Crosswords9 mins ago
What do we think of this...
A couple have had their four children taken into care and kept there in the US because they gave them Nazi themed names. There has been no allegations of any form of neglect or cruelty apparently, just the parents are raging Nazi's. What do we think about this?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by NOX. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To be honest I'm genuinely undecided about the whole thing on nearly every level. For sure we don't want people glorifying Nazi's and rearing kids to think it's okay to be that way, but equally if we prevent them doing so we have ourselves become Nazis.
With regard to the husband's previous behaviour in his first marriage, I'm undecided about that too, the first judge thought very clearly it should not have a bearing on the decision, and has so far been overruled. Can leopards change their spots- of course they can, my ex wife will tell you I'm everything but a nice lad, my second wife is a whole other story, sometimes people bring out the worst in each other.
I am slightly uneasy about taking people's children in anything but a cut and dried child abuse scenario, and I'm leary that they offered to help the wife only if she left her husband, it seems the woman is being punished for taking his side. Truthfully I have no idea what ought to be done, but i think were I the presiding judge I would probably have returned the children to the parents with an observation order on the family with 3 or 6 monthly reviews initially, since none of the kids seemed to have suffered any physical or sexual abuse and the couple were found not guilty of neglect in a criminal court.
With regard to the husband's previous behaviour in his first marriage, I'm undecided about that too, the first judge thought very clearly it should not have a bearing on the decision, and has so far been overruled. Can leopards change their spots- of course they can, my ex wife will tell you I'm everything but a nice lad, my second wife is a whole other story, sometimes people bring out the worst in each other.
I am slightly uneasy about taking people's children in anything but a cut and dried child abuse scenario, and I'm leary that they offered to help the wife only if she left her husband, it seems the woman is being punished for taking his side. Truthfully I have no idea what ought to be done, but i think were I the presiding judge I would probably have returned the children to the parents with an observation order on the family with 3 or 6 monthly reviews initially, since none of the kids seemed to have suffered any physical or sexual abuse and the couple were found not guilty of neglect in a criminal court.
And the poor children will have to grow up with these names .Not illegal but who in their right mind would do such a thing to a child .
Bad enough that the children of the real Nazis have had to live with a dreadful legacy without nutters like this perpetuating this sort of thing .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18120890
Bad enough that the children of the real Nazis have had to live with a dreadful legacy without nutters like this perpetuating this sort of thing .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18120890
There are two issues here: is it right to take the children from the parents purely because of the names they have been given; and is it right to take the children away from a violent parent? To the first question the answer should be no, to the second yes. Living in Germany, where there are neo-Nazis, who are in the minority and are disliked by the majority, it is noticeable that some names are not exactly popular. The only case I have heard of a child being named Adolf involved a couple who had the birth induced so it arrived on Hitler's birthday. That, in my opinion, is sick. However, giving a child a name, albeit an unpopular one, should not be a crime. But it does seem that this is not the only issue at stake here.
some countries just ban certain names, which dounds draconian but seems reasonable action in the interests of children. Parents' power over children is never absolute, after all.
http://
In that case of course Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii herself hated her name, and who can blame her.
http://
In that case of course Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii herself hated her name, and who can blame her.
I think it shows a degree of stupidity by the parents, given the problems someone with their kids name will encounter, but that of itself it isn't a reason to take the kids away. I suspect the fear is that the ideas of the parents will be passed to the children, but that is the case in every family and one starts on a slippery slope taking chlidren away because the parents don't think the way the State approves. Lord knows, if everyone I didn't agree with 100% had their kids taken away there'd be few left in the natural family unit.
// It pains me to say it, but they should have the right to call their kids what they like //
No they shouldn't. You can't register a racehorse a stupid name like Norfolk Enchants or Hoof Hearted. Why shouldn't the same courtesy be extended to human beings?
What they did is basically child abuse, even though they're too stupid to know it. That's why the children have been taken into care.
I'd be in favour of the New Zealand law as described in jno's link above.
No they shouldn't. You can't register a racehorse a stupid name like Norfolk Enchants or Hoof Hearted. Why shouldn't the same courtesy be extended to human beings?
What they did is basically child abuse, even though they're too stupid to know it. That's why the children have been taken into care.
I'd be in favour of the New Zealand law as described in jno's link above.
It's clear with some deeper investigation that the court's action is the result of genuine concern for the safety of the children, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the parents' lamentable lack of basic comon sense in the naming department of their parenting skills.
It's an interesting approach because in this country, Social Services move heaven and earth to insist that vulnerable children remain in the family home, even though the risks of such a decision are pointed out to them by concerned neighbours, teachers tec.
It's an interesting approach because in this country, Social Services move heaven and earth to insist that vulnerable children remain in the family home, even though the risks of such a decision are pointed out to them by concerned neighbours, teachers tec.
Ludwig and sandy - in the UK a registrar is allowed to turn away stupid or humiliating names, at their discretion. I wonder if the same right exists in the USA?
It's the 'discretion' bit though - like Fifi Trixibelle, that crept under the radar. or the child I taught in the 1970s - Whyborn. seriously.
It's the 'discretion' bit though - like Fifi Trixibelle, that crept under the radar. or the child I taught in the 1970s - Whyborn. seriously.
When the present Mrs Hughes taught in a local primary school, the pupil role for the new term arrived, including the offspring of Mr & Mrs Carte (they pronounced it Cartaye) - and their son's name? Orson. It is true, I am sorry to say.
Speaking of refused names, when our youngest daughter was in hospital as a baby, the bed next to her was occupied by a four year old, and I heard her mother talking to one of the nurses. Remember, this was 1989, so memories of the TV series Dallas will have long faded by now, but it was popular at the time. Brace yourselves -
"I wanted to have her christened Dallas Ewing, but the vicar refused, so I changed it to Joan Rachel, so I can call her JR ..." and so she was.
Scary isn't it?
Speaking of refused names, when our youngest daughter was in hospital as a baby, the bed next to her was occupied by a four year old, and I heard her mother talking to one of the nurses. Remember, this was 1989, so memories of the TV series Dallas will have long faded by now, but it was popular at the time. Brace yourselves -
"I wanted to have her christened Dallas Ewing, but the vicar refused, so I changed it to Joan Rachel, so I can call her JR ..." and so she was.
Scary isn't it?
Andy's post reminds me of my 'Alexis' great-niece named during the same TV series. Not many in Bolton.
Then in the 1970s there were all those Jasons (Jason King)....
Aaron seems popular in chavtown, but always pronounced 'Arrun' and sometimes spelled that way too. Chardonnay and Chantelle for girls, or anyhting with 'Demi' at the start, like Demi-Lee.
Up the road in leafy Toryville the new age grauniad readers are big on Tolkien monikers....I've taught an Arwen, and a Peregrine....then there's India and the very wearisome 'elementals' - Storm, Rain, River....
Was it simpler, better or just plain unimaginative to name children after saints or relatives?
Then in the 1970s there were all those Jasons (Jason King)....
Aaron seems popular in chavtown, but always pronounced 'Arrun' and sometimes spelled that way too. Chardonnay and Chantelle for girls, or anyhting with 'Demi' at the start, like Demi-Lee.
Up the road in leafy Toryville the new age grauniad readers are big on Tolkien monikers....I've taught an Arwen, and a Peregrine....then there's India and the very wearisome 'elementals' - Storm, Rain, River....
Was it simpler, better or just plain unimaginative to name children after saints or relatives?
I think it was great that they got their kids taken from them, to name a kid adolf hitler would be as bad as naming your kid satan, your kid would be bullied, attacked when they were older, not being able to study, get refused jobs and would be hated, psychologically damaged and would hate his parents and the world for this, possibly wanting to kill himself or maybe others as well.
This is child abuse on a grand scale and has now been saved.
This is child abuse on a grand scale and has now been saved.
