Mein Kake: Adolf Hitler Seized in New Jersey

thumb_birthday_birthday_cake_4hitlerA couple weeks ago, we followed the story of how a store refused to make a birthday cake for a three-year-old boy named Adolf Hitler Campbell due to his name. Now, the boy and his two sisters — JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell — have been taken from their parents in Holland Township, N.J., by the state’s Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). The father, Heath Campbell is expected to appear in court on Thursday in the case.

It is not clear why the children were removed. If it was just the names, a serious constitutional problem may be looming.

After the mein kake incident, experts like forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill said the naming of little Adolph is child abuse: “Part of it is the infantile nature of the parents’ behavior. You can name your dog something weird, but they think they’re making some kind of bold statement with the children, not appreciating that the children will have separate lives and will be looked at in a negative light until they’re able to change their name. It is abuse.”

In my view, that would be insufficient reason to justify such an act and would violate the constitutional rights of the family. Not only would this violate parental rights under the Constitution but violate the first amendment rights of the family. The city would need to show some dangerous conduct or conditions, which were notably not referenced in earlier articles describing the parents as good parents.

For the full story, click here.

28 thoughts on “Mein Kake: Adolf Hitler Seized in New Jersey”

  1. I think that there are names that one should know better than to give to their children. If you aren’t smart enough to know that the name Adolf Hitler is going to make a child a target for harassment, then maybe you shouldn’t have children.

    I’m with Rafflaw on this one.

  2. I’d like to point out that Rip’s name is his choice. And a cool name. Honestly, I’m a little jealous.

  3. “Moon Unit”
    “Rip Torn”
    “Peter Goesinya”
    “Rock Hardon”
    “Filbert Fullup”

  4. Buddha,
    you are correct about legislating for stupidity. I do have my doubts about any parent that would name their child, Adolf Hitler. The government may not be able to ever legislate enough for these mental giants.

  5. To be clear, I didn’t say it was abuse rising to the level of taking the children, merely that it was abusive. You can only legislate stupidity so much.

  6. They are kidding right???? While I disagree with the parents on the naming of their children.This is clearly wrong to take the children away for this reason.
    What would hasppen if they had named the child “Horse SH(manure)

  7. To be accurate, I didn’t state that the names alone would be evidence of child abuse. I have no problem with the parents having the right to name their children any name that they want, but wouldn’t it be reasonable that giving children those names could be evidence that these parents might be doing some stupid and illegal things with these kids. I would not want to stop any parents from having the right to name their kids. But doesn’t the state child welfare agency have the right to look into the parents handling of these kids if it thinks there are valid abuse issues present? If a parent named their daughter Clitoris,would that be evidence that the parents might not be handling their parental duties properly? I hope I not giving any parents any name ideas here!!

  8. FFLeo:

    “I take the 5th…”

    Me too. Make it Dewars Signature Scotch.

  9. FFLEO,


    Great minds think alike.


    Madness likes company.


  10. This should be a clear example of a violation of the parents’ First Amendment rights. I try rigorously—although I sometimes fail—to couch every decision I render to fall within the context of the U.S. Constitution. I do not profess more than a slightly above average understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent 17 Amendments. My lack of knowledge regarding constitutional issues is one of the main reasons I access this blawg.

    I regard the Constitution as a beautiful and effective bias filter that focuses the rainbow of the myriad permutations and prismatic colors of human biases into an unbiased set of rules with which a democracy can thrive. If we allow our personal and ideological biases to circumvent the sieve of constitutional rules, then tyranny, demagoguery, and injustice triumph at the expense of democracy.

    The parents have First Amendment rights to name their children whatsoever they like regardless of how repugnant others and I might consider those names. Many of us are reminded of ‘the good, the bad, and the ugly” when hearing names. Some may remember, “Your name is mud” as a direct reference to Dr. Samuel Mudd who was simply exercising his Hippocratic Oath when he treated John Wilkes Booth’s broken leg but he was convicted as Booth’s conspirator in Lincoln’s assassination. Dr. Mudd did not know about the assassination; however, the name Mud(d) is always unfairly associated with a bad reputation.

    Recall and consider the names of any of the most heinous criminal names available throughout history. Although others and I might not even broach the thought of giving our kids such names, other parents have the right to name their children after any war criminal, genocidal manic, or any other despicable or reviled persons to include, but not limited to:

    John ‘Hideki Tōjō ‘Doe
    Jane ‘Tokyo Rose’ Doe
    Herkimer ‘Slobodan Milošević’ Smith
    Sylvester ‘Pol Pot’ Jones

    I can assure you that although I have already procreated, if I had other sons I would under no circumstances name them after George Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld et al. nor would I saddle my daughters with epithets of Sarah Louise Palin or Ann Coulter.

    Buddha: I wrote about the Cheney/Bush names before I read your last statements above, so we agree with not using those names without any prior collaboration!

  11. Excuse me, but have any of you talked to a teenager recently? The very definition of cruelty – especially to one another. When these kids hit puberty, it is going to be the feces hitting the rotating oscillator. To answer the question when is a name child abuse, it’s simple. If the name subjects one to discrimination, physical and/or emotional harm from others in specific and society as a whole then I think it’s safe to draw a causal connection. Abuse by social proxy is still abusive. And patriotism, that last refuge of scoundrels, has nothing to with it although I think a better Russian example would have been Stalin. Lenin was “our enemy” in the West, but he was just a man. Stalin, like Hitler, was a monster. Kids might taunt a kid named Lenin, he may even catch a beating or two, but I promise it’s nothing like the shitstorm you’d encounter being named Hitler or Stalin. You might as well name the kid Lucifer or Kick Me In The Crotch.

    For what it’s worth, you’ll be able to add George Bush to that list of socially unacceptable names before it’s over with. But he’s a Lenin. Name your kid Dick Cheney and see how well it works out. Especially if she’s a girl.

  12. We do not want the government intruding to tell parents what is best for their children. In this case, the name of the child is an acceptable means of government intrusion? If something so basic as a child’s name is the basis for removing a child from a parent’s custody, what about teaching children spiritual, moral, or political ideas deemed “abusive”? I am no apologist for these parents and adamantly disagree with their name selection, but this is dangerous territory for the government to step in. I do not think it would be correct if right-wing Republicans said it was child abuse to name a kid “Lenin”. Or, what stops a conservative state from clamping down on the private instruction of socialist/liberal ideas in a family’s home because it psychologically “abuses” the child’s patriotism, etc? Food for thought.

  13. I agree with you M2L. We have just seen a political campaign where right wing ideologues tried to link obama with saddam via the name, Hussein. Practically speaking, this is also a bad decision.

    The white supremacist movement in part florishes because members are isolated from the rest of society. If you never interact with the “evil” others, how will you ever find out that maybe, just maybe, those people aren’t so “evil” afterall?

    In my opinion, any adult interacting with these children should go the extra mile to be caring, kind and supportive of them. Their names should be looked at the same as any other child’s name, a choice by the parents. Taking them from their parents will affirm that “outsider” society is not to be trusted, that it is full of people who have a bad intent (just as many white supremacists proclaim). That’s a very bad message to convey.

    What I said above is based on the info I have, that it is the names alone that were the cause of the removal.

  14. By your logic anyone naming their kid “Richard” (for example) would be subject to child abuse charges because their children would be abused by their peers. Society’s reaction to a name is no grounds to take children away. What if it was an ethnic or religious name that an intolerant community did not like? This door should not be opened.

  15. A name can determine your success in society. These children are going to be abused, and shunned by people. I have a terrible last name. ( Not as bad as these kids ) I don’t have family history on how it came to be. All I can say is it’s a name that would give people the wronge impression. I now feel to old to change it. I will use my wife’s last name for the children.

  16. Look at the ages of the children. If it’s not child abuse now (which is questionable, they are too young to understand what’s been done to them) it will be when they turn teenagers.

  17. I’m going to be really judgemental here and say that the parents just look like complete idiots. Has anyone seen a video interview of those folks? They look like they’re missing a few pieces of the puzzle.

    I agree with Rafflaw, I think the names are child abuse.

  18. I think I made the comment when we first heard of this story that naming these children with these names was almost child abuse. I don’t know if just the stupid names alone would be enough for me to pull the kids from the parents, but I would expect that if they are putting these names on the kids there may be some stupid and dangerous things that these parents might be doing, or not doing. I guess that is a long winded way of saying that these parents disturb me and I am frightened for the mental well being of these kids or any kids that are being raised by these thoughtless parents.

Comments are closed.