New Jersey police confirmed on Thursday that a 3-year-old boy named Adolf Hitler Campbell and his two younger sisters JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell were removed from their New Jersey home by the state’s Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). In an interview with Fox News:

Forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill said naming a boy Hitler could be considered child abuse. “Part of it is the infantile nature of the parents’ behavior,” Berrill said. “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.”

Is it abuse?

The Supreme Court has upheld the public use and display of even admittedly offensive symbols, including the swastika in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). We might safely assume First Amendment rights cannot be coextensive with the naming ‘rights’ of parents, in that the welfare of the child must also be considered. The legal question might be premised on the difference between these two standards in deciding just how far you can go.

Berrill’s initial reasoning is an off-the-cuff answer in an interview; the “weirdness” of a name is not legal standard most judges (hopefully) would use in justifying removing children from their home. There are cultural and linguistic considerations at play here as well as some not uncommon names acquire unexpected homonyms when making the jump to another culture or language.

However even if it is deemed improper, there is nothing “immediate” about the harm posed by a name the child has always been living with that would justify removal. In short - the general presumption is that there must be additional reasons for the removal. Further details of the case have not be released.

In the handbook the Division of Youth and Family Services provides to parents on DYFS procedures, they indicate that removal will occur only after determining that there is an immediate risk or harm to the child, of either abuse or neglect:

In the small number of cases in which DYFS determines a child is at immediate risk or harm, we will ask the court for permission to remove a child and provide an immediate placement either with family members or a foster home. In an emergency, DYFS can remove a child before getting the court’s permission, but is required to appear in court to request approval within two court days of the child’s removal.

New Jersey state law provides a more ambiguous standard in Title 9, Sections 2-9. Unfit parents and custodians, court action to grant relief

9:2-9. When the parents of any minor child or the parent or other person having the actual care and custody of any minor child are grossly immoral or unfit to be intrusted with the care and education of such child, or shall neglect to provide the child with proper protection, maintenance and education, or are of such vicious, careless or dissolute habits as to endanger the welfare of the child or make the child a public charge, or likely to become a public charge; or when the parents of any minor child are dead or cannot be found, and there is no other person, legal guardian or agency exercising custody over such child; it shall be lawful for any person interested in the welfare of such child to institute an action in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, in the county where such minor child is residing, for the purpose of having the child brought before the court, and for the further relief provided by this chapter. The court may proceed in the action in a summary manner or otherwise. Amended 1948,c.321,s.7; 1949,c.245,s.1; 1953,c.9,s.6; 1991,c.91,s.190.

9:6-1. Abuse, abandonment, cruelty and neglect of child; what constitutes

9:6-1. Abuse, abandonment, cruelty and neglect of child; what constitutes. Abuse of a child shall consist in any of the following acts: (a) disposing of the custody of a child contrary to law; (b) employing or permitting a child to be employed in any vocation or employment injurious to its health or dangerous to its life or limb, or contrary to the laws of this State; (c) employing or permitting a child to be employed in any occupation, employment or vocation dangerous to the morals of such child; (d) the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language; (e) the performing of any indecent, immoral or unlawful act or deed, in the presence of a child, that may tend to debauch or endanger or degrade the morals of the child; (f) permitting or allowing any other person to perform any indecent, immoral or unlawful act in the presence of the child that may tend to debauch or endanger the morals of such child; (g) using excessive physical restraint on the child under circumstances which do not indicate that the child’s behavior is harmful to himself, others or property; or (h) in an institution as defined in section 1 of P.L.1974, c. 119 (C. 9:6-8.21), willfully isolating the child from ordinary social contact under circumstances which indicate emotional or social deprivation.

Abandonment of a child shall consist in any of the following acts by anyone having the custody or control of the child: (a) willfully forsaking a child; (b) failing to care for and keep the control and custody of a child so that the child shall be exposed to physical or moral risk without proper and sufficient protection; (c) failing to care for and keep the control and custody of a child so that the child shall be liable to be supported and maintained at the expense of the public, or by child caring societies or private persons not legally chargeable with its or their care, custody and control.

Cruelty to a child shall consist in any of the following acts: (a) inflicting unnecessarily severe corporal punishment upon a child; (b) inflicting upon a child unnecessary suffering or pain, either mental or physical; (c) habitually tormenting, vexing or afflicting a child; (d) any willful act of omission or commission whereby unnecessary pain and suffering, whether mental or physical, is caused or permitted to be inflicted on a child; (e) or exposing a child to unnecessary hardship, fatigue or mental or physical strains that may tend to injure the health or physical or moral well-being of such child.

Neglect of a child shall consist in any of the following acts, by anyone having the custody or control of the child: (a) willfully failing to provide proper and sufficient food, clothing, maintenance, regular school education as required by law, medical attendance or surgical treatment, and a clean and proper home, or (b) failure to do or permit to be done any act necessary for the child’s physical or moral well-being. Neglect also means the continued inappropriate placement of a child in an institution, as defined in section 1 of P.L.1974, c. 119 (C. 9:6-8.21), with the knowledge that the placement has resulted and may continue to result in harm to the child’s mental or physical well-being. Amended by L. 1987,c.341,s.1.

Consider the research done by economist Steven Levitt, popularized in the book Freakonomics, in A Roshanda by Any Other Name: How do babies with super-black names fare?

…in 1958, a New York City father named Robert Lane decided to call his baby son Winner. The Lanes, who lived in a housing project in Harlem, already had several children, each with a fairly typical name. But this boy—well, Robert Lane apparently had a special feeling about him. Winner Lane: How could he fail with a name like that?

Three years later, the Lanes had another baby boy, their seventh and last child. For reasons that no one can quite pin down today, Robert decided to name this boy Loser. Robert wasn’t unhappy about the new baby; he just seemed to get a kick out of the name’s bookend effect. First a Winner, now a Loser. But if Winner Lane could hardly be expected to fail, could Loser Lane possibly succeed?

Loser Lane did in fact succeed. He went to prep school on a scholarship, graduated from Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and joined the New York Police Department, where he made detective and, eventually, sergeant. Although he never hid his name, many people were uncomfortable using it. To his police colleagues today, he is known as Lou.

And what of his brother? The most noteworthy achievement of Winner Lane, now in his late 40s, is the sheer length of his criminal record: more than 30 arrests for burglary, domestic violence, trespassing, resisting arrest, and other mayhem.

1. Volokh Conspiracy: Young Adolf Hitler Campbell and Sisters Taken into State Custody
2. Volokh Conspiracy: Cake Request for 3-Year-Old Hitler Namesake
   Denied

http://www.slate.com/id/2116449/

Related posts:

1. Sexual Abuse in Juvenile Detention Centers When scandal erupted in 2007 over allegations of sexual abuse...
2. International Child Abductions and the Best Interests of the Child Solangel Maldonado offers some intriguing thoughts on a post at...
3. Reclaiming Futures Blog, Dedicated to Substance Abuse and Teens in the Juvenile Justice System There are far too few blogs tracking juvenile and other...
4. Use of Support Dogs in Child Testimony in Court CNN had a segment on the use of support dogs...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.