Meet Adolf Hitler and his family, he is now in state custody

This is an old story from last year. Why do you want to bring it up again?

Are we going to take kids away who are named Jeffery, Joseph, John, Richard, and Ted too? All those names are connected to either serial killers or mass murderers. The government has far to much power.

Of course it was because of the children's names. If there had been physical abuse there would have been bruises on the woman';s face as well as doctor reports on injuries to the children. But it shows how much danger there is when an evil man named Adolph tries to take over the world. Anyone with that name is immediately suspect. By the way, I did not see the previous article either. I wonder if they will get their children back if cut out the Hitler part of their son;s name. Maybe next time, the wife should opt for a home birth.

Personally, I think it's the parent's right to raise their child as a Nazi if they so choose. I do believe that the domestic abuse bit was fabricated after the got national attention. I think it's horrible that they would raise their kids this way, but there's no law against it and I don't want the government telling people how to raise their children or how to name their children. There are kids out there named Sadaam, Osama, Idi, etc. He1l, do you know how common the name Joseph is? Joseph Stalin was WORSE than Hitler by many accounts and yet people name their kids Joseph all the time.

If this couple's life is riddled with violence, the police should have removed Mrs. Campbell while she was still pregnant. Sounds like it was the names rather than the possibility of violence that took the children from their parents. They are stupid names to give their children, but that shouldn't give the authorities the right to take them.

I won't scream at you for this being an "old" topic. To me, it's just as important now as it's ever been. Where exactly does society draw the line? Whose standards do we use? Whose rights are more important in these cases -- the parents or the child's? All very important questions. It's a very important topic in general. For instance, naming the kid Adolf Hitler was enough to draw people's attentions. But what about those things that go under the radar, like teaching bigotry and hatred? They could have named the kid John Smith and taught him to hate Jews and gays, etc. A "normal" name doesn't mean a normal kid, and a name like Adolf doesn't necessarily mean they're training a monster. Children are always innocent, always impressionable, and are always victims of their environment. But if you get into what you can name a kid or what you can't, I think you also have to get into what you can teach a kid. If we're to say that Adolf is a bad name because Adolf was the name of a mass murdering maniac, then at some point we're also going to have to say you can't teach this or that because it promotes bigotry and hatred. So I just don't know. Take the kid away? A bit harsh unless you wanna send the Gestapo into homes to monitor and remove children. But, then again, the welfare of this child is really in question (or was; but in a broader context of moronic parents, is). I don't know that there is a right answer here. The sad truth is that you just can't fix stupid.