New Jersey child services seizes boy named after Hitler from parents

[Psyclist]

I agree somewhat with Dac. This is a bit scary even though the parents are complete tools. It's enforcing hate crimes, isn't it? They're acting as the thought police.

[Right Wing]

I agree somewhat with Dac. This is a bit scary even though the parents are complete tools. It's enforcing hate crimes, isn't it? They're acting as the thought police.

Yeah, I have no sympathy for them, but if hate crimes are enforced against them, they can be enforced against anyone including Christians and conservatives.

That is scary and I agree with Dac on that as well.

[Fantasy Chaser]

warning unpopular opinion.

I do not think the child should be taken from the parents. So what they are racist pigs. They should be beaten but in this country its not illegal to be a complete tool. On welfare? If thats the criteria then have of the inner cities needs to have their children ripped away from them.

It can be argued that teaching hatred is abuse. It can also be argued that its not.

You missed that one, Dac! Ain't it confusing when people unexpectedly agree with you...

By the way, I do, too. I think the parents ought to have their a--es beaten, but not their kids taken by the state.

[Conservative Libertarian]

warning unpopular opinion.

I do not think the child should be taken from the parents. So what they are racist pigs. They should be beaten but in this country its not illegal to be a complete tool. On welfare? If thats the criteria then have of the inner cities needs to have their children ripped away from them.

It can be argued that teaching hatred is abuse. It can also be argued that its not.

I agree 1,000%!

The first part of my sig line and the graphic are the truth about CP$ (The Village).

[Nebula]

It doesn't seem to be just because of their names:

ABC News: Cops Take Away 3-Year-Old Adolf Hitler

I didn't think so.

[Susanna]

It doesn't seem to be just because of their names:

ABC News: Cops Take Away 3-Year-Old Adolf Hitler

I didn't think so.

Yeah, I saw that, but it doesn't really tell us anything. The details are sealed. That's how CPS gets away with so much. Unless we know exactly why, the reason is suspect, as far as I'm concerned.

[Ictoanius]

Yeah if it's because of the name that's 100% wrong to take a child. I think CPS has too much power - they should have the ability to remove a child for a very short time while things are being sorted out - IF there is a clear danger to the child (and not just accusations) but outside of that there should be a huge mass of condisions and hearings that should be in place before it's allowed.

[Susanna]

Yeah if it's because of the name that's 100% wrong to take a child. I think CPS has too much power - they should have the ability to remove a child for a very short time while things are being sorted out - IF there is a clear danger to the child (and not just accusations) but outside of that there should be a huge mass of condisions and hearings that should be in place before it's allowed.

And the records should be available to the public. They say it's to protect the children - but it's really to protect the CPS.

[ema]

How many parents are there out there that teach their kids hate? We just don't hear about them because they don't name their kids strange names. Are they going to take all those kids away too? We can't afford to care for all the kids that need to be taken from their parents, sadly.

[Conservative Libertarian]

And the records should be available to the public. They say it's to protect the children - but it's really to protect the CPS.

Because the proceedings occur in family court as opposed to the criminal court, CP$ gets to operate as if it's a civil trial and not a criminal trial. If a parent has abused/neglected their child to the point that they must be taken from their parents, then those parents should be brought up on criminal charges. However, that would make CP$ have to prove to a jury that the parents are guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the family court, all they have to do is prove to a single judge that they are guilty based upon a "preponderance of the evidence" (51% likelihood). Now add that with the fact that CP$ is not required to disclose their evidence against the accused to the defense prior to trial, they can say anything they want to the judge and get away with it. It's equivalent to a Salem witch hunt trial. This is especially true of the parents are resistant to them in any any.