Posted on 08/06/2010 12:38:46 PM PDT by Justaham
A New Jersey couple who gave their children Nazi-inspired names should not regain custody of them, a state appeals court ruled Thursday, citing the parents’ own disabilities and the risk of serious injury to their children.
The state removed Heath and Deborah Campbell’s three small children from their home in January 2009.
A month earlier, the family drew attention when a supermarket refused to decorate a birthday cake for their son, Adolf Hitler Campbell. He and siblings JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell have been in foster care.
(Excerpt) Read more at thechronicleherald.ca ...
It was appealed and the higher court made a different ruling than the lower court. So the higher court took precedence.
How was it appealed if they were found not guilty?
So if a lower court rules that you are not guilty now you are tried again until the prosecutor gets the decision he wants?
THAT is the problem people have with family court.
They weren’t found not guilty is the point.
If they were found not guilty WHY were there children removed? THAT is the point.
If they were found not guilty WHY were there children removed? THAT is the point.
They were not found not guilty in the early court, as I read it.
I’ll bet Ferd Josef Stalin Jones and Julio Che Guevara Lopez would be OK though.
I think you are missing the point. Why was there a second trial if they were found not guilty in the first trial? The reason is that there was NO trial. These people were in family court which is a slap in the face of our judicial system. The lower court found insufficient evidence to take these children away so they sent it to another court until they got the “verdict” so to speak. The family is under gag order to not talk about the case. If there was sufficient reason to take these children then these people should be facing a TRIAL and JAIL time.
Social services can take people’s children on an accusation. Then YOU have to prove that the accusation is FALSE instead of them proving it is true. THAT is what is wrong with this picture. Family court is a JOKE.
In this country our court system does not try individuals twice for the same crime.
I do not see how the state could take these children away from the parents since there are no laws specifying that parents will lose their children if they give them certain names.
Not what happened in my case. My son came back from his dad’s house with bruises all over his back and red marks on his face. I immediately took him to the doctor, who hotlined it. DFS investigated and said that Logan was abused but he was too scared to tell if it was his dad or his dad’s girlfriend. There was NO threat whatsoever of jail time for them. At most they were required to take parenting classes, which they never did, and nothing else happened to them.
Okay thats my point exactly. They should be arrested and tried and THEN parental rights can be taken.
hahhahahahaha!!!!!
New keyboard alert!!!
THey weren’t arrested. It’s really rare for abusive parents to go to jail, usually only happens in cases where there is a body or if it’s really high-profile. You get more time for abusing a dog tthan abusing a kid.
I understand that abusive parents rarely go to jail. I am saying that they SHOULD be arrested and tried. Instead children are taken from parents that haven’t been arrested for anything. You seem to think that it ok. I do not!!! The couple in this article did NOT deserve to lose their children because someone somewhere FEARED for their future safety. If CPS wants to take a child let them prove their case in a COURT OF LAW not family court. Problem is that it will never happen. They will never give up their power.
We call’em Devil Dogs.
Freagen Campbells have ay been sorehead inbred hothead illiterate loosers. So say the MacGregors, don’t ye know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.