Link To Story
Voted : Not Sure
i still believe a child should have a say when he gets his name.
Voted : No
I don't think the state should have the right to deprive parents of their custody of their children merely because the parents are racist or antisemitic. It's completely in violation of the First Amendment and flies in the face of a lot of child custody case law in many states. In the U.S., the fact that a parent holds unpopular viewpoints or even ones that many people would find repugnant, are not grounds *on their own* for depriving parents of their children. In the European Nanny Union, it may very well be, but I don't know their laws in any particular detail.
However, in this case, much more is alleged to be ongoing, and that muddies the waters legally. Say that you had a parent who was a member of an Aryan nationalist group who was plotting terrorist actions or who was committing bank robberies to fund paramilitary groups, well, that would be a very different situation. Since child abuse and domestic violence have been alleged here, that may be enough to make this legally sufficient. A dangerous situation or one not in the best interests of the children at home would probably trump the parents' rights to be antisemites or racists.
Finally, don't these people know of any other Nazis BESIDES Hitler? *lol* The names they gave the children are just downright moronic for the most part. Why not name one of the girls Leni or Eva or one of the boys Heinrich or Joseph or Albert (Speer)?
O.K., they TRIED to name one of the kids after Himmler but failed miserably because they couldn't be bothered to read a book on the subject or Google it.
Voted : No
Its none of the governments business, his neighbours should beat up the father.
They would still have the kids if the woman had baked the kid's birthday cake herself.
Voted : Birth Certificate Names already have tacit government approval.
Some names are completely inflammatory. If the AKC can set rules about the official name for a dog, for god's sake; then, it follows that any government or culture can have similar guidelines regarding official human names. Not everyone will agree; but, what parent would, or should be allowed to name their child "Kiss My A$$" for instance? Sure, they're just words; but, they could arguably pose a more encompassing negative affect on the psyche of the named person, and the psyche of society overall.
So, whoever the county registrar is in the individual counties of each of these births, should bare the greater responsibility for it actually getting on file. It would save these people headache down the road.
"Birth Certificate Names already have tacit government approval."
In the U.S, you can pretty much name your child anything you want, unless it's a rank obscenity. So, your boy can be Jack the Ripper Smith or Joseph Stalin Jones or Zyklon B Cooper. But, legally, names like Fuckit Peterson won't work.
Whether you, as a supposedly responsible parent *should* name your child a name that will humiliate them or cause them friction with others throughout life is another question.
I have no problem with what ^ he just said... the problem is, if the government restricts anything in the naming of a child, then what it allows, is ALLOWED... why would they take a child away because of the NAME? I agree with NO which is the answer you gave Felix... The fact that the county clerk signed off on it is WHY I think NO is the right answer. If they didn't like the name, then they shouldn't approve it.