Dad who named kids after Nazis decries removal

One kid who'll have a hard time on eHarmony.

I hate to say this but he and his wife can name their kids Satans Spawn and the government does not have the right to come in and take them. I see a fat pay day for this family.....

I don't know what his motivation is, and I don't really approuve what he did for the children, but at the same time, he should have the right to do what he wants, if America is really the land of liberty. (but obviously not)

Whatever the rights of the individual in the US, or any place else, this is abuse by proxy. Has anybody given any thought to what will happen to these children when they enter school? These people are not parents, they are idiots playing with dolls.

Sadly these “dolls” have real feelings & will one days pay the price for their parents idiocy.

This looks like a case of parents being reckless (with the names) and pretty much calling for intervention. I do not agree in principle with the state taking kids away from parents - and certainly not in this case if the kids names are at issue - but some parent do the equivalent of putting a "Kick me" sign on their family by naming their kid after A.N., Hitler and Himmler. Most people do not want to be victims, this family makes it a career.

I truly believe he doesn’t understand what he did was wrong!

While the names would certainly set the kids up for ridicule and worse, I don't think we want to go the "banned names list" route. I think a form of community political correctness forced social services to find something wrong in the home as an excuse to remove the children.

Normally removing children from the parents is not, in the long term, the best thing to do. But some children do need to be protected from their own parents & action to remove them is the only way to go. We need a licence after instruction to drive a car, but any idiot can have children. Some degree of monitoring needs to be in place to make sure the idiots have some idea of how to look after their own children. Just because they are the biological parent it doesn’t follow that they should have the right to treat the children how they please.

Personally I think these parents are massively retarded and I probably wouldn't want to be in the same elevator with them. However, have they broken any laws? If not then they have the right to name their kids anything they want. Does this reflect on them as bad parents? Of course it does but if putting absurdly stupid and socially unacceptable names on your kids is "abuse by proxy" I'd say that a good 80% or more of parents are guilty of the same thing in other ways. The kids probably won't use their middle names and at some point they themselves may legally change it. Any abuse and prejudice they may face from other kids, parents, teachers whatever is just that; abuse and prejudice and should be handled as such. If they haven't broken any laws they should not be persecuted. If the State of NJ doesn't like it they should pass a law prohibiting retarded names and force a change.

Might as well tattoo "kick me" on your kid's forehead.

You guys are missing the point. No one said the kids were removed because of their names. There were other reasons that the state agency cannot say publicly because of privacy laws and the pending court case. If someone names their kids after Nazis who exterminated people, do you really think they practice good childrearing behavior? Their neighbors have told US newspapers a lot of things about how the parents were abusive or neglectful. Time will tell how much was true.

One of these kids is gonna get a Jewish teacher on of these days....

Reminds me of that Johnny Cash song "Boy Named Sue".

If someone names their kids after Nazis who exterminated people, do you really think they practice good childrearing behavior?

Good childrearing behaviour? What the heck is that? I do not thing most parents exercise it, whatever it is.

The only thing that matters is if the kids were being abused or not, and I am not convinced by 1) a general claim of imminent danger and 2) Nazi inspired names. Bruises, welts, broken bones, kids afraid of papa, numerous hospital visits, a diagnosis of malnutrition, those things would go A LONG WAY to convince me of abuse. Don't see any of that in the article.

So what I am thinking is that, once again, America's overzealous child welfare nuts have struck again, as if they did not have real work to do. (You might remember the mass roundup of kids at the Mormon community last year, kids ripped from the homes on the basis of a prank call.)

I think it is very likely this is based on the names combined with the imaginations of some nutty people.

I don't like the names, but oh well. I did not like my name growing up either because I got taunted for it. I used another. Its called learning to adapt. But you don't get to choose your birth name nor your parents either. Thems the breaks.

I wonder what expectations the parents had about the future of their children when naming them after convicted war criminals. Something is not normal here, which is supported by the action taken by the state DYFS.

First likeitis says that he doesn't know what good childrearing is but thinks most parents do not "exercise it". Then he proceeds to give a list of abusive behaviours that, I would imagine, constitute poor childrearing. But how would he know what is bad if he claims he does not know what is good? And how can he judge others whose responsibility (rightly or wrongly) is to make those decisions?

In the Mormon case what would likeitis recommend? Wait for the bruises, welts, broken bones etc. before acting on a tip? And how would anyone know the tip was bogus if they do not investigate? Does he support polygamy and under age brides?

For someone who claims not to know, he certainly is willing to spread his ignorance on issues he does not understand.

So now their in DYFS custody AKA Gladiator school. To bad we dont know the whole story but if it for a name, 2 wrongs dont make a right.

First likeitis says that he doesn't know what good childrearing is but thinks most parents do not "exercise it".

I was poking fun at how it sounds like a technical term, like something that can be verified by a simple test and is universal. It isn't. But it does not matter. What is good childrearing to you might be terrible to me, and vice versa. All that matters is if there is abuse or not. Lack of abuse does not constitute good child rearing. That is too subjective, therefore, most do not exercise by everybody else's definition. But I think abuse can be defined well enough to take action on.

I see no signs of physical abuse here. That is paramount. Psychological abuse gets more tricky to prove and is secondary to physical abuse. But you got to do better than just pointing out the names, names that pre-date the Nazi party incidentally, and claiming psychological abuse. The child welfare people did try to do better, knowing full well they must do better to make a case. But the claim of "imminent danger" has nothing to support it from what I see here.

Wait for the bruises, welts, broken bones etc. before acting on a tip? And how would anyone know the tip was bogus if they do not investigate?

Hold on just one second! I never said they should not investigate. OF COURSE they should investigate! What I took issue with was taking the kids away! Can you spot the difference????

Does he support polygamy and under age brides?

That has jack to do with the topic son.

Good childrearing behaviour? What the heck is that? I do not thing most parents exercise it, whatever it is.

Now you are saying that there is no universal standard even though you claimed that most parents do not exercise good childrearing.

Lack of abuse does not constitute good child rearing.

Huh? You just said that "good childrearing" wasn't a technical term that could be used in any meaningful way and now you are using it to help define abuse. Anyway, your statement is nonsense. Children do not grow up in a moral vacuum. If there is no abuse, then by most definitions of childrearing that would be a good living environment.

Of course, what constitutes abuse is also vague. Like good childrearing, it is easy to identify out in the extremes but much more difficult in around the middle. Is corporal punishment always wrong? Is a spank on the bottom different than a smack on the head? Are indulgent parents practising good childrearing? Does that answer change when that child becomes spoilt adult?

Again with the Mormons the authorities did not know the scope of the potential problems they were facing. After investigation the children were reunited with their families. How would have you proceeded given the unknowns they had and the scale of potential abuse involving so many people?

New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services probably didn't even give the parents the reason why they took them away. The agency must disclose to the police what illegalities were going on and police reports are in most cases public record. I think this couple is nuts, but it is obvious that the children were taken because of their political incorrect names. It has been happening by degrees for many years but it's hard not to realize that freedom is in retreat in America. To be free is to have the right to fail and to be a complete idiot if that is what you want to be. Putting up with the downside of freedom is essential because of the huge benefits that can be had on the other side.