Nazi Parents Lose Children Named Adolf Hitler & Aryan Nation

Thu, May 31, 2012 4:01pm EDT by 58 Comments
Nazi Parents Custody Battle

A New Jersey Superior Court judge decided that pro-Nazi parents Heath and Deborah Campbell cannot have their four kids back, three of whom were named in honor of Nazis.

And you thought some celebrity kid names were bad! Adolf Hitler Campbell, 6, and his younger sisters Joycelynn Aryan Nation, 4, and Honszlynn Hinler, 4, and 6-month-old Hons Campbell will not be returned to their parents Heath and Deborah Campbell after a long battle.

The father, Heath, questioned Superior Court Judge Robert Reed’s decision to keep the children in state custody.

“These kids weren’t abused. Our kids weren’t taken because of abuse,” he said to nj.com on May 29. “I’m honest about who I am and what I am.”

The three older kids were taken away in January 2009 when a store refused to decorate a birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, the oldest child, who was then 3-years old.

Little Hons was taken just hours after he was born in November, 2011.

Heath said he saw his children roughly a year ago. He is also now separated from his wife, Deborah.

“If I have to give up my Nazism, then so be it. I’ll do it,” Heath said. The children are “more my heart and soul and everything than anything.”

The family plans to appeal.

Watch a clip from their trial from 2009:

[nj.com]

– Lorraine Chow

More shocking parenting stories:

  1. Toddler Sings Anti-Gay Song — Indiana Church Preaching Homophobic Hate
  2. Military Moms Breastfeeding In Uniform — Photo Sparks Outrage
  3. Boy, 3, Kicked Off Alaska Airlines Flight For Not Fastening Seat Belt

Leave a Reply

To comment, please fill in the fields below, enter your comment and select the Comment button.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

View Comment

Megan Knotts

Posted at 10:21 PM on June 4, 2012  

So why can’t they have their kids the parents did nothing wrong they have the freedom to name their kids however they want to!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Robert Dave Washington III

Posted at 7:54 PM on June 2, 2012  

As much as I hate to say it the parents technically did nothing wrong and seemed to have taken adequate care of the children. The parents beliefs sicken me, but their right to it is protected they haven’t exactly incited violence against anyone, but just the simple fact that they would raise those children in a very negative manner kinda left no choice. You can defend civil rights to a point, but no parent worthy of the the Title parent would ever indoctrinate their children with that type of belief

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Tinker

Posted at 7:30 PM on June 2, 2012  

It didn’t make any sense to have those children removed from their home because of their names. The father being violent is a sensible reason. Children are the product of their environment. Love begats love and hatred begats hatred. Not all foster homes are same sex partners or molesters. But the ones that are give a bad name to the foster home program.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Stormy

Posted at 7:25 PM on June 2, 2012  

I am not in favor of anything that has to do with hating races that aren’t white, but to take those children away from their parents because someone was offended by their names is just plain wrong. Some of the names parents give their children have a lot to be desired but no one took them away from them. It makes me wonder what will be the next reason to take children away from their parents.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

The Truth

Posted at 1:01 PM on July 7, 2012  

It has nothing to do with hating races that aren’t white. It has everything to do with a group of Whites who call themselves “Jews” and who were offended by any reminder of a holocaust that happened in Europe (not even in America). If those kids had been named after Civil War Confederates, KKK member David Duke, or named after General Custard in honor of the slaying of Native Americans, not a THING would have been done to the parents and the kids would still be in their custody. So stop pretending this was some over-reaction to Whites pretending they have any love or sympathy for Black people, Native American people or any other people OF COLOR in the USA. It had EVERYTHING to do with one of the most powerful groups of WHITES (who erroneously call themselves “Jews” but are really nothing but converts to the religion) and their WHITE supporters and pro-state of Israel sympathizers being ‘offended’.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Sally

Posted at 7:21 PM on June 2, 2012  

It’s okay for Michael Jackson to name one of his kids “Blanket”, but then again he got away with being a child molester. You can’t take someone’s kids away from them because of the names they give them. What in the heck is this world coming to. Pretty soon they will take away your kids because they don’t like the way you dress them. Get real people. Eventually they will take your kids away from you because you read the Bible to them. It’s getting scary.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Colle

Posted at 12:46 AM on June 3, 2012  

Thats not his real name you dummy and Michael was not a child molester…tired of all you haters saying that

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

anonimus

Posted at 7:07 PM on June 2, 2012  

abuse can be verbal and not only pysical ofen with more damage to the mental state of the children../

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

sue

Posted at 7:21 PM on June 2, 2012  

not to mention making them set up to be teased throughout the 12 + years of school…..

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Larry

Posted at 2:31 PM on June 2, 2012  

Shouldn’t democrats, republicans, libertarians, atheists, Christians and other people who have an affiliation be required to relinquish their children to the state too?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

anonimus

Posted at 7:14 PM on June 2, 2012  

non of those affiliations preach hatred to the point of raising murderers.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Hts

Posted at 11:15 PM on June 2, 2012  

You are joking right anonimus? All walks of life bring about murderers. Some just more than others. This is just a fact of life. Should we talk about Christianity before or after the Crusades? And should we really debate the will of politicians and their abilities to do anything the can just to get ahead? Your argument doesn’t hold water.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

truk

Posted at 10:41 AM on June 2, 2012  

This is an example of the courts and state agencies having too much power. They take kids away from parents for their own safety and to not bee influenced by them, but then allow kids to be placed in deviant lifestyle choice homes and reared by a same sex couple? What plantet are they from? there is no difference on influences, both sets of parents spread hate and should not have kids in the first place

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

DJ

Posted at 4:25 PM on June 1, 2012  

Yes. non violent. That’ s why his previous wife has a restraining order against him.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Rachel

Posted at 4:08 PM on June 1, 2012  

This article implies that the children were removed because of their names. This is not the case. Rather, it was because there were serious worries about violence in the home. At one point, the mother even gave a neighbor a note saying her husband was violent and she was worried he would kill her and hurt their children. Young Adolf (who was only 3 or 4 at the time he was removed) reportedly behaved very violently when he first entered foster care, threatening to kill his foster mother. These people lost their kids because they failed to provide them with a safe home, not because they gave them stupid names.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

sue

Posted at 7:23 PM on June 2, 2012  

wish the news had mentioned that, but I’m not surprised….

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jennifer

Posted at 8:28 PM on June 2, 2012  

This is going to sound very shallow and is only based on anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, there are exceptions to every rule. That said…
Couples TEND to be fairly equal on the attractiveness scale. If one is markedly better looking, the other usually has something else going for him or her such as being wealthy, humorous, successful, or well educated. However, the answer is not always that one of them has something to make them more attractive — and thus equalize the atrractiveness levels. Sometimes, the better looking one has other qualities to bring down their attraciveness level. She may be really shrewish, or he may gamble or have really warped ideas about society.
This mother is homely compared to the father, so why are they together. It may be that his radical views and her willingness to adopt them was all the equalizer necessary. OR there could be other reasons he is a less desirable mate. He could be horrible to live with on a daily basis. Maybe he’s rude. Maybe he’s verbally abusive. Maybe he’s physically abusive. OR maybe he’s just a real jerk and downright mean and nasty!
It is a real shame if her lack of self esteem cause her to accept this existence.
It would be a real crime, both literally and figuratively, if the children are forced into that existence because she is unable or unwilling to escape it.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

TheLakeJumper

Posted at 9:58 PM on June 2, 2012  

A lot of times when this happens, its about control. He probably has no attraction to her, maybe she was attractive at some other point, but as her looks faded, he still felt like he owned her and would not allow her to walk out of his life.

The kids are going to have a tough road from here on out.

 
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Franz Gieringer

Posted at 3:26 PM on June 1, 2012  

The parents may be unorthodox or even a little bit mad,but after all only one child was named after a really offensive name i.e. Adolf Hitler.
To take four children from their parents because of such an error of sound judgment is grotesque. Franz

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jack54

Posted at 1:20 PM on June 1, 2012  

Extremism is a bad thing…excessive governmental powers is a bad thing…

The goofy parents need to undergo some counseling…the kids need to be involved in the decision about whether or not they return to live with their parents…then change their names while in court…accomplish something positive…

There should be hate counseling for all those who end up in the court system over matters of hate…hate is ultimately a result of personal bad experiences(stereotyping from this), brainwashing and ignorance…excessive hate crime laws and imprisonment only creates more hatred unless of course someone physically attacks others and then imprisonment is warrented…

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter