New Jersey Man Appears In Court In A Full Nazi Uniform To Reclaim Visitation Rights

article-2335367-1A21B5DB000005DC-470_634x582We previously discussed the bizarre case of Heath Campbell, who ran into a bit of trouble when he tried to get a store to prepare a birthday cake for his son Adolph Hitler Campbell. It turns out that the parents gave all of their kids Nazi-related names. After the “mein cake” controversy, the state appears to have placed the couple under investigation and then took away their children. The New Jersey neo-Nazi is now fighting to get back his kids. He did it however in a curious way — he and his new fascist Frau showed up in full Nazi uniforms to court. This raises a significant free speech issue. Most of us view this Nazi obsession to be weird and unbalanced. However, it is also a form of political expression. While the state insists that there is a history of violence in the family (including an “anonymous complaint”), there have been no details of the extent of this history. Should this bizarre conduct and hateful belief system be considered on the custody question.


The little Bavarian brood includes Adolf Hitler Campbell, 6, Joycelynn Aryan Nation, 5, and Honszlynn Hinler, 4, and, Hons Campbell, 2. Hons was reportedly taken from the couple immediately after his birth. The mother has since waived her parental rights.

Campbell appeared with a new woman, fellow Nazi Bethanie White dressed in her own Nazi garb. He insisted that their choice of clothing should not have an impact on custody or visitation, noting “I’m going to tell the judge, I love my children. I wanna be a father, let me be it. Let me prove to the world that I am a good father.”

Do you agree? Can the court take judicial notice of the outfit in finding that visitation is not in the best interests of the child?

I am concerned that the couples political beliefs were the cause for the initial investigation, but I have not been able to find any description of the claim of violence in the household.

Source: Daily Mail

52 thoughts on “New Jersey Man Appears In Court In A Full Nazi Uniform To Reclaim Visitation Rights

  1. Fellow is an idiot (and so it appears is his new wife), but once we open the door, where do we stop – take away kids from Tea Partiers?

  2. How many Americans detest anything Muslim/Islamic, black, Hispanic and want to see most “unAmerican” types placed under surveillance or lock and key, to say nothing of those who want them all annihilated? How about the imprisoning and torture of those in Guantanamo? Should there also be a “who do you hate” question for any prospective parents? While this guy is a freak, at least you know where he’s coming from.

  3. I think that the judge made an error in allowing this dress in his/her courtroom. From what I understand, courts are not to be used as entertainment or for clown shows. There would be no problem if he had been tossed if he wore a KKK outfit with a hood, and this is no different. Likewise no judge would allow a stripper to come before the bench in her costume unless it was germain to the case at hand.

    What this does show is that the father is more interested in making a political point and statement than getting his kids back. Thus this shows a clear dispostion towards not being overly concerned about the childrens welfare. Thus I have no problem with denying him custody of his children. I am sure that there are other issues than his politics given the fact that the mother gave up her rights to her last child. So I have seen nothing at all that would overrule the courts opinion. The ruling should stand absent other information not at hand.

  4. In NA cases… Yes they can…. But, maybe the guys onto something…. Just getting dressed for success…..

  5. Oskar Schindler was a member of the NAZI party but that did not stop him from becoming a hero by rescuing Jews from NAZI death camps.

  6. As all the lawyers on this site know, every state has guidelines for the Courts to follow in custody cases. Most are similar, but not identical. There is also the issue of fitness of both parents if there are dependency and neglect issues.

    Without researching the New Jersey standards, there are all kinds of red flags here, no pun intended. In this particular case, I see some folks who need their heads examined….literally. Most states have a provision for best interest of the child based on lifestyle of the caregivers.

    I hope somebody follows this case to see what the Court does as a final decision.

  7. Only 1 word matters to me today for New Jersey… Senator Frank Lautenberg……DAMN DAMN DAMN ! How dare he die…..

  8. Wootsy’s still a cat, yep. ):

    As for fitness one has to wonder about their mental status that they would choose to come dressed that way when they know it will be viewed negatively, and possibly as an indication of mental instability. At the least they have shown they do not know how to make a competent decision when it comes to doing what they need to to get the Court to take them seriously about wanting the kids back.

  9. Free speech! If I was the judge, I would have two court reporters at the courthouse steps to take down everything that they say. Put them on the stand under oath and tell them to have at it. Yak away Adolph. Have it on video. When the kids are grown the video tape and the transcripts can be shown to the kids who will have grown up in a safer home.

  10. “What this does show is that the father is more interested in making a political point and statement than getting his kids back. Thus this shows a clear dispostion towards not being overly concerned about the childrens welfare.”

    I think Arthur makes a good point here. While I believe that his dress is a matter protected by the first Amendment, this is a child custody hearing, which is somewhat different than a criminal/civil trial. In ruling on his fitness as a parent the Judge must take a whole range of information into account. His choice of outfit, while well within his Constitutional rights, does indicate that he cares more for his political views than his children. I’ve worn a beard for 50 years now, but for my children I would shave it off without qualms as I did for my daughter’s wedding at my family’s request. His dress indicates that he isn’t serious about being a part of hid children’s lives.

    Also truly, naming your kid Adolph Hitler Campbell, seems child abuse on its face.

  11. I’m not real comfortable going down the road of the judge looking at political speech and beliefs, no matter how crazy, to take away someone’s child. Now, if this were a custody dispute between mom and dad, I think I’d be okay with the judge taking things like this into consideration. But, if the state wants to take away your kid, I think they need more than the guy acts like a fool and has repugnant political beliefs.

  12. Do we take children away from Muslims due to their being unsuitable as parents do to their beliefs, especially if the children are daughters? How about so many Blacks, who pride themselves on their antisocial and exilic lifestyles? No! Then why attack a White man for the same thing?

    Face it, if these two were Black as the back end of Hades and dressed up in New Black Panther or Nation of Islam getups, no court would do a thing about them, nor would any agency bother with investigating them to any degree.

  13. Arthur Randolph Erb – “Likewise no judge would allow a stripper to come before the bench in her costume unless it was germain to the case at hand.”

    Are you suggesting this Nazi uniform ISN’T important to the case? The same case where he lost his rights as a parent for the beliefs that are related to his uniform?

  14. A damn shame. Had he showed up in the costume of the Home Team, he would have been offered unqualified praise and discounts at the gift shop.

  15. What Mespo said. I can only imagine what the judge thought when he/she saw this pair walk into the court room. Yikes.

  16. Jokes aside, this guy is not simply displaying Nazi symbols or adhering to Nazi political beliefs. He’s _dressed_ in a Nazi _uniform_. That’s prima facie evidence of delusion.

  17. This could be considered political speech, the most protected type. Unless he’s a provable danger to his kids, he should have them back. This Nasty thing was decided long ago in Skokie, which just proves the law is an ass.

  18. What we see is a Nazi regime without a Nazi uniform set against a person that has a Nazi uniform. Separating the family that has a Nazi uniform on will only exasperate a problem not helping to lesson or elevate a problem. Tensions will only rise not lessen at all.

  19. 1) There are NO laws dictating what a parent can name a child
    2) The dress code of courts does not exclude nazi uniforms. He was in fact wearing a jacket and a tie.
    3) It is not illegal to tell your kids that you do not like any group of people.
    4) The nazi party is not banned in the United States

    So, where is the legal basis to deny a person their children? Whether or not this guy is a goofball, which I am certain he is, if there is no basis in law to deny him his children the state has NO right to remove them.

    .

  20. ” The 49-page ruling shed light on the bleak life inside the Campbell home in Holland Township, where windows were nailed shut and “unusual decorative features” included skulls and knives. DYFS first became involved in the case in December 2008 after receiving complaints that the children were being strapped into their booster seats for unusually long periods of time amid ongoing domestic violence.

    A neighbor turned over a handwritten note signed by Deborah Campbell, who dropped out of the 10th grade, that accused her husband of trying to kill her and expressed fear for her children’s safety. The note, replete with spelling errors, said, “Hes thrend to have me killed or kill me himself hes alread tried it a few times. Im scare to leave b/c I will be killed. Im afread that he might hurt my children if they are keeped in his care… He’s already stabed me with a screwdriver in the hand… He teaches my son how to kill someone at the age of 3.”

    Asked about the letter during court custody proceedings, Deborah Campbell admitted that she wrote it but testified it was all a lie. She described her husband as “a perfect guy.”

    Heath Campbell, who cannot read, has been married twice before, fathered other children and has an alleged history of domestic violence, according to the ruling. One of his ex-wives has a restraining order against him and has “moved to an Air Force base with family in Florida to be away and safe from him,” court papers said.

    Four-Year-Old Adolf Hitler Allegedly Curses, Threatens Violence

    One of his ex-wives testified that Heath Campbell disciplined their son so severely with a vacuum in his face that everytime she cleans house with the vacuum he screams “bloody murder.” She also testified that she “could not bring her son around ‘anybody that wasn’t white’ because the son would say ‘terrible things'” that he learned at his father’s knee. ” NBC news

  21. “2) The dress code of courts does not exclude nazi uniforms. He was in fact wearing a jacket and a tie.”

    It’s not because he is a Nazi, but because he is deluded. Consider a hypothetical case where a parent comes into court wearing a US Army dress uniform equivalent to that German uniform. Nothing wrong with that as far as clothing is concerned. But if the court knows that the parent is not a member of the US Army, wearing the uniform could (should) be taken as a sign of potential serious mental disorder.

    What if a parent comes in wearing a police uniform when the court knows he is not a policeman? Or dressed as Santa Claus, or Napoleon?

    The court has a responsibility to not return children to the custody of people who are demonstrably deranged. Clothing and behavior are important indicators that must be considered.

  22. “Why would Campbell and his wife be forbidden to see their children? Campbell obstinately claims that it is due to his Nazi affiliation. Court records tell a different story: “… the children were not removed from the home because of their [Nazi-related] names, but because of tangible evidence of abuse or neglect.” Even after court rulings and denials of appeals, Campbell and his wife still assert that they were discriminated against for their beliefs.” policymik

  23. He may get a job offer from DHS and / or our current administration. LOL! They’re the practicing fascists these days….

  24. SWM, Thanks for the info. It seems the thread lost the reference in the original post to the claim of violence. Thanks for providing the link the post could not find.

  25. SwM,

    Thank you for the info. With a background like Campbell’s, his uniform is pertinent evidence of his being unfit to raise children. This is no martyr to free speech. This is a psychopath and probably quite dangerous.

  26. I agree with the comment made by Michael Val several comments up. I would add that he only dressed like a Nazi. He did not dress like a Pitt Bull.

  27. I don’t agree with his approach, and obviously he is making a political statement, BUT I am pleasantly surprised to see most here taking the proper legal perspective that there are no allegations of neglect or abuse, and his garb or naming choices should have no standing in whether he should retain his rights to be a father.

  28. Ok, after reading the article, and the instances of abuse/neglect, I would clarify in this case, not granting custody is probably the right thing to do.

    But I still stand on what I said, if it was ‘improper’ naming of the kids, and uniforms only, that would not be enough.

  29. “Ok, after reading the article, and the instances of abuse/neglect, I would clarify in this case, not granting custody is probably the right thing to do.

    But I still stand on what I said, if it was ‘improper’ naming of the kids, and uniforms only, that would not be enough.”

    Gary,

    From a family court Judges perspective the uniform and the naming in and of themselves should not be a reason to remove the children. However, in the context of the abuse and neglect of the children that has been shown, the uniform and naming become significant towards determining the continued removal of the children. The uniform indicates that Mr. Campbell’s political statements are more important to him than his children and the naming indicates his indifference towards the possible future ridicule of his children, in order to make a political statement.

  30. Mike,

    Naming and dress can’t be allowed to make a difference in that case either unless the same standard was applied Blacks who showed up in “cultural” attire and/or a particularly extreme “Hajji” who showed up in robes and with his beard henna’d red.

    After all, we can’t hold the minorities to a lower standard than Whites…unless we’re ready to admit / believe that we have to do so….

  31. “After all, we can’t hold the minorities to a lower standard than Whites…unless we’re ready to admit / believe that we have to do so….”

    Jonolan,

    One could make the argument, as so many above did, based on First Amendment grounds that the uniform and the naming should have nothing to do with this child custody hearing. That you chose to make it in this way could cause someone to suspect that Campbell is your kind of guy. Next time you want to misrepresent what I’m saying, I would hope you would re-read juast what I’m saying. This was a child custody hearing and this guys abuse and neglect alone should be cause for terminating his parental rights. The uniform and the naming are merely minor supportive evidence of his unfitness as a father. Perhaps though you believe the “minority” of abusive fathers is being picked on, or is it that you think Campbell is being picked on because he is White?

    My first comment on this thread.

    While I believe that his dress is a matter protected by the first Amendment, this is a child custody hearing, which is somewhat different than a criminal/civil trial. In ruling on his fitness as a parent the Judge must take a whole range of information into account. His choice of outfit, while well within his Constitutional rights, does indicate that he cares more for his political views than his children. I’ve worn a beard for 50 years now, but for my children I would shave it off without qualms as I did for my daughter’s wedding at my family’s request. His dress indicates that he isn’t serious about being a part of hid children’s lives.

    Also truly, naming your kid Adolph Hitler Campbell, seems child abuse on its face.”

    I stand by my comment and assert that to talk in minority equivalents here is not only a red herring, but also may be telling of your own beliefs.

  32. I agree that in the context of other abuse and neglect the uniform and naming of the children might be suspect. But, the neglect and abuse must be the first considerations.

  33. OK, I get that the dominatrix at his side is a new wife. But my question is: Why shouldn’t the kids live with their actual MOTHER if she does not insist upon foisting the Nazi identity on the kids? IOW, if the mom will let them live as children and not as little Nazis in a hostile world, isn’t she a fit custodian? If dad’s the problem, tell him “NEIN” and let it go at that.

    BTW, what less psychopathic names are the kids using now? Do they get cake on their birthdays now?

  34. Mike,

    No, I’m not misrepresenting what you’ve said. You’ve said that the idiot’s clothing and what he named his kids is open for judgment by the court in this sort of case and I’m saying that you and most others here wouldn’t feel the same way – would feel the opposite way in point of fact – if he was non-White and all the particulars revolved around non-White subcultures and/or religions.

    As far as I can see we have to apply or ignore these things equally…but we don’t, do we…and how is that NOT applying a different, lower standard to the non-Whites?

  35. Jonolan:

    You know, I think you are right on that.
    Just map exactly the circumstance and behavior of this dufus, onto a black activist who comes into court with full Hutu garb, names his kid Juvénal Habyarimana Jefferson, and seeks custody.

    Do you think Mike, or anyone here would get their panties in a bunch if that happened?
    No. Mostly likely they would laud the father’s racial and national pride, and say all that has little to do with his desire to be a father to his children.

    (I pick on this national/racial backdrop, but with little effort an equivalent genocidal dictator du jour can be substituted. The point is, just because we of caucasian western societal people are sensitive to the horrifying behavior of Hitler, we think that it is a cosmic affront, whereas if it some other ethnic group that we feel defensive about having been oppressed, they get a pass.)

  36. “and how is that NOT applying a different, lower standard to the non-Whites?”

    From Jonalan

    “Just map exactly the circumstance and behavior of this dufus, onto a black activist who comes into court with full Hutu garb, names his kid Juvénal Habyarimana Jefferson, and seeks custody.”

    From Gary T

    You both confuse me with some superficial liberal who is “Mau Mau’ed” by anyone of color that demands sympathy for their particular plight based on race and gentlemen that is the real point you are making. Permit me to disabuse you of that notion.

    I worked eight years in child welfare in NYC. My first 6 months was as a supervisor in the special unit that investigated child abuse/neglect in the City’s foster care system. I was appalled at how much was being covered up there and requested a transfer to a field office. That was considered to be a bad career choice since the unit I was in was at the Central Office and working there was a steppingstone into higher administrative office.

    After the first 6 months of my transfer I was recognized as the best Supervisor of an Protective/Diagnostic (investigative) Unit in the largest child welfare office in the country. One year later I was head of an elite unit formed as a pilot project, that dealt with only the most egregious cases of child abuse. A year following that the pilot project went Citywide and I was promoted to the Central Office as their expert on Field Office operations. I ran two Citywide programs dealing with families who the court had reunited, but were under court supervision. I served on the HRA Death Panel, which investeyond theigated deaths of children who were known to the Agency, to determine if there was Agency culpability and if so what changes could be made to prevent such things in the future. I also lectured at the Agency’s Child Protective Academy, which provided training for new caseworkers, supervisors and managers. Finally I was solely responsible for the planning for reorganization of the Agency, based on a report from an outside auditor. When the Commissioner I reported to made changes in my plan to provide jobs for political appointees I transferred out of the Agency in protest.

    There was a simple reason for my fast rise in the Child Welfare field beyond the fact of my intelligence. That reason was that I had a burning passion to protect children from parents and caretakers who abused and neglected them. Part of what made me unique was that as a supervisor I was willing to accompany my workers to the “field” on difficult cases and so learned the realities first hand and gained my workers respect. The other thing that made me unique was that as a lifelong civil libertarian I ensured that the rights of parents were also respected. I was such a stickler on that point that I refused to go to court on a particular case where a removal had been ordered by the Central Administration due to political pressure. I felt the parents were innocent and faced the possibility of insubordination charges. My supervisor was forced to go to court in my stead. Incidentally the parents and the judgment of my worker and of myself were vindicated in court. The other aspect of my work there was that although my political views were radical, when it came to children being abused/neglected some characterized me as being to the Right of Attila the Hun when it came to punishment of abusers. I was involved with the Brooklyn DA’s Sex Crimes Unit in sending more that a few people to jail and relished that. I was offered at one point an appointment to set up special sex abuse units around the City and turned down the promotion (and substantial raise) because the units were mandated to reunite the family. When it comes to sexual abuse my philosophy is/was one strike you are out forever. I don’t believe that you can reform sexual abusers and I wouldn’t take part in an experiment to see if you could.

    Forgive for going on like this, but as you can see the subject of child/abuse
    neglect raises passion within me. Those eight years that I spent with that Agency were the most fulfilling of my life because it coincided with my being a parent of young daughters and the thought that anyone could harm children, in any way, was an anathema to me. At the same time those eight years took their toll in trauma to my psyche. The analogy is to being in war and becoming PTSD from the horrors you see. All of the people I sent to jail were Blacks and/or Latino’s. The parents I refused to take to court were White and middle class.

    As SwM’s link below shows there was ample reason to prevent Campbell from having anything to do with his kids. The NAZI regalia and the namings were only pertinent as a further confirmation of the real facts of the case and should be taken into account in deciding whether the Father has mended his ways. I could care less what the person’s ethnicity is, if he/she
    abuses children to such an extent, they should lose the right to be in those children’s lives.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cannot-regain-custody-children-nazi-inspired/story?id=11334970#.Ua5JONjm-F_

  37. Mike gave you more time then I felt your racism required (and Gary too)
    There is no analogy cultural dress vs Nazi attire. That you equate the 2 shows your inability to understand the difference.
    If the parents had been of another ethnicity then white and wore the Nazi uniforms and did what they have been alleged to have done to their kids I have no doubt the concern and responses here would be the same as they have been.
    You don’t know this site. It only seems to be people from him you rarely hear, or are new, that start slinging the ‘you only care about ethnic folk and not white’.

  38. Mike:

    I have read your CV here and I totally respect you for it, especially that you took a stance as a civil libertarian, and upheld parents’ rights as well as being a diligent punishers of those who deserved it.

    I too have had run ins with child protective services, on the other end, and I too have been informed by the behavior I have seen, and am currently going through, where the agency workers and attorneys are absolutely NOT respectful of civil liberties, let alone diligent in protecting them.

    Since 2010 I have been prosecuted officially twice before by my local CPS (Ulster Co. NY), for things that are not even of their purview or charter, like bringing my kid to McDonalds, weighing her on a bathroom scale, staying up at night to 12 midnight watching movies.
    They actually charged me with child neglect and maltreatment for these activities, and fortunately cooler heads on appeal of their capricious attacks ruled in my favor, stating that I did not neglect my child.
    But the simple fact that I had to go through that nonsense, and risk losing my child, or be cast as a lesser parent in custody determinations, for what are reserved parental decisions, is the travesty that goes on too often.

    Not content with leaving me alone, and probably pissed off that I successfully fought back against their attempts at micromanaging my parenting, they most recently charged me AGAIN with child neglect in court in Feb of this year. This time solely for *speaking* with my 9 year child about our federal court case against CPS. That’s right, a neglect charge based upon talking with my child about legal matters. And I am fighting that one right now.
    And the ramifications of the charge alone are significant, even if and when I win it in court. Right now they have lodged a restraining order that criminalizes my presence within 1000′ of my child, a child I had been with every day of ther life for the first 7 years.
    So don’t think that even if you are innocent, you don’t suffer at the hands of these capricious apparatchiks that disabuse the public power they are entrusted with. Taking away a child for the sole reason of speaking about court is as bad as any Nazi regime. This will go on until at least late August, for the trial date they set 4 months after they charged me.
    It is clearly retaliation for my obstinacy of refusing to let them dictate discretionary parenting decisions, and for me filing a federal lawsuit against them.
    But they can, and they do, unabashedly so.

    What do you have to say about that, and can you see why I am so triggered when I see CPS and family courts on the ready to take children away from their parents?

    (And I am not defending the nazi in this article, but you can see where I can draw a superficial parallel here. They take my child away for free speech reasons.)

  39. “What do you have to say about that, and can you see why I am so triggered when I see CPS and family courts on the ready to take children away from their parents?”

    Gary,

    Now I understand where you are coming from. While I don’t know your individual circumstances, I do know this, many people involved in Child Welfare get carried away by their power and by false notions of what constitutes Child Abuse and Neglect. It is self-serving of me to say that I was rather extraordinary in the field, but in my heart I know I was. Since I have been a civil libertarian for as long as I can remember, when I was in the field I was always conscious of respecting the civil liberties of parents. Since by then I was also a trained and practicing (in the evening) psychotherapist I had learned to be able to put my prejudices aside when judging a case and to try to see it as clearly as I could.

    The case I mentioned was of a White couple in their early 40’s with two children, one six and one four. The four year old had been running around in footsie pajama’s and went from a wood floor to a carpet. The child fell and had what is called a “twist” fracture, which in roughly 80% of the cases was seen as child abuse from a parent twisting the leg hard. This case hit the system two weeks after there had been a horrendous murder of a young child that hit the papers and it seemed that my Agency had known about the case but hadn’t acted in time. Because of this the word came down from the Mayor to our Commissioner that we were to take no chances and remove any children when there was the slightest suspicion that the injury came from abuse.

    When the child had been taken to the hospital with the broken leg the Physicians in the Hospital seeing the “twist” fracture reported it to the NYS Central Registry as Abuse. My pilot unit known as the “High Risk Unit” was mandated to investigate all serious injuries such as DOA’s, fractures, sex abuse and serious burns. So I took the case and sent out my best worker, who was a wonderful black woman. I mention her color specifically because this was a White family. My worker was so good that her testimony in court was welcomed and accepted by all the Judges in Brooklyn Family Court because of the respect they had for her skill. She came back and told me that after seeing and interviewing the parents she felt that it couldn’t be abuse. I went out with her the next day and believed she was right. I wrote up the report of the case and sent it on. We were going to “unfound” the case which would mean that we saw no evidence of abuse/neglect. When I passed it up the line the word came down from the Commissioner (why it went that high I don’t know because that was unusual) stating that we should go to Court and remove both children into foster care. When I told my worker she emphatically told me “Mike they can fire me, but I won’t go to court, the case is unfounded”. I told her I agreed and went to my supervisor and manager and told them that I wouldn’t go to court either. While they threatened me, I refused to back down and so my direct supervisor had to go to court and then subsequently do a removal of the children. The case was taken out of my hands.

    I felt sick about this because I could imagine the fear of the children in the foster cares system and the anguish of the parents. Those kids were in foster care for six months, the parents got a lawyer fought the case and brought in their own experts, highly unusual for such a Family Court Case. The parents were exonerated, the children returned home and my supervisor who went to court apologized to me because by his handling the case for six months and interacting with the parents and children, he saw that both the worker and I were right. Incidentally, at the age of six I was playing with my older brother on the carpet in our apartment and in play he tripped me and I received a similar fracture.

    As you can tell I’m quite proud of the work I did in Child Welfare, but at the same time I saw a lot of shoddy work done and from your experience I can see that for you there is another side to it that is extremely personal and rightly so. It is a difficult field that requires excellent judgement and in truth I had a rather unique background to bring to it, that many workers and supervisors don’t have. Also as someone with a Masters in Social Work I can say from experience that many social workers are far too self impressed and far less compassionate than the public might imagine. Look at the history of Social Work in America sometime and you will be amazed, or possibly not, given your experience.

  40. I am sorry if I missed it… did anyone ask the children how they felt about living with their father ? Who owns a child ? Or do they own themselves ? Lucky for me, my parents were largely indifferent to me and I could create my own family life with other people….. neighbors. 99guspuppet

  41. While CPS and every other government agency has NO PROVISION whatsoever in their authorizing codes relating to any human being’s LIFE INTEREST, nothing can work out properly except by chance or by the work of someone like Mike Spindell, who is the exception rather than the rule.

    “What the child wants” is part of the child’s “life interest.”

    It is absent from American Law altogether. I noticed its absence by a reading of the Joshua DeShaney case and comparison with the Dred Scott case. We are a bunch of muscle-bound primitives ruining our future generations at an ever-increasing rate because we have the technology to do harm faster than ever.

    It’s sickening and that’s why I’m sick. This Nazi is only bizarre, not unusual at all. The Nazis in the CPS units all over the country dress better than him but function often on the same level.

  42. Couldn’t state it better myself.
    “The Nazis in the CPS units all over the country dress better than him but function often on the same level.”

  43. In Oregon, the court has ordered a bakery to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple or be ordered closed down ; did N.J. courts ordered the same decision for this bakery to put the child’s name on the cake or close down too ?

Comments are closed.