
There is sometimes local politics involved, sometimes outright corruption, and quite frequently overwork and burnout in CPS operations. If you can think of a better way to protect children while at the same time protecting the rights of the parents, please feel free to suggest improvements.
As far as whether or not the parents in this particular case have the savvy to go to the press, there are advocates available to help them.
IMHO a lot of this all boils down to money. The reason why CPS and foster care are screwed up is because everybody wants to do this on the cheap. God forbid we should spend government money on protecting children.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.
Not sure myself, though I seem to remember hearing a similar fuss brought up about the names of their other two children, though it never got to the point where they were taken away.
Surely some manner of investigation must go on before CPS goes extracting. I have no problem if that stays confidential, but when you take away kids, even though that's not necessarily how the system works, the mind jumps to imagining the actions of the parents as a "take-away-the-kids" worthy offense.
So it makes sense to me that the moment that happens, because taking away the kids is pretty public, criminal charges or other valid reasons should also be public, with enough evidence to justify the charges or reasons (it's not like the public wouldn't find out about criminal charges anyway). And there should be enough investigation prior to the fact to know false alarms from the real abuse.
If CPS is doing both investigations and disclosure competently, and there's no corruption or abuse of power issues going on, then hey, even if there's still a few accidents we'll know CPS is behaving justly.
Point about money. For CPS to be competent, they'd have to have enough money to be properly trained and to fund sufficient investigation. Heaven forbid.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME