Jump to content
IGNORED

Little Adolf Hitler's Parents Lose Custody of Newborn


tropaka

Recommended Posts

I believe the reason why CPS took custody of the newborn is because the parents already lost custody of their other two children.

Removal of the child within a few hours/days of birth is also typical if mom or baby fails a drug test. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but white trash and meth go together like cops and donuts, so that strikes me as the most likely explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm sorry, but I don't care what culture someone is from, if they name their kid "Cesspool" that should be illegal. That is not being culturally insensitive beyond acknowledging that all cultures have parts that stomp on human rights - like the right to not be named fucking Cesspool!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I've met a couple of white people named Aryan/Arian. (went to middle school with an "Arian" and when volunteering once a boy named Kristopher signed his name and his sister's name in a signature book- her name was Aryan.)

The Indian ones I've had as students just have a name that I assume is somewhat normal in their country.

My husband's HCP's first name is Arianne, and 1/2 the people in the area who have her say it "Arian". Drives me nuts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also heard (and maybe this is urban legend) the rest of the real Hitler family didn't procreate and distant cousins changed their names to avoid any association. \

Only one of Hitler's brothers lived long enough to have children. One of these sons died during WWI; the other did change his name. This nephew's American-born sons did not have any children of their own, which gave rise to the rumor of a pact, but one of the brothers has publicly denied the existence of a pact, so it would appear to just be a coincidence.

Hitler's sister Angela had children, including the famous Geli Raubel, but of course they carried their father's name instead of the Hitler name. Angela has a living grandchild, who lives a quiet private life, and she's supposed to have had children and grandchildren of her own.

Hitler's unmarried sister Paula lived under the name Wolfe after the war, but she was buried under the name Paula Hitler. There are still a few Hitlers, as well as Hiedlers and Hietlers, living in Europe, which makes me think that any surviving Hitler cousins didn't bother to change their names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one of Hitler's brothers lived long enough to have children. One of these sons died during WWI; the other did change his name. This nephew's American-born sons did not have any children of their own, which gave rise to the rumor of a pact, but one of the brothers has publicly denied the existence of a pact, so it would appear to just be a coincidence.

Hitler's sister Angela had children, including the famous Geli Raubel, but of course they carried their father's name instead of the Hitler name. Angela has a living grandchild, who lives a quiet private life, and she's supposed to have had children and grandchildren of her own.

Hitler's unmarried sister Paula lived under the name Wolfe after the war, but she was buried under the name Paula Hitler. There are still a few Hitlers, as well as Hiedlers and Hietlers, living in Europe, which makes me think that any surviving Hitler cousins didn't bother to change their names.

Wolfe seems like an interesting choice of name to me, because it seems like a Jewish name to me. Although that might be just because I have Jewish ancestors with the last name Wolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2010 new federal guidelines went into effect that says children must be given a final placement disposition with in a 15 month out of 22 month window. In the next year you are going to start seeing a lot of people claiming that CPS stole their children as states struggle to start meeting the deadline of 15 months. The 15 month criteria doesn't have to be a consecutive 15 months either...if they are in care for 6 months, then out for 4 months then back in for 9 months that counts as the 15 months and the parents rights can be terminated.

I just want to expand on this a little... as we are going through the fostering classes right now... and I'm not sure what the intention of the OP is here.

The 15 out of 22 months are from a federal standard based on recommendations for the youngest of children. If an infant is removed and placed in care, and out of 22 month (which is 2 months shy of 2 years) the child has been with their foster family for more than HALF that time, then the child is more bonded with the foster family than their own birth parents. During that 22 months, the state and the parents have presumably been working together on their case in order to get the children back with their families. Once the child has reached care for 15 months, of 22 months, a hearing MUST be scheduled to determine custody. At that hearing a judge is capable of deciding if the goal for the child will be changed from reunification to adoption, or if the parents have continued to grow in their case and the end goal will continue to be reunification. That 15 of 22 months does not mean that the child will automatically get TPR.

And to point out a flaw in the posters original example... 9+6+4=19, not 22. So yes, if a child is in care for 6 months, then returns home for 4 months, then is returned to care for 9 months, that is 15 months of care. But 15 of only 19, not 22, so the parents rights cannot be terminated at that point. The 22 months starts from when the child is first brought into care, not from when the child is born. If the child is returned home from that point for 10 months, then comes back into care, the first 6 months do not count against them. It is care for 15 of the LAST 22 months, not 22 months total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm German too, so I have to admit I find the whole fear about government "restricting" parents really outlandish. I feel the same way about the fears about restricting parents rights by outlawing spanking, but I digress...

Like ophelia said, here you can't just name your kid any completely outlandish names.

My brothers first name isn't a very common name in Germany and the registration office decided that you can't tell if it's a boys or a girls name. So now my brother has the name that he was supposed to have plus a traditionally male middle name.

I do think it's kinda silly that they didn't just give their OK, but I vastly prefer that to kids having to live with deragotary names just for the sake of "parents rights".

Middle names aren't a big thing here as it is (out of 4 kids, my brother is the only one that has one), so no one ever used his middle name to begin with. I strongly suspect neither my mom, nor my brothers dad ever felt that their rights as parents were being infringed upon.

I don't know the rules completely, but I think they make exceptions for parents from other nationalities though. A lot of the second and third generation turkish kids here still get to have turkish names that your average German might not immediately recognize as male or female.

As for the government making people change names when they move to Germany: Have never heard of that happening at all and I'm not sure how that follows from kids being named at birth to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm German too, so I have to admit I find the whole fear about government "restricting" parents really outlandish. I feel the same way about the fears about restricting parents rights by outlawing spanking, but I digress...

Like ophelia said, here you can't just name your kid any completely outlandish names.

My brothers first name isn't a very common name in Germany and the registration office decided that you can't tell if it's a boys or a girls name. So now my brother has the name that he was supposed to have plus a traditionally male middle name.

I do think it's kinda silly that they didn't just give their OK, but I vastly prefer that to kids having to live with deragotary names just for the sake of "parents rights".

Middle names aren't a big thing here as it is (out of 4 kids, my brother is the only one that has one), so no one ever used his middle name to begin with. I strongly suspect neither my mom, nor my brothers dad ever felt that their rights as parents were being infringed upon.

I don't know the rules completely, but I think they make exceptions for parents from other nationalities though. A lot of the second and third generation turkish kids here still get to have turkish names that your average German might not immediately recognize as male or female.

As for the government making people change names when they move to Germany: Have never heard of that happening at all and I'm not sure how that follows from kids being named at birth to begin with.

Why should the government get to decide what names are masculine or feminine enough for a particular family? A prime case here in the states (sorry, I know very little about Germany!) would be using a name like Aubrey. Aubrey traditionally is a male name. Now it has been taken to mean a female or male name. I know many males named Aubrey and a few females named Aubrey. Would the Gov't limit to the traditional use, or say that it can no longer be used for a boy because more girls use it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I've met a couple of white people named Aryan/Arian.

Same here. A girl I went to school with named her daughter Aryan (she also had a daughter named Karma) and thought the connection to Aryan Nation was funny. :roll: But I also grew up in an area with a heavy white trash concentration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfe seems like an interesting choice of name to me, because it seems like a Jewish name to me. Although that might be just because I have Jewish ancestors with the last name Wolf.

Wolfe is my maiden name, and no one in my family tree was Jewish. In fact, the "Wolfe" side of my family is from England (and very much Protestant), not Germany. I was always told that the "E" at the end made it an English last name. I don't have anything to verify that, though, other than what my grandparents always said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but one of the brothers has publicly denied the existence of a pact, so it would appear to just be a coincidence.

When was that? Google is letting me down here. I remember talk of a pact in the 'Last of the Hitlers' TV special thing, nothing formal or signed, just a general agreement.

ETA: Never mind, I totally found the intel. Carry on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should the government get to decide what names are masculine or feminine enough for a particular family? A prime case here in the states (sorry, I know very little about Germany!) would be using a name like Aubrey. Aubrey traditionally is a male name. Now it has been taken to mean a female or male name. I know many males named Aubrey and a few females named Aubrey. Would the Gov't limit to the traditional use, or say that it can no longer be used for a boy because more girls use it?

Again, I do think it's kinda silly to decide that a name is not "male enough" or "female enough". But it's not like they just randomly stopped in the 50s and now only the names that were considered female or male back then are allowed. In a case like Aubrey if you go there and say "Look, this is used as a female name a lot", they'd probably give you the greenlight, cause people would know that it can be considered a girls name now.

I admit the gender-naming (for a lack of better word) was a bad example, too, it was just a personal story on the topic.

Let's say that there was nothing like that, just general things like "You can not give your child the full name of a mass murderer." or "You can not name your child kitchen table or Proxy Crimefighter (actual name of a celebrity kid) just cause you think it's funny." or even "You can not name your kid awesomedude666, even if you promised the guy who won the name-my-kid auction."

I really just don't understand how that could be considered in any way a bad thing. And maybe Germans are generally more trusting of peoples common sense and compassion or maybe it's just the oversight, but I can't think of a single person here who is scared about some government person going on a powertrip and banning you from naming your baby girl Anna just cause they feel like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that there was nothing like that, just general things like "You can not give your child the full name of a mass murderer." or "You can not name your child kitchen table or Proxy Crimefighter (actual name of a celebrity kid) just cause you think it's funny." /quote]

I believe the girl's name is actually Moxie CrimeFighter. Her brother's name is Zolten, which at first glance seems similarly odd but I believe it's their mother's maiden name.

Ahem, carry on. I'm just a little bit fascinated by names. :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I do think it's kinda silly to decide that a name is not "male enough" or "female enough". But it's not like they just randomly stopped in the 50s and now only the names that were considered female or male back then are allowed. In a case like Aubrey if you go there and say "Look, this is used as a female name a lot", they'd probably give you the greenlight, cause people would know that it can be considered a girls name now.

I admit the gender-naming (for a lack of better word) was a bad example, too, it was just a personal story on the topic.

Let's say that there was nothing like that, just general things like "You can not give your child the full name of a mass murderer." or "You can not name your child kitchen table or Proxy Crimefighter (actual name of a celebrity kid) just cause you think it's funny." or even "You can not name your kid awesomedude666, even if you promised the guy who won the name-my-kid auction."

I really just don't understand how that could be considered in any way a bad thing. And maybe Germans are generally more trusting of peoples common sense and compassion or maybe it's just the oversight, but I can't think of a single person here who is scared about some government person going on a powertrip and banning you from naming your baby girl Anna just cause they feel like it.

A) Someone, sometime in the past decided that they would take a typically masculine name - Aubrey - and name their daughter that, which is why it can be considered a girl's name now. What you are proposing is to completely eliminate that possibility.

B) It's Moxie Crimefighter

C) I like typically traditional names, but seriously? You think legislating naming is a good idea? A blogger I really like just had twins that she and her husband named Boheme Shalom and Reverie Lux. Her older children are named Archer Sage and Fable Luella. Would I name my children any of those names? Absolutely not, but I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to. "They'll get bullied and made fun" of is not a justifiable answer in my mind. Kids get bullied and made fun of for lots of reasons, and yes, names are sometimes one of them. However, a kid can make fun of any name if they are creative enough. Do I personally think parents should use common sense when naming their children? Sure. But I also don't think the government should get a say in what that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually kind of common for countries to restrict what parents name their kids. It happens in Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Denmark, and China. I think that the uproar about government being involved in the naming process comes down to how people view the government and government interference in everyday life. If they enacted a law like that in Canada I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't support it but I also wouldn't be against it

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/07/03/mf ... index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually kind of common for countries to restrict what parents name their kids. It happens in Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Denmark, and China. I think that the uproar about government being involved in the naming process comes down to how people view the government and government interference in everyday life. If they enacted a law like that in Canada I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't support it but I also wouldn't be against it

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/07/03/mf ... index.html

Yes, I know this. But my point still remains that the government has no business "approving" naming choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to point out a flaw in the posters original example... 9+6+4=19, not 22. So yes, if a child is in care for 6 months, then returns home for 4 months, then is returned to care for 9 months, that is 15 months of care. But 15 of only 19, not 22, so the parents rights cannot be terminated at that point. The 22 months starts from when the child is first brought into care, not from when the child is born. If the child is returned home from that point for 10 months, then comes back into care, the first 6 months do not count against them. It is care for 15 of the LAST 22 months, not 22 months total.

I apparently cannot add :oops: ...and I appreciate you clarifying :D ...but as a foster parent now, in both states I have been working with they are taking this new rule very seriously. We are beginning to start the TPR process with one foster child (has been out of home for 14 months) this month and the BM of the second foster child (who has been out of home for 7 months) has been made very aware of the rule and the risk of her losing her son to the state if she does not show significant progress in her reunification plan in the next 6 months.

I guess my point of this whole statement was that if states do not comply with the guideline they will lose federal funding, and as most states are strapped for cash I can see where they are going to become more strict on following this federal guideline.

I have my own opinion of the 15 month rule though...and having to care for a child that came to me with a fractured femur, skull and collar bone, as well as severe PTSD it's certainly isn't that I feel 15 months is too short of a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually kind of common for countries to restrict what parents name their kids. It happens in Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Denmark, and China. I think that the uproar about government being involved in the naming process comes down to how people view the government and government interference in everyday life. If they enacted a law like that in Canada I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't support it but I also wouldn't be against it

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/07/03/mf ... index.html

I believe Quebec has some sort of naming laws. Some parents wanted to name their kid Spatule (Spatula) and the province wouldn't allow it. Now I know Swastika has a history beyond Nazi Germany but there have been a couple of girls named Swastika in Alberta. That borders on iffy for me personally.

Now for some more Stormfronters naming children

http://www.newbabynews.net/hospitals/mm ... ID=h1-4161

Aryan Justice. For reals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apparently cannot add :oops: ...and I appreciate you clarifying :D ...but as a foster parent now, in both states I have been working with they are taking this new rule very seriously. We are beginning to start the TPR process with one foster child (has been out of home for 14 months) this month and the BM of the second foster child (who has been out of home for 7 months) has been made very aware of the rule and the risk of her losing her son to the state if she does not show significant progress in her reunification plan in the next 6 months.

I guess my point of this whole statement was that if states do not comply with the guideline they will lose federal funding, and as most states are strapped for cash I can see where they are going to become more strict on following this federal guideline.

I have my own opinion of the 15 month rule though...and having to care for a child that came to me with a fractured femur, skull and collar bone, as well as severe PTSD it's certainly isn't that I feel 15 months is too short of a time.

Oh my gosh :( I've heard that the training and requirements for people to be foster parents is so much more than for adoptive parents. I guess most kids who get adopted simply haven't been through that. Do the kids like the one you just described stay in foster care long-term, in the end, if the decision is to not return them to the parents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swastika is the name of a town in Ontario, Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika,_Ontario). The reason I know this is because the "Nazi" Mitford daughter, Unity, was conceived there. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Mitford) Just as a side note, the six Mitford daughters, were, to a woman, so totally NOT the dutiful daughters of the patriarchs.

I'd also point people to this article, about how a court in New Zealand took custody of a child so that her name could be changed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... newzealand):

A nine-year-old girl whose parents named her Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii was put into court guardianship in New Zealand so that her name could be changed.

*snip*

In his written ruling, he [the judge] said names such as Stallion, Yeah Detroit, Fish and Chips, Twisty Poi, Keenan Got Lucy and Sex Fruit were prohibited by registration officials. Others that were permitted included twins called Benson and Hedges, other children called Midnight Chardonnay, Number 16 Bus Shelter and, the judge added, "tragically, Violence". Another mother tried to use text language for her child's name, he said.

The whole article is worth a read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh :( I've heard that the training and requirements for people to be foster parents is so much more than for adoptive parents. I guess most kids who get adopted simply haven't been through that. Do the kids like the one you just described stay in foster care long-term, in the end, if the decision is to not return them to the parents?

The whole point of the new guidelines is to limit the length of time a child is in temporary placement. The state either needs to step up and get the parents the referrals they need or they need to make a decision to terminate their rights and find a permanent place for the child. In our case, the reason that our social workers might be more willing to move forward is that we have agreed to adopted both of our placements should they become available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moon Unit, Dweezil, Ahmet, and Diva Thin Muffin (Frank Zappa)

Apple (Gweneth Paltrow)

Suri Cruise

Brooklyn, Romeo, Cruz and Harper Beckham

Kal-El (Nicholas Cage)

Pilot Inspektor (Jason Lee)

Fifi Trixiebelle (Bob Geldorf)

Sage Moonblood (Sylvester Stallone)

Kyd (Tea Leoni)

Memphis Eve (Bono)

Jermajesty (Jermaine Jackson)

George, George Jr., George III, George IV, George V, George VI (George Foreman)

And the beat goes on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Geldof's other kids: Peaches Honeyblossom, Little Pixie. His wife had Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily with another man, and Bob ended up getting custody of her too after both parents died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was that? Google is letting me down here. I remember talk of a pact in the 'Last of the Hitlers' TV special thing, nothing formal or signed, just a general agreement.

ETA: Never mind, I totally found the intel. Carry on!

I decided to do a little reading and Hitler's nephew William Patrick Hitler immigrated to the US and changed his name. He had four children but they don't have the surname of Hitler. Hitler's half sister Angela has descendants as well but they're Raubals.

Very very interesting reading for the past few minutes anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.