I, for one, believe the concept of 'best interests of the child' is too vague since it relies on the subjective mindset of the judge ~ Sooz

Hitler v. Hitler
Can a parent lose custody of his child because he's a neo-Nazi?
By Brian PalmerPosted Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at 6:15 PM ET

Jeff Hall, a white supremacist leader in the Los Angeles area, was shot to death by his 10-year-old son on May 1. In an account of the neo-Nazi's life, the New York Times notes that Hall managed to win custody of the children from his ex-wife. Can a judge take extreme political views into account when deciding a custody battle?

Yes. Custody disputes are decided under the vague "best interests of the child" standard, and judges are allowed to weigh just about any factor—excepting race, which is off-limits, and religion under certain circumstances. While few judges have assigned custody based solely on a parent's politics, many have mentioned it as a major issue. During World War II, a father in New York was denied custody in part because he had been "contaminated with the germ of Nazism." Garden-variety racist parents and sexual libertines have also lost out. Judges typically couch their decisions in terms of the day-to-day negative effects that a parent's unpopular views might have on the child's mental and social well-being, rather than the risk that the child will himself adopt the belief system. For this reason, warring parents sometimes hire child psychologists to testify that a spouse's political views are causing the child turmoil. Living in a white supremacist household, for example, might lead to conflicts at school. Preparing for an imminent Armageddon could make a child confused or depressed.

Occasionally, a state won't wait for a divorce to seize the children of a white supremacist. In 2009, the state of New Jersey took custody of three children named Adolf Hitler, Jocelynn Aryan Nation, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie from their parents, Heath and Deborah Campbell. In that case, however, extremist views were just a symptom of a larger pattern indicating serious psychological instability on the parents' part. (The family wound up on the state's radar when they tried to have a personalized cake made for Adolf's third birthday.)

Canada has been even more aggressive. In 2008, Canadian authorities took two children into government custody after one of them was found marked with white supremacist symbols. The main issue in the case was not whether the father was unstable, but rather the simple fact that he was inculcating his children with fringe views.

Instead of denying custody outright, judges may order parents not to discuss certain views with their children. The verboten subjects are a virtual chronology of the American zeitgeist. In the 1930s and 1950s, many cases involved communism. There was a series of cases in the 1970s and 1980s in which judges ordered parents not to promote homosexuality to their children. In recent years, gay parents have petitioned judges to forbid ex-spouses from bashing homosexuals in front of the kids. A fews years ago, a New York court barred a father who had named his children Mujahid Daniel and Mujahid David from talking about militant Islam with his children. Many critics argue [PDF] that these restrictions violate the parents' First Amendment rights to free speech.

Religion is the thorniest issue, because it's tied up not only with free speech, but also the First Amendment right to practice religion without state interference. In 2003, a Pennsylvania judge prohibited a fundamentalist Mormon father from advocating polygamy to his daughter. Three years later, the state supreme court reversed the order, deciding that parents have a right to teach their faith to their children—even if the behavior in question is illegal—as long as the religious lessons don't present an immediate danger. Parents have also been prohibited from trashing an ex-spouse's religious views in front of the kids.

Explainer thanks Joan Heifetz Hollinger of UC Berkeley School of Law, Sanford Katz of Boston College Law School, Charles Kindregan of Suffolk University Law School, and Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law.

http://www.slate.com/id/2293768/?gt1=38001

I don't think a parent's belief system, whether it be neo-Nazism or any other thing, be taken into consideration as it's highly subjective. A parent has a right to teach their children anything they want to teach. I don't like children being raised as racists.  I also don't like children being raised as extreme righty Christians either, but it's not my business, nor is it the business of the court system. As long as the child is being fed, clothed, housed and nurtured but not abused then they are wrong in doing this. I'm sure there are many very loving, nurturing neo-Nazi parents. One has nothing to do with the other, imo. 

In the long run, a child will mature to a level when they can accept or reject the belief system of their parent(s). Don't we all do that? My Dad was a racist for most of his life. I never have been a racist and neither are my brothers.

I'm with roseanne on this one. Damn, I feel sorry for those kids. But as long as the folks are taking care of them, its their business. Did I day I felt sorry for those kids? I would keep an eye on them. Something has to be wrong with folks to do that to their kids. Poor kids ....they have so many strikes against them already! If they make it, they will truly be success stories. 

Wow Chaos, that is downright cruel for both the Mom and kids.    She's got enough on her plate just fighting the cancer. Judges are so stupid.

As she said, all of us die and know not when. As for this part: "children who have a parent with cancer need more contact with the non-ill parent."
Dear LORD! they need MORE contact with the ill (and perhaps dying) parent.

Then there is this assinine comment:

In her ruling, Judge Nancy Gordon cited forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Brantley: "The more contact [the children] have with the non-ill parent, the better they do. They divide their world into the cancer world and a free of cancer world. Children want a normal childhood, and it is not normal with an ill parent."

 So, I have a question. What if they parents weren't divorced? I know, I know, custody wouldn't be an issue......but would children's services step in and dictate how much time the kids spend with the ill parent who is at home, as opposed to the healthy parent who probably spends every day at work? With an ill parent, even in an intact marriage, their childhood is never "normal".  They can divide their "cancer world from the cancer free world" when they are at school and other activities.

OMG, the more I type about this, the angrier I become.

Any guesses as to the political leanings of Judge Nancy Gordon?


Judge Nancy Gordon is a Republican (at least she was......campaigned for John Anderson (R) for President in 1980). What really nauseates me is this particular item on her "Community Involvment":
[*]Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, Team Organizer (The LeGALities)

http://www.judgenancygordon.com/RESUME.html

Bitch!

I sent an email to the Susan G. Komen foundation with a link to this story and advised them that the judge uses their organization on her resume page. They should know. I also asked if they could help Alaina.

sooz, I went to the contact page here:

http://ww5.komen.org/Contact.aspx

the form is at the bottom. I selected "financial assistance/low cost resources" as the subject because I couldn't find anything that really applied, lol.

I'm very "famous" for my emails. Every time I tell someone about a gripe I have with a store (or whatever) they all know me so well they say "Let me guess, you sent an email"  I also send complimentary emails. The complaints usually never get responded to, but it makes me feel better for having sent them.