Victim’s Voices to be Heard in Canadian Courts

_DSC4179 - Version 2Cretins, crooks, and convicts beware… the days of focusing on your hurts, habits and hang-ups will soon be superseded by a new Bill of Rights for victims, courtesy of Bill C-32, the Conservative government’s fulfillment of its election promise to recognize the forgotten victims of your crimes.

With the passing of this new law, victims will be empowered to ask questions and get answers about their offender’s history, bail conditions, plea bargains, parole terms, and other assorted procedures that to date have forced victims to strain to look inside the halls of justice, from a vantage point obscured by savvy defence lawyers and complacent prosecutors.

Case in point: an Ontario mother’s son was stabbed eighteen times with a penknife, suffering a horrible demise. His mother counted on Canada’s justice system to punish the offender in a manner commensurate with the brutality of the crime. When she learned, after the fact, about the plea deal that saw a reduced charge with a lenient prison term she and her family felt as if their son’s death was nothing more than an inconvenience, a second victimization.

The high-profile sentencing of pedophile Graham James to a mere two-year jail term rightly astonished his victims, adult survivors of James’ sick sexual proclivities. Thankfully, the Manitoba Court of Appeal righted the wrong by increasing his sentence to five years, still not enough for a man who repeatedly victimized young hockey players.

The proposed legislation also provides that where a victim loses his or her life, surviving family members and conjugal partners will have the ability to exercise the rights that would have been available to the victim, had he or she survived. Of course, family members charged and convicted of interfamilial homicide would not enjoy these rights.

With the new law, victim impact statements must be considered by sentencing judges and the ramifications of the victim’s physical, emotional, psychological, and financial scars will play a more central role. As well, under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights specialized bodies will be established to review complaints from victims or their families whose rights under the legislation have been breached. Financial restitution will also be available.

Quite properly, the rights granted will not be permitted to impede or interfere with police investigations or prosecutorial discretion, nor can they be used to create excessive delay. Indeed, the new Bill of Rights will not give victims of crime any status as parties or interveners in criminal law proceedings. These rights are designed to address victim’s concerns without overburdening the justice system.

Of course, not everyone is happy with the proposed law. Not surprisingly, several criminal defence lawyers oppose the bill, including Toronto’s always colourful Clayton Ruby who said the law was a “mess of porridge”, nothing more than a political ploy to sucker victims of crime.

Other naysayers include the John Howard Society, whose mandate is to advocate for offenders, particularly upon their release from prison. Meanwhile the Assembly of First Nations have complained they were not consulted, a startling proposition if it is accurate, considering the rampant victimization of aboriginal girls and women post- Willie Pickton.

While the bill may not go far enough for some, it is Canada’s first recognition that victims of crime deserve courtesy, respect, and compassion.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Case for Shared Parenting

There is a groundswell of activity and energy swirling throughout North America as lawmakers take a closer look at shared parenting, also known as joint physical custody.

Despite the best efforts of dinosaur lawyers and jaded feminists to disparage a better model for parenting, shared parenting is a child-centered response to the institutionalized model of parenting that has plagued families far too long.

Based on twentieth century cultural traditions of stay-at-home moms and working dads, the maternal preference was shored up by untested psychological theories about mothers and children that unwittingly led to a template of a “visiting” parent, usually relegated to every second weekend for a total of four nights per month.

The primary caregiver model became the default position without consideration of the quality of parenting, the psychological functioning of each parent, or the history and nature of the parent/child relationship.

Good parents were lumped together with dysfunctional parents because judges relied on precedent, a straight-jacket that we now know has hurt generations of children and needlessly disempowered parents.

Later most jurisdictions added a week night visit for the non-custodial parent. Who are we kidding by using gender neutral language? It’s “Dads” that are marginalized by these entrenched legal and judicial practices.

But the tide is slowly turning as the public clamour for a more civilized way to determine custody, and social science researchers provide empirical evidence that compels a reconsideration of a parenting regime that is far past its due date.

Dr. Joan Kelly, well-known psychologist and parenting researcher, confirms the literature demonstrates numerous benefits to children when their living arrangements enable supportive and loving fathers to be actively involved in their children’s lives on a weekly and regular basis, including overnights. The outcomes for children include better psychological and behavioral adjustment, and enhanced academic performance.

She also notes that children and adolescents who have lived in a shared parenting arrangement are generally satisfied, feel loved, have less feelings of loss, and do not frame their lives through the lens of parental divorce, compared with those who have been placed in the sole custody of their mothers.

With the endorsement of 110 international research scholars, Dr. Richard Warshak recently published “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report” in Psychology, Public Policy and Law 2014 Vol. 20 #1- p.46-67 which concludes that shared parenting should be the norm for children of all ages, including very young children. The consensus was that 50/50 parenting is also indicated where the logistics of the parents’ schedules are compatible with that arrangement.

Of course, it is universally accepted that deficient, negligent or abusive parents, and those that may have mental illness or substance abuse problems will rarely be candidates for shared parenting.

Public sentiment on shared parenting can be illustrated by Massachusetts’ 2004 non-binding election ballot where 85% of voters, numbering 530,000 people, agreed that children should live with both parents following divorce. In another survey of 375 people called for jury duty, 67% of them favoured shared residential parenting. (Braver et al 2011)

Presently seven States promote shared parenting including Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, and Wisconsin. A Florida bill for alimony reform and shared parenting was expected to pass, but was crushed by a veto from Florida’s governor. The proposed amendment sought to increase the minimum amount of parenting time from 25% to 35%.

Connecticut established a Task Force to study the issue of shared parenting, with a report expected this month. In Maryland, legislators initiated a Commission on Child Custody Decision Making with a report due in late 2014.

Canada’s Bill C-560 on shared parenting is scheduled for second reading in the House of Commons in mid-March 2014. In previous iterations of this bill there has been non-partisan support from the Liberals, Conservatives and the Green Party, the latter two include shared parenting in their platforms.

For those who ignore the burgeoning research and say the jury is still out, or those who continue to rely on the tired refrain that shared parenting is impossible with the rancour that accompanies divorce, a new day is dawning.

It can’t come too quickly for Canada’s children.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Why Trinity Western Law School is Good For Canada

BarristerElaine Craig, an assistant professor at Dalhousie Law School wrote an article in the Globe and Mail on December 18 concerning the accreditation of Trinity Western University’s Law School. As a Vancouver lawyer and arbitrator and a committed Christian I have listened to the critics rage on since TWU made their application to the Federation of Law Societies to obtain the necessary approval.

The good news is that the Federation approved TRU’s application, quickly followed by the assent of British Columbia’s Ministry of Advanced Education. With these obstacles out of the way, TWU Law School will now move forward, much to the chagrin of Ms. Craig and others who have decried the establishment of a faith-based law school.

In her article Ms. Craig scolds the Federation for refusing to act in the interests of “equality and justice” by virtue of TWU’s Covenant which states that students, staff and faculty must “abstain from sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman”.

What she and others of her ilk ignore is that freedom of religion co-exists with the right to equality. However, in the case of private institutions, religious freedom trumps equality.

Section 41 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code provides a specific exemption for non-profit religious organizations where the organization’s primary purpose is to promote the interests and welfare of an identified group, characterized by a common religion.

Ms. Craig also repeats the tired refrain that TWU’s Covenant is evidence of their anti-gay stance, when she knows the prohibition of sex outside of marriage applies equally to heterosexual couples.

In Ms. Craig’s world there is no room for divergent opinions and the accommodation of different beliefs, even though tolerance of opposing views is the centerpiece of a democracy. In her view, the curtailment of religious freedom is necessary in order to promote the beliefs of another group. Ironically, Ms. Craig is a strong proponent of human rights, so long as the rights are not of the religious variety.

The basic mission of religious law schools, of which there are many in the United States, is to educate students to be lawyers in democracies founded on Judeo-Christian principles. How can Christian ethics and morals be considered inappropriate?

TWU will undoubtedly lead the way in Canada “integrating faith and reason in the search for truth through a focus on morality and social justice”. (Taken from the mission statement of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, a Catholic school in Florida)

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Who Knew? Abraham Lincoln Was a Divorce Lawyer

Did you know that America’s 16th President was a divorce lawyer? I didn’t, but according to the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War of Middle Tennessee, he was.

And who are they? An organization founded to “Preserve the Memory of the Grand Army of the Republic and our ancestors who fought to preserve the Union 1861-1865″.

The Sons of Union hosted a program in Nashville Tennessee in 2012 that explored how Lincoln’s divorce practice impacted who he was as a leader and offered a glimpse of the society he lived in.

Researcher Stacy Pratt McDermott found that between 1837 and 1861 Lincoln and his three law partners handled 131 divorce cases in 17 Illinois county circuit courts. The state of Illinois was one of the first in America to grant divorces, make custody orders and provide alimony for women.

Grounds for divorce in Illinois included desertion, adultery, habitual drunkenness, repeated cruelty, impotency, bigamy, and felony conviction.

One case in particular reveals Lincoln’s approach to the business of divorce, which he apparently disliked but considered a necessary evil. In Rogers v. Rogers Lincoln was retained to act for Sam Rogers who sought a divorce on the basis of his wife’s desertion and her adultery. Lincoln persuaded his client that he didn’t need to rely on two grounds for divorce and recommended the divorce proceed under the ground of desertion.

The reason Lincoln chose not to pursue a divorce on the basis of adultery was to avoid any unnecessary embarrassment to his client’s wife. His sensitive approach, however, backfired, as his client was ordered to pay $1000.00 in alimony to his wife. Had he also plead adultery, his client would have paid nothing or a nominal amount.

Fortunately for his client Lincoln was able to reverse the alimony ruling and undoubtedly learned a lesson in the process.

Lincoln was not only a great leader and an advocate for the abolition of slavery, but was a sensitive, pragmatic man who practiced law for 25 years. While he handled railroad cases, tax cases and murder cases, his “bread and butter” was divorce law.

Historians now rank him among the top three United States Presidents and his Gettysburg Address on liberty, equality and democracy is one of the most often quoted political speeches.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Bondage Judge’s Judicial Inquiry High-Jacked By Federal Court and Collapses

BarristerIf the Canadian Judicial Council Inquiry Committee reviewing Madam Justice Lori Douglas’ off-duty behavior is a microcosm of Canada’s justice system, why should anyone be surprised that after years of litigation manoeuvres by Ms. Douglas, the Committee has finally thrown up their hands and walked off the job.

Their frustration with the legal gamesmanship and the resulting delay and expense is a feeling that is shared by millions of Canadians daily, particularly those unfortunate enough to be caught in the morass of family court.

However, when the body that governs superior court judges in Canada cannot move forward and complete their mandate because of the interference of another court, one has well and truly gone down the rabbit hole.

Judge Douglas’ saga began in the Fall of 2010 when her husband, divorce lawyer Jack King’s former client, Alex Chapman, reneged on his 2003 agreement to keep his lips sealed in exchange for a payment of $25,000. His lurid secret was that Mr. King had shared explicit nude photos of his wife, Judge Douglas with him and allegedly attempted to entice him into a sexual relationship with the two of them.

Chapman’s complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council alleging sexual harassment started their investigation which eventually led to a rare public inquiry in May 2012 as to whether she was fit to retain her position as a judge of the superior court in Manitoba.

By the time the hearing got underway, additional allegations tangentially related to the harassment charges came into sharper focus. The investigation revealed that when she applied for her judicial position in 2005 she answered the question “Is there anything in your past that could reflect badly on the office of a judge?” in the negative and “changed” some of her diary entries that related to the Chapman allegations.

Several days into the inquiry, after the evidence of husband Jack King and Mr. Chapman had gone in, it became apparent to Judge Douglas’ lawyer that things were not going well for her and an application to terminate the inquiry based on the legal principle of “a reasonable apprehension of bias” was brought on her behalf. The sole basis for the allegation was that counsel for the Committee aggressively cross-examined two inquiry witnesses.

On July 27, 2012 the Committee rejected her application, whereupon she launched an appeal to the Federal Court and obtained an order from that Court that the Inquiry would be “stayed” or put “on hold” until the Federal Court could rule.

The absurdity of the process in the Federal Court is explained by the Committee in their written REASONS FOR RESIGNATION OF THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE HONOURABLE LORI DOUGLAS released on November 20, 2013.

They point out that the orders sought by Judge Douglas in the Federal Court and made by the Court were argued without challenge since the only Respondent in the action is the Attorney-General of Canada who brought their own application to be removed from the Federal Court proceedings. The Court refused to remove them from the proceedings but their lack of enthusiasm was evident when they did not appear in court for the stay hearing, thus turning it into an uncontested application, also known as a “slam-dunk”.

The learned justices of the Committee also lament that crucial issues such as the Federal Court’s jurisdiction to usurp the Inquiry’s authority were never addressed and recognize that it may be several more years before the Federal Court completes its review, including the inevitable appeals that will follow.

Finally, the Committee affirms their belief that the inquiry process under the Judges Act must not be high-jacked by “unlimited steps and interlocutory privileges…at public expense”…with the goal of defeating the “wider public purpose that must be served by the judicial conduct process.”

The Inquiry Committee’s resignation is regrettably a necessary, but embarrassing step in a circus that has played out far too long. When will Lori Douglas follow their lead and tender her resignation?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

First, Same-Sex Marriage – Now, Same-Sex Divorce

GEO#1In 2004 Canada took its place as the first country in the world to grant a divorce to a same-sex couple. This was not surprising since Canada was one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage, an event that saw hundreds of gay and lesbian couples from around the world travel to Canada to celebrate their relationships with a legal marriage ceremony.

Many American couples married in Canada or in one of the dozen American states that permitted same-sex marriage.

At the time no one gave a moment’s thought to the inevitable time when these marriages, like their heterosexual counterparts, would disintegrate and divorce would be on the agenda.

While same-sex marriage is a hot topic among American legislators, same-sex couples who married north of the border found that divorcing their spouses was not an easy proposition.

Toronto family law lawyer Martha McCarthy became the first lawyer in Canada to tackle the same-sex divorce dilemma when her clients encountered a problem created by Canada’s Divorce Act, which had not been amended to address the influx of marriages involving non-resident visitors.

The Divorce Act requires that one of the spouses reside in Canada for one year prior to the granting of a divorce, a requirement that is almost impossible for a non-resident to comply with.

Ms. McCarthy brought a Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge to the Ontario courts, an application that was moot once the federal government enacted the Civil Marriage Act in the summer of 2013. The legislation permits a same-sex couple to apply for a divorce in the Province where they married without a residency requirement, if they reside in a jurisdiction that does not permit same-sex divorce.

Additionally, each of the spouses must consent to the granting of a divorce, unless circumstances prevent such consent and then a court order waiving consent is required, either from a Canadian court, or the court where the couple resided during their marriage.

Will there be a proliferation of same-sex divorces? In the last two weeks I have initiated three same-sex divorce applications, all from American couples who married in British Columbia, but live in states where their marriage was never recognized.

Others say that because many same-sex couples merely legalized their domestic unions after years of living together, they are more likely able to sustain their marriages.

Meanwhile, Lauren Czekala-Chatham, who married her same-sex partner in California in
2008, has brought a legal challenge against the government of Mississippi, where she and her partner lived during their two-year marriage, protesting her inability to obtain a divorce in her home state.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

British Judges Begin Their Legal Year At an Anglican Church Service

GEO_edited-1Britain is revered for its customs and ceremony, but the long-standing tradition of British judges gathering at Westminster Abbey at the start of the new legal year is coming under fire.

The judges and their legal guests celebrate the new year every October 1 with a church service that includes prayers, hymns, anthems and psalms, with both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice reading a lesson.

After the service a parade of wigged and gowned justices make their way across the street to attend the traditional Lord Chancellor’s breakfast at the House of Parliament.

Some applaud this service and ceremony as one of the last remaining links between church and state. Others question whether an independent judiciary in a multi-cultural, secular society should be praying before an Anglican alter, an issue that is now on the agenda of Britain’s Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling.

Those opposed to the service say that, by attending services “in their official capacity, in public, during working hours, wearing their judicial robes”, judges create ‘an appearance of bias’. When issues touching on religion arise, non-Christian parties to a case will have fears that a judge may treat them less favourably… Their apprehension is real and these fears seriously undermine public confidence in the judiciary”.

However, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson told The Guardian newspaper that attendance is not compulsory and upon appointment every judge swears allegiance to the Crown and to “do right to all manner of people…without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.

In a letter to the Lord Chancellor and senior judges, a retired Ministry of Justice civil servant and a Conservative former parliamentary candidate say that if no action is taken, decisions relating to religious matters might be open to challenge under articles 6 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It appears that judicial entreaties for “divine guidance” may soon give way to secularists who wish to excise any reference to God Almighty.

What they ignore is that much of English (and Canadian law) is derived from Christian principles and even those who do not accept that Jesus is the son of God usually admit that his teachings and philosophy of life, including “Love your neighbor as yourself” are valuable and inspiring.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Why George Zimmerman Was Acquitted

DSC00280Isn’t it slightly odd that while hundreds of young black men have been killed in Chicago this year with barely a headline, America has been transfixed by the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was shot in a Sanford, Florida townhouse complex by 29-year old neighbourhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, acting in self-defence, according to a jury of his peers.

A race narrative was quickly ensconced, in no small way as a result of President Barack Obama’s gratuitous, race-baiting comment that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon. Yes, I recall the photo of an innocent looking young black boy: only later was it revealed that the picture splashed across the media was of Trayvon when he was years younger, looking nothing like the sullen, troubled 6’ lad that he had become.

Trayvon was visiting his father on the night he died, having been suspended from his high school for ten days for being caught with a plastic bag lined with marijuana residue. Hardly a reason to brand him as a ne’er-do-well, but toxicology tests done after his death showed his system contained marijuana of sufficient quantity to affect his behavior.

Initially Mr. Zimmerman faced no criminal charges, but 44 days after the tragic events of February 26, 2012, a special prosecutor was appointed, undoubtedly in reaction to street protests and Change.org’s Petition, signed by 2.2 million persons urging the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman. Not unexpectedly, the usual black celebrities joined in, including Russell Simmons and the Reverends: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

In an illustration of amazingly swift justice, the Zimmerman trial began and concluded in a mere five weeks, and within 18 months of that terrible night, an example that ought to be studied by Canadian prosecutors and justice officials.

For those outraged by George Zimmerman’s acquittal, consider how the prosecution botched their case.

Their “star” witness was Trayvon Martin’s female friend, Rachel Jeantel, who testified that she was on the telephone with Trayvon just before he was killed. She tearfully recounted how the last words she heard Trayvon speak were “Get off, get off ”. Damning? Hardly, because it was the first time she mentioned these words, despite numerous previous interviews and a letter that she wrote at the request of Trayvon’ s parents, describing her last conversation with him.

When she was asked by Zimmerman’s defence counsel to read the letter, she could not, she was illiterate and in fact, a friend had written the letter for her. She was also proven to be a liar, even though her lies were inconsequential to the legal issues before the court.

But the testimony that really sewered the State’s case was from their witness, John Good. He was the only neighbor who heard noise and came outside. A better witness for the defence you could not have found…yes, the defence. He was clean-cut, well-dressed, articulate and calm as he described seeing Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman “pounding” him with mixed martial arts moves.

The prosecution tried to show that Zimmerman was himself trained in the violent sport. Adam Pollock the owner of the gym where Zimmerman worked out said that out of 10, Zimmerman was a one as far as physicality and a 1.5 in his ability to fight. He testified that Zimmerman had a lot of weight to lose when he began attending the gym.

In a commercially crass sidebar, Mr. Pollock’s gym is now offering the “Zimmerman Program”.

There was considerable evidence on whether it was Martin or Zimmerman who cried out for help, with Trayvon’ s parents saying they recognized their son’s voice, while Zimmerman’s family said it was George’s voice.

The prosecutors sought to have the evidence of a voice recognition expert testify that it was Trayvon Martin’s voice; however, the evidence was ruled inadmissible, as the so-called expert was actually the inventor of the software program that he, of course, believed was valid and reliable.

Judge Debra Nelson ruled the science was speculative and the fact that the State’s expert was actively marketing the program and had a significant financial interest was its death knell.

Judge Nelson also disallowed evidence sought to be admitted by the defence team. She ruled that Martin’s profane twitter messages, cell phone photos of him with drugs and holding a gun, his school suspension and his propensity for fighting were either irrelevant or prejudicial.

The jury did their job, a disappointment for the prosecution, who at the last-minute asked the judge to give the jury instructions on manslaughter. They clearly realized their fantasy of a second-degree murder conviction was a bust, but that’s what happens when crowd mentality is the basis for a criminal charge.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Case Against Legalized Prostitution

BarristerProstitution is a practice that arises from the historical subordination of women and the accompanying patriarchal right of men to buy and exchange women as objects for sexual use.

Canadians embrace and respect the worth and dignity of every person and our Courts have confirmed that respect for human dignity is an underlying principle upon which Canada is based. However, the practice of prostitution is an assault on human dignity.

In 1949 Canada signed the United Nations Convention to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking In Persons which included this statement:

“Prostitution and the accompanying evil of the traffic in persons
for the purpose of prostitution are incompatible with the dignity and worth of
persons and endanger the welfare of the individual, the family and the community.”

While Canada has chosen not to criminalize prostitution itself, our criminal law provides that communication for the purpose of soliciting, living off the avails, and common bawdy houses or brothels are illegal.

The argument to legalize these prostitution offences is based on the notion that, if legal, women will be safer; they will be able to communicate and screen their potential customers; they will be able to hire bodyguards and assistants; and they will move from street soliciting to brothels, which are safer.

The trouble with their argument is that countries that have legalized prostitution for those same reasons have learned the hard way that the gains they hoped to achieve for women in prostitution have been illusory.

The best example is the State of Victoria, Australia, home to capital city Melbourne, where prostitution was legalized in the 1980′s in order to minimize harm to prostitutes.

Their worthy goal was to eradicate the criminal element, guard against unregulated expansion of the practice and combat violence against prostitutes.

Instead, according to noted expert and social scientist Dr. Janice Raymond and others working in the field, legalization led to a massive expansion of prostitution, where ironically, the growth was mainly in the illegal sector where unlicensed brothels proliferated.

The legalization of brothels did not empower women to work as independent businesswomen in their own organized brothels because, not unexpectedly, large brothel operators dominated the brothel industry making it difficult for individual prostitutes or even small groups of women to compete against the huge money and marketing of commercial brothels.

Street prostitution did not disappear simply because women who work outside have a host of social problems including homelessness, addictions, are under-age, or are unwilling to register with the government. Women in these situations were not able to be employed by brothels by the nature of their lifestyle.

The law, while intending to eliminate organized crime, brought with it an explosion of human trafficking by international crime syndicates. Finally, the legalization of brothels legitimized pimps and procurers as business men.

While prostitution will always be with us, do we want our streets, not just the back alleys, to be strolls for working girls, who can linger as long as they choose when the communication law is struck? Do we want our neighbouring homes and apartments to be commercial legal brothels? Do we want to change the social fabric of Canada by endorsing prostitution?

You ask if there is a solution? Many are recommending the approach taken by Sweden where their legislators recognized that prostitution causes serious harm to individuals and society as a whole, that it is associated with crime, violence, and human trafficking, but that at its core it is the victimization and oppression of women.

The Swedish model criminalizes the purchaser of sexual services, but not the women who engage in prostitution. The government reports that street prostitution has been reduced by 50%, but more importantly, the practice of prostitution is not condoned and is seen for what it is: a form of violence against women.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Father In Full Nazi Uniform Seeks Access to His Son

Barrister In August of 2010 I wrote about a couple in Trenton, New Jersey, Heath and Deborah Campbell, who chose Nazi-inspired names for their three children: Adolph Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, and Honszlynn Hinler Campbell. Weird? Yes. Damaging? Very likely. Newsworthy? You bet!

The national media found their story when a major chain grocery store refused to embellish little Adolph’s chocolate birthday cake with his legal name. Apparently, the couple found a Wal-Mart in a neighboring community that accepted the assignment.

The case then came to the attention of child protection authorities in New Jersey who obtained custody of the children and placed them in foster care. The burning question was “Could the State remove the children because of their unusual names?”.

The Family Court determined that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, however, the State appealed the matter to a higher court who stayed the Family Court order and kept the children in foster care until the appellate court could hear and decide the case.

The appeal court found that the children’s parents were not fit to have custody of the children, however, the court did not mention the oddity of the children’s names. Instead, the court focused on the unspecified but significant physical and psychological challenges the couple faced and their lack of insight as to their difficulties.

The evidence also showed that both parents had been abused themselves and could barely read or write. The naming of their children was indicative of their problems.

The update to this story is that the Campbell’s separated and their three children were adopted. A fourth child, Heinrich Hons, was seized by child protection authorities shortly after his birth.

This week Mr. Campbell showed up at a court hearing in full Nazi regalia seeking to gain access to his now two-year-old son, Heinrich Hons, who he has not seen since the child was 16 hours old.

Mr. Campbell insists that despite his political views and his glorification of Adolph Hitler, he is a loving parent who ought to have a relationship with his young son. It will be interesting to see if he is successful. The question is does his freedom of expression take precedence over any risk he may pose to his son’s best interests?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang