Quantcast

«

»

Jun 06 2013

Nazi Dad Wants His Kids Back

Remember the Nazi from New Jersey who named his son Adolf Hitler and his daughter Aryan Nation? His four children have all been taken away from him and now he wants them back. And he apparently thinks that a good way to convince a judge to do that is to wear a Nazi uniform to court.

Dressed in a Nazi uniform, Heath Campbell marched into a New Jersey courthouse to petition a family court judge to allow him to see his youngest son.

“I’m going to tell the judge, I love my children. I wanna be a father, let me be it,” Campbell told NBC10 Monday before court proceedings. “Let me prove to the world that I am a good father.”

The closed-door hearing at Hunterdon County Family Court in Flemington, N.J., was being held to determine whether the 40-year-old father of four, who gave his children Nazi-inspired names, could visit with his 2-year-old son Heinrich Hons Campbell.

There’s a real danger here, of course. Should the government be taking children away because of the ideology of their parents? I’m sure we would all recognize how dangerous that could end up being. But a guy who names his kid Adolf Hitler thinks he’s a good father? This is one seriously twisted and vile human being. And the state did an investigation that concluded that there was actual physical abuse going on.

28 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    rabbitscribe

    “And the state did an investigation that concluded that there was actual physical abuse going on.”

    The details of which are confidential and not even available to the parents. And it followed a previous investigation that determined things were sort of vaguely distatseful. That was not enough to persuade a judge to terminate parental rights. The man is clearly bent, but just… no.

  2. 2
    Modusoperandi

    “Adolf Hitler Campbell”? I don’t have words.

  3. 3
    Pierce R. Butler

    “Heinrich” might be an allusion to the unlamented H.L. Himmler, but I can’t remember or find any “Hons” in Nazi history (or anywhere else except genealogy sites & stories about the poor Campbell family).

  4. 4
    naturalcynic

    “Adolf Hitler Campbell”? I don’t have words.

    Congrats, Heath Campbell. You have taken MO where no one has gone before.

  5. 5
    Ace of Sevens

    As alluded in #1, his kids were taken because of abuse, not because he was a Nazi, though I’m sure he’d tell you it was because the government is biased against the white race.

  6. 6
    Raging Bee

    Maybe if he’d named his son Howard W…

    Seriously, though, people have lost custody of their kids because of wierd names before. I remember one case of a woman who had two girls, named them “Vagina” and “Pleasure,” and got them yanked from under her, at least until she gave them more suitable official names. Giving your kid such a totally inappropriate name exposes him/her to significant dangers that most kids don’t normally face; and it can easily be considered a form of abuse or endangerment.

  7. 7
    slc1

    Considering that ole Frankenberger lost the war in part due to his own incompetence, the attitude of assholes like Campbell is amazing. I guess losers of a feather stick together.

  8. 8
    Tabby Lavalamp

    What an idiot. “Hitler” is a last name, not a middle name.

    But seriously, that’s one way to counter Godwinning…
    “You’re as bad as Hitler!”
    “But I am Hitler!”
    “I meant the other one!”
    “Well then, you should make that more clear.”

  9. 9
    Draken

    I miss a Ron, Ron Vibbentrop Campbell.

  10. 10
    DrMcCoy

    but I can’t remember or find any “Hons” in Nazi history

    Maybe they didn’t know how to spell “Hans”?

    I’m more dumbfounded by this quote from the article, though:

    “If they’re good judges and they’re good people, they’ll look within, not what’s on the outside,” he said.

    What is I don’t even what?

  11. 11
    unbound

    Should the government be taking children away because of the ideology of their parents?

    No. We shouldn’t even be considering taking away children solely due to ideology.

    But a guy who names his kid Adolf Hitler thinks he’s a good father?

    I’ve seen worse names (my wife was an x-ray tech long ago). Just because the father doesn’t get the impact to the child by using a certain name is no basis to claim that he is unfit.

    And the state did an investigation that concluded that there was actual physical abuse going on.

    Eliminate the “And” in the sentence, and that is the only reason to be taking those children away from their (whack-a-do) parents. The reason the father shouldn’t have access to his kids is his lack of care (e.g. abuse) of those children. Not because the guy has a screw loose. There are many parents out there with screws loose, and it is entirely too easy to rationalize such a notion into removing whatever child you want from their parents.

  12. 12
    DrMcCoy

    In either case, these are the times when I really like that the country I live in, Germany, has regulations on what you are allowed to name your child.

  13. 13
    aaronbaker

    Well, you should make an effort to look your best in court–and those uniforms (especially the black ones) are spiffy.

  14. 14
    fifthdentist

    Assuming he has a job, did he show up for his job interview dressed like that?
    I mean, an honest employer should look on the inside and not at how a prospective employee dresses for an interview.

  15. 15
    tubi

    As an atheist, i suppose I should have named my son Saloth Sar? As it happens, he’s named after this guy.

  16. 16
    chilidog99

    I, for one, truly hope that as part of whatever proceedings ensue, the judge issue an order prohibiting this clown from owning or purchasing any firearms.

    Because you know that this assclown owns a Luger.

  17. 17
    Raging Bee

    “If they’re good judges and they’re good people, they’ll look within, not what’s on the outside,” he said.

    You mean he WANTS us to judge him according to his mindset? That’s not a wise thing to expect after you’ve shown yourself to be a bigoted moron who doesn’t give a shit about his kids’ image or welfare.

  18. 18
    Ben P

    “And the state did an investigation that concluded that there was actual physical abuse going on.”

    The details of which are confidential and not even available to the parents. And it followed a previous investigation that determined things were sort of vaguely distatseful. That was not enough to persuade a judge to terminate parental rights. The man is clearly bent, but just… no.

    This is part of what I do for a living now.

    If the parents said the details of a physical abuse finding are not available to them, they’re lying. The only thing that the parents wouldn’t be able to find out is the identity of the person who called the hotline to report abuse, because that’s near sacrosanct.

    And just FYI – every abusive parent I’ve had a case against proclaims that they’re good parents.

    From the article it’s reasonably clear what has occured.

    The two older kids are already in foster care, at a judge’s order, because of physical abuse. Although juvenile cases are confidential, I can tell you absolutely that the kids wouldn’t remain out of the home if there hadn’t been a finding that the children were abused or neglected. (tantamount to a guilty verdict, but different court system).

    Then the parents had a third child. A true finding of physical abuse against prior children is a per se basis to believe another child in the care of the parents is in danger, and its not uncommon at all to remove new-born children from parents where the parents already have children in foster care because of abuse.

    And Terminating parental rights is a seperate and distinct remedy from placing children into foster care. Under Federal and state Law it’s supposed to work like this.

    Children are removed from the home and placed in foster care if there’s reason to believe that the children are abused or neglected. Then a trial follows where the court determines the truth of the allegations. If the allegations are found to be true by the Court, the case moved into what is essentially a rehabilitation phase. The parents are offered services by the department to improve themselves and demonstrate that they can remedy the issues and create a safe environment for the children.

    In physical abuse cases (relatively minor ones at least) that will usually be things like getting a psychological evaluation and attending counseling of various types, anger management counseling etc., if the parents demonstrate a commentment to improving, the children are returned in relatively short order. (Usualyl a couple months)

    There are laws to keep children from languishing too long in foster care, and ultimately the parents have about a year to shape up. If they haven’t made real measurable progress in a year, the Court has to make a choice between several permanant plans. The highest goal is always returning the kids, but if that’s not safe, they can be placed with a family member or another person willing to serve as a guardian. If that isn’t an appropriate case the remedy is to terminate parental rights, which makes the children available to be adopted by third parties. it takes a high burden of proof to terminate parental rights.

  19. 19
    yoav

    @ Ace of Sevens #5
    I’m sure you would be shocked to find he think the government is biased against him because it’s controlled by the jews.
    “There was no negligence or abuse or domestic violence,” Campbell said. “That was a bunch of stir-up by the Jews, the Jewish government.”

  20. 20
    rory

    I have to ask…did Campbell march into court, or did he goose step?

  21. 21
    Modusoperandi

    unbound “I’ve seen worse names (my wife was an x-ray tech long ago).”
    That name isn’t so bad. Do you introduce her as “an” or do you use the whole thing?

  22. 22
    marcus

    And let me say that while I would not necessarily consider an inappropriate name to be the deciding factor, I do consider naming your child “Hitler” to be emotionally abusive.

  23. 23
    Moggie

    fifthdentist:

    Assuming he has a job, did he show up for his job interview dressed like that?

    “According to the 49-page decision, Campbell has been unemployed throughout his adult life because of medical and psychological disabilities.”

  24. 24
    Olav

    DrMcCoy #10:

    I’m more dumbfounded by this quote from the article, though:

    “If they’re good judges and they’re good people, they’ll look within, not what’s on the outside,” he said.

    What is I don’t even what?

    This is almost clever of Mr. Nazi Asshole. He is pre-empting a likely refusal of his petition by the judge. Now, in his mind, he has justification to say that he was denied because of the way he looks rather than what lousy parent he is.

    Of course if he did not wanted to be judged on his appearance, he would not have done the effort to dress up like that.

  25. 25
    Olav

    Unbound #11:

    No. We shouldn’t even be considering taking away children solely due to ideology.

    In general I agree. But exceptions confirm the rule, and Nazis get zero sympathy from me. I am not a child psychologist but I can’t see how growing up in such a murderous ideology can have anything but a terribly damaging effect on children. The ideology constitutes abuse in itself, even if mum and dad are otherwise loving and responsible parents. Which we already know, they are not.

  26. 26
    d.c.wilson

    Assuming he has a job, did he show up for his job interview dressed like that?

    Even if he didn’t, I think the swastika neck tattoo would have been a red flag.

  27. 27
    martinc

    So basically this guy and his wife are now a baby factory for foster care kids. Wasn’t there some national leader once who recommended that some people be forcibly sterilized? Who was he … damn, his name has slipped my mind.

    Oh, and MO @ 21: that cracked me up.

  28. 28
    podkayne

    I doubt very much i’d care to pee on this guy if he was on fire, however, freedom of speach is all about defending people’s right to voice explicitly unpopular opinions. We may all individually say “what a maroon” about this guy, but collectively, as participants in a society that claims to value freedom, no one should say a word against him for his children’s names kr his choice of court attire. If he was found genuinely negligent or abussive, then of course thkat’s a very real issue that must be addressed. But it is utterly unrelated to the naming and dress issues. Frankly, regarding the names and dress, he should be complimented for the strength of his convictions, whether we agree with them or not.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site