Quote:

---

A DYFS spokesperson told ABCNews.com in 2009 that she could not comment on a specific case, but said children are only taken into custody if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.

“We would never remove a child simply based on their name,” the spokeswoman said.

Neighbor Lori Dilts told ABCNews.com at the time the children were taken that it was certainly not because of their names.
“Those children look outwardly healthy, but they didn’t have much freedom,” Dilts said. “Occasionally, the little boy would come over here and would hate having to go back to his house.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Hi Frem, how is Arianna doing these days?

---

Quote:

---

Court records said that abuse and neglect, and the physical and mental disabilities of the parents were behind the children being taken away.

Back in 2009, Ms Campbell said: "I'm sorry if I hurt the world but it's just a name to us. Maybe when he [Adolf Hitler Campbell] gets older they'll just see that he loves everybody and they'll say, 'You know, maybe we did misjudge'."

Despite the children's names, the couple deny they are neo-Nazi supporters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm calling shenanigans on this whole justification. "Making sure that people don't name their kids something stupid is not the worst idea I've ever heard. Might stop names like Kalel" is your selling point for a totalitarian nanny state? Come ON. I have a name I hate, but you don't see me out kidnapping babies 'cause of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Some stories don't have happy endings, people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You see abuse as being only physical, but the scars of emotional and pyschological abuse are very real as well and sometimes harder to deal with because people don't understand or believe in them like yourself.

---

Quote:

---

So far, I saw no hard concrete evidence that abuse or neglect was occurring other than their horrible judgment in names. This is a case where the public presumes guilt until evidence of innocence because of ideological bias.

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe that a name is enough proof to demonstrate malice.

---

Quote:

---

I didn't say the names demonstrated malice. Did I say anywhere that I thought that?

---

Quote:

---

but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents.

---

Quote:

---

no one would be demanding answers before there's been a trial that might free up confidential information.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents.

---

This concerns me. I consider myself one of those people unfit to be parents, but until we can demonstrate harm, who are WE to judge?

---

Quote:

---

I don't define harm as simply bruises, though, perhaps that's your concern?

---

Quote:

---

This isn't the choice of Social Services, it's the bindings of law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons made this mistake as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The bindings of law in this case may very well be flawed. They can create additional dangers and concerns for the children.

---

Quote:

---

If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not.

---

Quote:

---

If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not.

---

Quote:

---

If parents are mentally unstable or have shown themselves to be incompetent, I don't think it's wrong to take action

---

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that I think you're laying some blame where it doesn't belong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

I responded to the confidentiality thing, I think it's a load of bull that we give CPS the benefit of the doubt. They are public servants. They are not allowed to operate with no transparency. If they must, if there are privacy issues to consider, they can use TACT, but the blue code on their part is unacceptable. Heck, the blue code in ANY public service organization is unacceptable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

I responded to the confidentiality thing, I think it's a load of bull that we give CPS the benefit of the doubt. They are public servants. They are not allowed to operate with no transparency. If they must, if there are privacy issues to consider, they can use TACT, but the blue code on their part is unacceptable. Heck, the blue code in ANY public service organization is unacceptable.

---

^This. And it's becoming the norm. Ask about our security theater apparatus, and you'll get shouted down with claims that you can't know about it, because of "NATIONAL SECURITY!" And it's spreading through every agency, bit by bit. You can't know about CPS because of confidentiality issues. You can't film the police because they passed a law that says you can't. Rather than just do their fucking jobs the right way in the first place, the norm now is to just make it illegal for you to ask if they're breaking the law.

---

Quote:

---

I've been to Family Court a few times over the years, but it was never a place where I felt at home. Everything about it felt wrong, from the essential absence of anything remotely resembling rights, to the way everyone in the room talked down to children as if they existed so every adult in the room could lecture them. The one aspect of Family Court that I never gave much thought was that the courtrooms were closed.

Closed courtrooms in criminal court are bad, where the constitutional right to a public trial is violated by the secret happenings behind closed doors. The only time they were allowed to throw everybody out and close the courtroom was when the undercover took the stand, and then only when he remained active and could articulate a threat, either to him or his assignment. When the prosecutor asked that the courtroom be closed, we fought it. No star chamber would be allowed without a fight.

Somehow, this never translated to Family Court. I never gave it any thought, as it seemed appropriate when the subject was children that their identities not be made public, that their future not be burned for something that happened when they thought like a child. I was wrong.

---

Quote:

---

But it isn't all that was happening in Luzerne County, as unbelievable as that may seem. This place is a judicial cesspool, and the only reason there hasn't been an overwhelming outcry is that Ciavarella and Conahan were such outrageous criminals that they dwarf pretty much any other impropriety one can think of. That doesn't make Judge Michael T. Toole look any better, however, and it would be wrong to ignore his misconduct just because it didn't rise to the level of his fellow judges.
***
And if this plain vanilla corruption isn't enough to make you angry, consider this: Toole entered into his plea agreement on September 25, yet continued to sit on the bench as a judge. Let that one sink in. The judge signed a plea agreement and continued as a judge for months.

---

Quote:

---

The decision means all convictions within that time frame will be vacated and the records of the juveniles expunged, or erased. Prosecutors also were barred from retrying any juveniles other than those that remain incarcerated or owe restitution or fines.
***
That leaves about 100 cases that may be reopened - serious offenses in which the defendant was represented by counsel, and is either still incarcerated or involved in the juvenile justice system through probation, treatment, or unpaid fines or restitution.
***
Though it's likely true that there were guilty amongst the abused innocent or trivial cases that resulted in incarceration, the District Attorney's argument is disingenuous. Where was Carroll's concern for justice when Ciavarella and Conahan were tossing kids in jail for staying out past curfew? Their scheme went on for five years right in front of the District Attorney's nose, and no one gave a damn. Now they are true seekers of justice? Too little too late.
***
While the effort to retry these children doesn't come after an acquittal, it does come after a "travesty of justice" dismissal and vacation of the convictions. That these scum judges crimes have reduced every case before them to a nullity, the children who remain under court supervision aren't to blame for the fact that these judges were able to perpetrate their crimes for years without interference from the District Attorney.

---

Quote:

---

They are not allowed to operate with no transparency.

---

Quote:

---

If your children were taken away for some reason... say, you were accused of sexually abusing them... and it became a matter of public record which was then found to be false... your reputation would be besmirched, because everyone would remember the accusation but nobody would publish or remember the outcome.

---

Quote:

---

I guarantee you that the people who NEED to know the reason(s) for the child being taken away... i.e. the parents ... know the reason(s). The parents themselves can make the facts known to the press, if they choose to do so. Your insistence on "transparency" is misplaced, as the parents have full access to the press if they choose to use it.

---

Quote:

---

So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.

---

Quote:

---

I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.

---

Quote:

---

it taints a jury pool so it may benefit guilty parents

---

Quote:

---

A Cleveland third grader who weighed more than 200 pounds was taken from his mother after officials reportedly said she did not do enough to help the boy, who suffered from a weight-related health issue, to lose weight.

“They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don’t love my child,” the boy’s mother, who was not identified, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “It’s a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying.”

Officials first became aware of the boy’s weight after his mother took him to the hospital last year while he was having breathing problems, the newspaper reported. The child was diagnosed with sleep apnea and began to be monitored by social workers while he was enrolled in a program called “Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight” at the Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital.

The boy lost a few pounds, but recently began to gain some back, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. At that point, the Department of Children and Family Services asked a juvenile court for custody of the boy, citing his soaring weight as a form of medical neglect, according to the newspaper.

Taking obese children from their families has become a topic of intense debate over the past year after one high-profile pediatric obesity expert made controversial comments in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocating the practice in acute cases.

“In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems,” Dr. David Ludwig co-wrote with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

A trial is set for the boy’s ninth birthday next month to determine whether his mother will regain custody.

But one family who has been in the same position as the Ohio family told ABC News they disagreed with the practice when “Good Morning America” spoke with them in January.

“Literally, it was two months of hell. It seemed like the longest two months of my life,” mother Adela Martinez said.

Her daughter, 3-year-old Anamarie Regino, weighing 90 pounds, was taken from her parents and placed into foster care a decade ago.

Anamarie didn’t improve at all in foster care, and she was returned to her parents. The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.

“They say it’s for the well-being of the child, but it did more damage than any money or therapy could ever to do to fix it,” Martinez said.

Anamarie Regino, who is now a teenager, agreed.

“It’s not right, what [Dr. Ludwig] is doing, because to get better you need to be with your family, instead of being surrounded by doctors,” she said.

When told of the Regino case, Ludwig said his solution of state intervention did not always work.

“Well, state intervention is no guarantee of a good outcome, but to do nothing is also not an answer,” he said.

---

Quote:

---

As far as benefiting a guilty parent, if a jury pool is tainted enough it may mean selection of lesser-qualified jurors, as in the OJ Simpson case.

---

Quote:

---

I agree that if a child is taken away the evidence should be clear. There are other actions that CPS can take, such as counseling the parents or requiring sobriety checks or checking up on the child, but in order to do that right you need time which means money.

There are far too many cases where a thread of evidence was ignored and a child died. Then everybody gets to kick CPS around for not doing a more thorough investigation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.

---

I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.

And what happens if there is good evidence that criminal activity IS taking place, but the child is left in the home and is killed before charges can be brought? CPS once again becomes "the enemy".

There is sometimes local politics involved, sometimes outright corruption, and quite frequently overwork and burnout in CPS operations. If you can think of a better way to protect children while at the same time protecting the rights of the parents, please feel free to suggest improvements.

As far as whether or not the parents in this particular case have the savvy to go to the press, there are advocates available to help them.

IMHO a lot of this all boils down to money. The reason why CPS and foster care are screwed up is because everybody wants to do this on the cheap. God forbid we should spend government money on protecting children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:


There is a fine line between respecting parents' rights (as granted to them by law) and allowing parents to treat their own children as property. I know you are anti-government, but you have to decide how to balance the harm between doing nothing and doing something.

---