"They took away our kids because of their names"

[fireheart17]

Ok, so devil's advocate time. Why was the newborn taken? DYFS won't say, there's a hearing to determine if the newborn can actually be kept by DYFS and put into the system, the other children remain in foster care but the parents haven't been charged with any actual crimes. Methinks that this is New Jersey responding to a troll by kidnapping. And as disgusting as these two persons are, I hope they rape the state. There's a reason that the 14th ammendment allows for due process of law.

OK, read the bolded parts in Gravekeeper's post.

But that aside, the couple has a history of domestic abuse they kept their children in a house with all the windows nailed shut, full of swastikas, knives and skulls. They frequently strapped their kids into their booster seats for extend periods of time so they could get on with that whole domestic abuse thing with each other. Mom has slipped notes to neighbours saying Mr Dipshit is threatening to kill her and to call for help.

Mr Dipshit was also trying to teach little Adolf how to kill people, and the kid, despite being 3, is documented as constantly threatening to kill other children as he repeats what daddy taught him. He also says delightfully horrible things when brought around anyone who isn't white. Finally, he was violent and aggressive towards his sisters, his mother and the psychologist evaluating him for the court case.

Mr Dipshit is also illiterate and his ex has a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. He also disciplines the children by holding a running vacuum to their faces and keeps everyone restricted to specific areas of the house they're "allowed" to stay in.

Still think that's the best environment for a newborn?

The best part is that these weren't the children's original names. He had them all legally changed after he learned how awesome Nazi's were from watching the History Channel. >.>

So he's changing their names on a whim as his own stupid beliefs change.

Which I guess could be called abuse: I mean, think about it, you've grown up with the name Antonio and then when you're 3, you're suddenly told "Sweetie, from now on you'll be called Adolf alright?"

I don't know, I think that one's kind of pretty.

There was a girl at my primary school who had that name and I thought so too. My sister shares the first half of that name. I was just using it as an example, I didn't hate the name

Racism is taught. He learned it from his parents. Sadly, I have a feeling that the child will get his ass beat if he yells those slurs at the wrong person once he enters school. Not everyone is tolerant of such things.

He'll probably be expelled or homeschooled. Which creates a whole new shitstorm there.

[Jack Doe]

I did read all of that. But where is the crime? If a crime has been committed, take the kids and charge the parents. Unfortunately, from what I've read from previous articles, while these two dumbasses remain dumbasses, none of the investigations actually turned up anything criminal. Ok, it's disturbing that there are accusations of domestic violence. There were no charges of it. It is extremely disturbing that they're training the boy to be a neo-nazi. But that's not a crime. At this point, the kid was taken because of the perception that these are bad people, whereas that is not a criminal offence and not supposed to be actionable by DYFS.

[Seifer]

I did read all of that. But where is the crime? If a crime has been committed, take the kids and charge the parents. Unfortunately, from what I've read from previous articles, while these two dumbasses remain dumbasses, none of the investigations actually turned up anything criminal. Ok, it's disturbing that there are accusations of domestic violence. There were no charges of it. It is extremely disturbing that they're training the boy to be a neo-nazi. But that's not a crime. At this point, the kid was taken because of the perception that these are bad people, whereas that is not a criminal offence and not supposed to be actionable by DYFS.

I'm willing to wager that the state has a lot more evidence than they're releasing to the media, which is why they still have custody of the children several years later. I'd also wager that the newborn was taken from them due to their previous inability to care for their children (which, again, can be derived from the state's evidence). If the state knows that they're shitty parents and they abused/neglected their children, they're not going to let them keep a defenseless newborn.

The state can't tell the couple, "You can't have kids!", but they can easily continue taking the children away if the parents are a threat.

[Jack Doe]

I'm willing to wager that the state has a lot more evidence than they're releasing to the media, which is why they still have custody of the children several years later. I'd also wager that the newborn was taken from them due to their previous inability to care for their children (which, again, can be derived from the state's evidence). If the state knows that they're shitty parents and they abused/neglected their children, they're not going to let them keep a defenseless newborn.

The state can't tell the couple, "You can't have kids!", but they can easily continue taking the children away if the parents are a threat.

Only thing about that is, the statute of limitations for child abuse/child endangerment/child neglect is 2 years in NJ. Even if they have "more evidence," they've failed to act on it. The oldest kids were taken three years ago. The state has failed to file charges, and has taken a kid before any adverse action. This is a damned slippery slope and as much as I hate stupidity, I still hope that these morons rape the shit out of the state for it.

[FArchivist]

Ok, so devil's advocate time. Why was the newborn taken? DYFS won't say, there's a hearing to determine if the newborn can actually be kept by DYFS and put into the system, the other children remain in foster care but the parents haven't been charged with any actual crimes. Methinks that this is New Jersey responding to a troll by kidnapping. And as disgusting as these two persons are, I hope they rape the state. There's a reason that the 14th ammendment allows for due process of law.

1) "Rape the state"? Uh, ok. You really shouldn't use rape to compare anything. Why? Here:

a) Because of psychology. If the same pathways are used for "rape" as a positive term, it will become natural for you to think of rape in a positive way. It's the same thing with "gay" used to mean "anything bad". Investigate cognitive dissonance

b) It contributes to a culture of oppression. Because of 1), rape victims are marginalised even more than they already are.

c) Not to mention, it makes it uncomfortable for people who are victims of rape. Even if you don't think you're trivialising rape, how do you think you'd feel if what would probably be the worst experience of your life was used in that context. Probably fairly terrible, I'd gander.

2) In any of the 50 states, charges do not have to be preferred against you for you to be declared an "unfit parent". The court does that by examining things in the best interest of the welfare of the children and how that welfare would be provided by the parents as opposed to being provided in a foster home. If the latter can be proved to be better, you don't get to keep your kids. That's the administrative law in regards to child welfare and it's pretty standard across the USA. And by taking place in a court according to the processes describe by administrative law? Due process is being followed.

(Although it should be noted that "due process" does not apply to the whole of the Bill of Rights as yet, due to SCOTUS decisions on the subject.)

[Jack Doe]

1) "Rape the state"? Uh, ok. You really shouldn't use rape to compare anything. Why? Here:

a) Because of psychology. If the same pathways are used for "rape" as a positive term, it will become natural for you to think of rape in a positive way. It's the same thing with "gay" used to mean "anything bad". Investigate cognitive dissonance

b) It contributes to a culture of oppression. Because of 1), rape victims are marginalised even more than they already are.

c) Not to mention, it makes it uncomfortable for people who are victims of rape. Even if you don't think you're trivialising rape, how do you think you'd feel if what would probably be the worst experience of your life was used in that context. Probably fairly terrible, I'd gander.

2) In any of the 50 states, charges do not have to be preferred against you for you to be declared an "unfit parent". The court does that by examining things in the best interest of the welfare of the children and how that welfare would be provided by the parents as opposed to being provided in a foster home. If the latter can be proved to be better, you don't get to keep your kids. That's the administrative law in regards to child welfare and it's pretty standard across the USA. And by taking place in a court according to the processes describe by administrative law? Due process is being followed.

(Although it should be noted that "due process" does not apply to the whole of the Bill of Rights as yet, due to SCOTUS decisions on the subject.)

To answer 1: I used rape for a very specific purpose. The repercussions of that crime are true and specific. Someone who has been raped is never the same. It is the worst of all crimes and scars in ways that no other act can. I'm not trivializing it, I'm emphasizing it. That is EXACTLY what I want to happen to the State of New Jersey. NJ is shitting on the concept of equality, due process of law, and generally the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and fourteenth ammendments. While the subjects of this conversation are two dispicable adults, what the state has done is worse, as it hurts us all.

To answer 2: First, not all states allow non-judicial seizure of a child. For instance, Sout Carolina Code of Laws, Title 63, Chapter 7 (the SC Childrens Code) lays out step by step what is required to take a child from their parent. Emergency protective custody is possible only if (and only to) a child who's life, health, or safety is in immediate threat by abuse or neglect, or if the parent has been arrested and no other suitable guardian is available. That is to say, if Bad Parents beat Innocent Kid one, but leave Innocent Kid two alone, the cops can take Innocent Kid one but not Kid two, unless they can prove that Kid two is also in danger. SC can't just "take" a kid because it's perceived the parents will be unfit. There has to be a complaint, a judge has to sign and order the removal, and within 24 hours of the removal the state must justfiy its actions. If upheld, then the state must conduct a probable cause hearing (within 72 hours) and ONLY then can they begin an investigation. The final stick is that if you Then, the state may attempt to take full custody of the child, but can only do so by ex partae order. Finally, permanent custody and removal of the child can only be concluded after either a finding of criminal neglect or abuse by the parent, or a civil finding that the parent is unfit (in that they have a mental, physical, or emotional defect preventing them from providing a minimum standard of care to the child.) At no time is there any "administrative" law allowed, and it all falls under state sanctioned due process.

Trust me, I am intimately familiar with what goes on in court regarding parental rights, custody, protective orders, emergency removal, and the like. Needless to say, my wife and I still have my stepdaughter, her father who started this shit doesn't.

I would like a cite on your comment that due process does not apply due to the Supreme Court. What case?

Finally, where's the end? By corollary, what other reasons do you want the State to be able to take your kids on an administrative whim? Right to free speech? "Oh, his words are offensive so lets take his kids" to which the retort would be "Why?" with an answer of "because administrative law states we can." Rather chilling effect on your rights to speech, eh? What about religion? Your own personal literacy? Your right to assemble and associate with others? This isn't about what's popular, as popular speech and actions need no protection. These two morons have, inadverdently, shown that NJ's child protective services are as facist as the Nazi couple they're taking kids from. It's sad, and it's even more sad that you're supporting them.

[jackfaire]

1) Jack Doe it's not playing Devil's Advocate unless you don't actually agree with the other side and are arguing for their side to make a point.

So no your not playing Devil's Advocate since you believe it is their right to encourage their son to be a murderer as that is what they were doing when the state took their child an action you feel the state was wrong in doing.

2) If one child was being beaten and you remove that child it is logical to assume that the second child will become the target of the aggression much like how when one child outgrows a pedophile's target age that pedophile will shift to the younger child.

3) If we were talking about removing kids because their parents were teaching their kids unpopular views well I would be on the parents side as well.

We aren't we are talking about documented forms of abuse. Fighting in front of your kids especially when they are unable to remove themselves from the situation is abusive.

Teaching your kids that the proper way to deal with other kids is death threats and anger. Also bad. Not just for other kids but for that kid too.

I honestly don't think every neglectful parent should go to jail for being such. Personally not every crime should be responded to with jail time.

Removing their influence from the kids is sufficient enough.

If the parents can prove what they were doing was not negatively impacting the health and well being of the child more power to them but why don't you write the kid in 20 years and ask him if he thinks he is better or worse off.

Believe me never getting out of a bad situation makes you wish the state would have cared.

[FArchivist]

NJ is shitting on the concept of equality, due process of law, and generally the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and fourteenth ammendments. While the subjects of this conversation are two dispicable adults, what the state has done is worse, as it hurts us all.

Those are some serious charges. I'll need to see some clear evidence of those Constitutional violations, since I don't see it here. The case is ongoing in the courts. That means that due process is being followed. Since the case is ongoing in the courts, CPS in that state can still hold the children until its satisfactory conclusion. That includes any new children that come into the picture.

Emergency protective custody is possible only if (and only to) a child who's life, health, or safety is in immediate threat by abuse or neglect, or if the parent has been arrested and no other suitable guardian is available.

And it's still in the courts as to whether the children, newborn or already taken, has their life, health, or safety in immediate threat by abuse and neglect. Despite what the parents have publicly stated, they have not been cleared yet. The trial is still ongoing.

At no time is there any "administrative" law allowed, and it all falls under state sanctioned due process.

Trust me, I am intimately familiar with what goes on in court regarding parental rights, custody, protective orders, emergency removal, and the like. Needless to say, my wife and I still have my stepdaughter, her father who started this shit doesn't.

From the Child Welfare site of the federal Department of Health & Human Services:

State statutes are provisions enacted by State legislatures that
authorize a State government to operate and perform its many
functions. All States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands currently make their
statutes available on websites that are freely accessible to the
public. Statutes are organized topically into codes by titles,
chapters, articles, or sections. Familiarity with the structure of a
State’s code is helpful for locating information.

State regulations, also known as administrative law or policy,
are promulgated by State agencies to guide the application of
statutory requirements to agency practice. Each department
or agency within a State government typically is responsible
for formulating regulations and policy for the programs that
the agency administers. Regulations tend to be organized into
codes by agency, topic, or specific programs


I am quite certain you state the statute correctly. But how that statute is interpreted and implemented (ie, public policy and implementation) is done by the agency that would govern under the statute. So when it comes down to what is "life, health, or safety is in immediate threat by abuse or neglect", that is determined by the agency in accordance to their own internal regs.

Like it or not, that is how the bureaucracy operates. It is legal and oftentimes administrative law is far more important than what is written in the statute, just as caselaw is often far more important.

I would like a cite on your comment that due process does not apply due to the Supreme Court. What case?

It's called incorporation and it started in the 1890s. Incorporation changes infrequently based on various Supreme Court cases.

Finally, where's the end?

I don't know what you mean here. I don't seek final ends in law.

By corollary, what other reasons do you want the State to be able to take your kids on an administrative whim? Right to free speech? "Oh, his words are offensive so lets take his kids" to which the retort would be "Why?" with an answer of "because administrative law states we can."

Does that free speech create a situation of "life, health, or safety is in immediate threat by abuse or neglect"? Then certainly, I would consider it valid, so long as it was arbitrated so. At least, until a judge said otherwise.

Rather chilling effect on your rights to speech, eh?

I don't find it so, no.

What about religion? Your own personal literacy? Your right to assemble and associate with others?

Still not finding it chilling. And yes, I find it perfectly permissable (and within the bounds of free speech as has been adjudicated by law) to create Protest Zones and require permits for assembly.

This isn't about what's popular, as popular speech and actions need no protection. These two morons have, inadverdently, shown that NJ's child protective services are as facist as the Nazi couple they're taking kids from. It's sad, and it's even more sad that you're supporting them.

I'm not interested in what's popular. The case is ongoing. Till the case is resolved one way or another, the newborn is being kept.

And I would submit that you have an irrational bias against CPS due to your personal experiences, as pointed to by the anecdata you relate above. I see nothing here that is outside due process. Even if the trial takes 10 years, so long as the trial remains ongoing, those kids remain out of custody until the judge decides otherwise. I would recommend a more objective look at the situation. Run it by an attorney.

And you can't decide anything about whether the case is valid or invalid anyway because it's under a current gag order - which, by the way, the Nazi parents have obviously seen fit to violate. In fact, the only source that they've been acquitted of child abuse is by the parents, who are not trustworthy sources. The judge, the attorneys, and DFCS in NJ have all refused to comment due to the ongoing case. That's not acquittal. So I wouldn't say there is anything hinky or illegal going on until I see some evidence from a reputable source.

One of the more recent articles on the subject. I'd like to note this sentence:

After the hearing, the Campbells had no comment to Fox 29 as they left court and Deborah Campbell was in tears.

I have my bets that the Campbells were reminded quite firmly by the judge of that gag order.

[boringscreenname]

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts...08-09.opn.html This is a document from the court.

[Beckpatton]

With regards to them taking the newborn, I read another article, besides the one Gravekeeper posted, and it had a little more info. Basically the reasons were that the husband is beating the wife, but she won't admit to it. The neighbours have reported the abuse, while she lives in denial. They took the older kids, and now the baby because there were reports he was getting physical with the kids too... so no, it has nothing to do with their names, or the parent's being racist, (which I am sure they are, either racist or very very stupid!) but the fact is the house is not a safe place for kids!

As for them changing the kids names when he discovered the wonder that is Naziism! Why not change their names legally as well? Why are they still Heath and Deborah Campbell? My guess is because he knows he's gonna get his ass kicked when he introduces himself to people as Adolf Nazi Lover! Jobs are gonna be hard to come by, and his house will probably get torched! Yet it's ok to do that to the kids.... Moron!