Mike Deak

@MikeDeakMyCJ

Man argued that the state made no effort to find an alternate psychologist who was not Jewish

Man said "law enforcement doesn't care about someone with Swastikas and tattoos."

In prior ruling, court noted Ian was an abused child who had medical and psychological disabilities

FLEMINGTON – A Hunterdon County man, who said he is a member of a group known as "Hitler's Order," has lost a legal battle to keep his parental rights because he refused to be interviewed by a state psychologist because the psychologist is Jewish.

The man, identified in court papers by the fictitious name of Ian and the initials of I.H.C. to protect the privacy of the child, appealed the decision of the state Division of Child Protection and Permanency to terminate his parental rights to his son Henry (a fictitious name).

The state, according to court papers, in June 2012 terminated the parental rights of the three older children Ian fathered with Daisy (also a fictitious name) and wanted to place Henry with his older sisters. The state removed Henry from his parents shortly after he was born in November 2011. Daisy surrendered her parental rights to Henry in March 2013.

In his appeal of the state's decision, Ian, who said he has support of "Hitler's Order" and has a tattoo that reads "I hate DYFS" (Division of Youth and Family Services, the former name of Division of Child Protection and Permanency), argued the state made "no effort to find an alternative psychologist" who was not Jewish.

Court papers say that the state attempted to consult with Ian but he refused to comply, so that the state was not able to provide any services to him. Those services, which are recommended to address the issues that led to the child's removal, included anger management, individual counseling, domestic violence counseling and marital counseling among others.

Ian argued in the appeal that there was little evidence to show he refused the state services and that the state failed to tell him that his compliance with the services was necessary for him to retain his parental rights.

But the appellate court found the arguments to be "unpersuasive." The court noted that Ian failed to respond to notices sent to his address and failed to attend court hearing because he said he was fearful for his life.

Ian said that he did not trust law enforcement to protect him because "law enforcement doesn't care about someone with Swastikas and tattoos."

Ian told a state caseworker that he did not want to go to the Family Division of Superior Court, but wanted to go to "federal buildings," where be believed he would win, according to court papers.

In the 2010 appellate ruling that upheld the removal of his other children, the court noted that Ian was an abused child who had medical and psychological disabilities which, "due to inadequate treatment," led to his being illiterate and unemployed throughout his adult life.

Staff Writer Michael Deak; 908-243-6607; mdeak@mycentraljersey.com