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. 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.

  2. 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.

    .

  3. ” 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

    • 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.

  4. “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.

  5. “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

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    • “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.

  11. 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….

    • “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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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?

    • “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_

    • 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’.

  15. 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.)

Comments are closed.