OUCH -- WHEN TOLERANCE HURTS

Red State Feminist brings us the disturbing tale of the custody battle over these two little girls, 13-year old twins, Lamb and Lynx Gaede.  These two children are popularly known as the Olsen Twins of White Supremacy. Their mother has homeschooled them in neo-Nazism and has nurtured their careers as a pop duo called "Prussian Blue," which sings odes to Adolf Hitler, Rudolph Hess and the Third Reich.  They are very popular in white nationalist circles and are considered a valuable asset in recruiting new members.

Their dad has been fighting for custody on the ground that their mother is damaging them by teaching them a poisonous ideology of hate.  Unfortunately, dad has a history of drug abuse and domestic violence.  The judge ruled that mother should retain custody, but that father may have limited visitation with the twins.

As everyone agreed in the comments thread at Red State Feminist's site (last I checked), this decision was a no-brainer, albeit a painful one.  We can't start depriving parents of child custody based on the values they are teaching their children-- even if these are socially unacceptable values.  If that were the standard, then atheist parents would be in big trouble in many places.  But ouch, the thought of these young kids being immersed in Nazi ideology sure does hurt. (And certainly, the Gaede twins aren't the only ones.)

The good news is that Nazism is socially unacceptable and is nearly universally understood to be a destructive ideology based on lies.  When the Gaede twins grow up, there is a chance that they will come to the error in their mother's ways.  If not, I suppose, they will live out their lives on the fringes of society, continuing to preach white superiority.  Unfortunately, none of us can choose our parents or the culture in which we will be raised.   

NOTE:   It might, however, be appropriate to revoke custody of the parents just based on the extreme cruelty of naming them "Lynx" and "Lamb."

Comments

[Chipmunk]

"The good news is that Nazism is socially unacceptable and is nearly universally understood to be a destructive ideology based on lies."

But, how is this ideology transforming in light of the recent immigration debate. Many of the underlying "values" of national socialism are still around, though not always clearly labeled with a swastika. What happens when the two little aryians try to go mainstream? Their same message of hate could be broadcast to a larger audience in a more subtler form.

[will]

"Unfortunately, dad has a history of drug abuse and domestic violence. "

ARGGAGGAGAGGGG!!!!

All it takes is for someone to claim "he has a history of domestic violence!!!" and viola everyone decides he shouldnt have custody???!

I want to know what the facts are, not someone's conclusion.

Did he grab her when she was screaming in his face?

Or did he hit her in the face/stomach/some other body part?

Did he stop her from leaving the house by standing in the doorway for 5 minutes while they were arguing and then let her go?

Or did he shove her hard against a wall?

Did he grab her arm ONE time when he found out she was banging some white supremist on the side?

Or he regularly leave bruises on her?

I am not an advocate for regulating speech of the parents, except when you are talking about teaching your children to hate other people (including the other parent).

Did she get an ex parte protective order from a magistrate, but the protective order was dismissed once the man was present and in front of a judge?

These are important distinctions.

[The Happy Feminist]

I have no idea what the history of DV was in this case. Obviously, if I were a judge I would want to know all the specifics, and I assume the judge in this case considered those specifics.

My main point was that I don't think the parent's ideology should be a basis for making a custody decision. I'm sure there are some judges out there who would think I subscribe to a hateful, godless, "culture of death" view of the world that should not be imposed on children.

[will]

"My main point was that I don't think the parent's ideology should be a basis for making a custody decision"

What if the ideaology was that females should serve the males?

Let's say that after the marriage and/or birth of kids, Dad joins a church that promotes the man being in charge and females shouldnt question the males.

Same view?

[Txfeminist]

How could I have overlooked your very salient point about their names? Grounds for parental termination, indeed.

what hideously silly names. Lynx and Lamb. I don't know which is worse. ;-)

[The Happy Feminist]

Yep.

[The Happy Feminist]

That last comment is in response to Will.

[will]

So one parent teaching that the other parent and all other females should be subserviant shouldnt be a factor in a custody case?

Wow.

[The Happy Feminist]

You do more family law than I do.

Is it considered a factor?

[bmmg39]

Before even seeing HF's commentary, I TOTALLY thought that WAS a picture of the Olsen twins.

Lynx and Lamb? I hope one of them doesn't try to eat the other.

[The Grouch]

I would hope that misogynist beliefs would be a factor against allowing someone to parent a girl.

I don't think it's necessarily true that one must, in order to be consistent, allow states to deny custody based on atheism if one allows states to deny custody based on Nazism.

[Sydney]

I wish I was as cute as they were. Too bad they're Neo-Nazis.

[DaveL]

Happy, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that when a court is being asked to determine where the best interests of the child lie it's not obvious that one parent's far-out social views shouldn't be considered. It's not a question of taking kids away from a parent based on what the parent is teaching the kids, it's a question of which parent the kids would be best off living with, and that's inherently a very intrusive question.

[TangoMan]

DaveL,

I think the argument that the lawyers here are making is that courts have been moving away from being arbitors of social mores, which is why a divorce judge doesn't care if one spouse set out to sleep with the whole bowling league and how wronged the other spouse was by such action. If courts start weighing parental philosophies then that opens the door to legions of aggrieved parents to re-open custody arrangements with the hopes of convincing a judge that their parental philosophy is better than that of the custodial parent.

[The Happy Feminist]

I am not actually relying on any special legal expertise here, since this is very much outside my practice area. I just get nervous because I can imagine a scenario where my own views might be considered far-out or damaging to a child.

[hafidha sofia]

But HF - your views are far-out and damaging! ;)

[Richard]

>>> We can't start depriving parents of child custody based on the values they are teaching their children-- even if these are socially unacceptable values.

That's such a broad statement. When most courts look to the "best interests of the child" they're looking for factors present that will encourage development of the child toward a well-adjusted adulthood, socially, emotionally, and intellectually. Isn't it making a farce of the best interests standard to say we can't take into account the photos of Adolph above the living room mantel, the Mein Kampf bedtime stories, the Prussian Blue concert tickets for the kids, and the "How do you like your Jew done?" magnant on the kitchen frig? I mean really? Isn't the judge obligated to say, "Hey, I see serious risks here to well-adjusted social and intellectual development." I think so. Just because you want to protect your feminist views from court scutiny in custody matters isn't a very bright reason to sentence Tiny Tim be raised by the Arian Nation, now is it?

[The Happy Feminist]

Well, it's not "just because" I want to protect my feminist views from court scrutiny. I use my own views merely as an example.

Tell me, where you would draw the line? Nazism bad, atheism okay? How would you make that distinction as to which ideologies/belief systems are acceptable and which aren't?

Certainly as an individual, I am capable of condemning Nazism and saying unequivocally that it is a terrible thing. But how does the court system decide what value systems are contrary to the best interests of the child? Is mere unpopularity enough? Immorality? Again, if that were the case, atheist parents might have a tough time. What about Communist parents or parents with other weird philosophies?

[will]

ok then. How about this for moral tests:

Should a stripper lose custody of her kids because she dances naked for money? What if she also gives sex for money?

What about the woman or man who has an extramarital affair?

Relevant or should the courts avoid casting moral judgments?

[The Happy Feminist]

I don't what the courts actually do in these cases or what the rationale might be but I would say no, no, and no.

Of course, it's a different story if some of these actions place the child in danger in some way. If the mother's prostitution means that strange men are coming to the house all the time or other crimes are occurring near the child, that could actually endanger the child.

A court could perhaps distinguish the affair and the prostitution, however, because those are actually criminal behaviors.

[will]

These are actually fairly complicated questions.

It is often hard to get a court and parties to focus on conduct that impacts the child and not conduct that takes place away from the child.

Is getting busted for smoking pot worse than cheating on your spouse?

Is the sunday school teacher mom inherently better than the male stripper father?

[The Happy Feminist]

I'd say (in the abstract) that smoking pot and cheating on one's spouse are irrelevant if these activities occur away from the child and do not detract from the care of the child.

And I definitely don't think that sunday school teacher mom is inherently better than male stripper dad. The issue is really the care they provide the child.

[Antigone]

Will-

And an "ahhhggg" to your comment as well.

You beat your spouse, you're a bad parent. End of story.

How many domestic violence cases do you think there are where the person is just "grabbing someone's arm"?

Do you not think it's damaging to see one spouse hit another? DO you not think it screws up a kids psyche?

Let me tell you something, my dad beat my mom. Not just "grab someone's arm when she was screaming in his face" my parents did plenty of screaming at each other. My dad left bruises. And I will probably never forgive my dad for doing that, and I will probably never forgive my mother for not following through on the divorce procedures (although I can understand my mom better). They taught me through their actions that this was a perfectly acceptable relationship. That I should expect to get hit when I married someone because sometimes guys just can't help themselves, and if I have children "it's better to have a guy in the relationship because children will be screwed up without a father" (that's from another family member). My parents taught me, and my sister, that you should have to tip-toe around your partner so that he doesn't explode at the slightest thing and it's your fault if you do. If I would have had a brother, he would have been taught that it's okay to resolve your differences by hitting your wife.

My friend (let's call her A) who's mother routinely hit her dad. Her dad got a divorce, thank goodness, teaching her that it's NOT okay to hit someone, especially her significant other. Her father was capable of getting a divorce because he was the bread-winner, and had the social support to do so. Her mother got visitation, and she shouldn't have got that much.

My roommate's parents are going through a messy divorce right now, where the dad keeps pushing for less and less child support and more and more visitation, even though all three of his kids are terrified of him, because he beat his wife, and his eldest kid.

Do you think that what I was put through WASN'T damaging? Do you think it was in my best intrest to stay with someone who was teaching me this? Do you think that someone who has shown no compunctions against hitting his/her spouse are really going to have that much compunction against hitting their children?

Nazi ideology is bad for the kids, but as far as I know, the children are fed, clothed, housed, and not in a violent environment, and as far as I know, they are not being taught to go kill Jews. Clear and Present danger here. And there is every reason to be concerned that if he gets custody based on ideology, it'll be other philosophies that aren't harmful at all next on the chopping block, like atheism, feminism, communism, whatever, that aren't harmful at all but just not mainstream.

[will]

"Do you not think it's damaging to see one spouse hit another? DO you not think it screws up a kids psyche?"

Of course it is damaging. Very damaging.

However, the other examples that I gave are not damaging. That was my point. There are differences.

Every person who grabs an arm is not beating their spouse in the face in front of their children.
You've described very damaging things.

But the simple statement "history of domestic abuse" can mean many different things.

[will]

Antigone:

I wanted to add one more thing.

Your reaction is why that statement disturbs me so much.

All it takes is for someone to say "he has a history of domestic abuse" and there is an immediate reaction that "HE SHOULDNT HAVE CUSTODY!!!"

Instead, you need a lot more facts before you can give a good opinion. I am not suggesting that he should have gotten custody. He very well might have beaten her in front of the kids. But, we need more information.