Custody Battle Over White Separatist Twins

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-06-10 03:05am

Custody Battle Over White Separatist Twins

June 2, 2006

There was bitter custody battle Friday in a Valley courtroom with two young white supremacists at the center of it all. The twins have gained national attention for their hate-filled concerts.
The parents of the Gaede twins have been in a bitter custody dispute. The girls' father thinks they are being poisoned by their mother, a self-professed white seperatist.
The battle over the twins came to a head Friday inside a Fresno courtroom.

The father of the girls admits he hasn't been the best dad and wanted a second chance, but the judge ruled the Gaede twins would remain in the custody of their mother, the woman who manages their career as a white separatist singing group.

They've been billed as a valuable recruiting tool for the white nationalist movement.

Lynxe and Lamb Gaede — the 13-year-old twins from Fresno County — perform at white supremacist gatherings around the country. Together, they are called "Prussian Blue" and are managed by their mother, April Gaede.

In 2002, she admitted being part of a local group, "The National Alliance" that distributed racist leaflets in Fresno.

"I'm a racist ... I believe there are differences in races. Everybody's a racist. There are two kinds of people. Those who deny being racist, and then the honest folks," said April Gaude.

She divorced the twins' father in 1997. The divorce papers accuse him of domestic violence and drug abuse.

But Kris Lingelser says he's a changed man, and wants custody of the girls to teach them there's a better way to live, "I would hope that they could see a white separatist attitude, where whites and blacks and Mexicans and everybody needs to live in their own separate universe is not healthy."

"It's not what this country is about, it's not what I'm about. I would just hope that they could see that," said Lingelser.

But the judge ruled their mom, April Gaede would retain custody and could keep the girls at her new home in Montana.

Gaede wasn't talking to the media, but last year she claimed to be raising her girls like any other parent — according to her beliefs.

"All children are espouse their parents beliefs. If we were Christians, they would maybe be singing Christian rock songs. But we're not. We're white nationalists and so of course, that's a part of our life and I share that part of my life with my children," she said.

For Kris Lingelser, there was some consolation. The judge ruled he could have limited visits with the girls in Montana.

Friday's custody hearing had been scheduled last week, but the attorney representing the girls' father, Kim Aguirre, is the same attorney who claims he was shot and wounded on his way to court in another custody case.

This brings up an interesting question. Should the racist beliefs of one parent be a factor in whether or not they gain or lose custody? My gut reaction is that the non-racist parent should gain custody barring some other factor like drug or alchohol abuse, criminal record, emotional stability, and so on. It's harmful to the child and not conducive to the betterment of our society to have even more racist assholes running around.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-10 03:09am

That would require the US government deciding what is and isn't moral behavior even though its legal.

BloodAngel · Post by **BloodAngel** » 2006-06-10 03:13am

Racist behavior has nothing productive to it. Thus, it should indeed be a factor.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-06-10 03:22am

Alyeska wrote:That would require the US government deciding what is and isn't moral behavior even though its legal.

Well, it would really depend upon the judge in the case. A woman in Massachussettes lost custody of her son because she smoked and her husband didn't.
I get where you're coming from, though. I just really don't see a problem with a parent that participates in, promotes, and indoctrinates their children in a racist ideology losing full custody to the other parent.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-06-10 10:43am

Flagg wrote:
Alyeska wrote:That would require the US government deciding what is and isn't moral behavior even though its legal.
Well, it would really depend upon the judge in the case. A woman in Massachussettes lost custody of her son because she smoked and her husband didn't.

A parent who smokes can be physically harmful to children, either by exposing them to hazardous chemicals or by influencing them to smoke themselves. That isn't deciding who has superior morality; it's protecting children from direct harm.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-06-10 10:52am

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If only the US had Hate Speech Laws, this wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, if I left it at that one of you smartasses would correct me

"If only the US Government were trust[ed/worthy] enough to have Hate Speech Laws, this wouldn't be a problem."

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-06-10 11:21am

Hmmm, "Prussian Blue", I heard about them before. I have nothing but uttmost sympathy for these two innocent girls for having such monsters as parents.

They're as practically as helpless Magda Goebbels's doomed children...

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-06-10 12:00pm

this is california in custody disputes they will always side with the mother, and at worst give a working joe shared custody against a drug dealing member of the SDS.....

yes, this is refering to my own childhood....

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-06-10 12:31pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:this is california in custody disputes they will always side with the mother, and at worst give a working joe shared custody against a drug dealing member of the SDS.....

yes, this is refering to my own childhood....

And Californians wonder why the rest of the nation thinks of CA as 'la-la land'.
Not to mention 'Governor Moonbeam' back in the late 70's.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-06-10 01:17pm

BloodAngel wrote:Racist behavior has nothing productive to it. Thus, it should indeed be a factor.

Considering that parents religious beliefs are cited all the time in custody battles, I don't see how this would be any different.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-06-10 02:58pm

Seggybop wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Alyeska wrote:That would require the US government deciding what is and isn't moral behavior even though its legal.
Well, it would really depend upon the judge in the case. A woman in Massachussettes lost custody of her son because she smoked and her husband didn't.
A parent who smokes can be physically harmful to children, either by exposing them to hazardous chemicals or by influencing them to smoke themselves. That isn't deciding who has superior morality; it's protecting children from direct harm.

Sorry, but direct physical harm is far from the only criteria often used by judges to decide custody cases. And anyone who doesn't consider racism to be a black and white (pun not intended) moral issue can go fuck themselves.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-10 03:09pm

The problem in the US is that using racism as grounds for custody for one parent also creates a potential appeal of the ruling. While I think the racist mother shouldn't have her kids, I am unsure that a judge is going to be willing to put his neck on the line for this.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-06-10 03:09pm

Well it's not only that they're being brought up with stupid values, but they're being used for propaganda.
That alone should send up red flags and get them taken away from their idiot mother.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-06-10 03:14pm

Alyeska wrote:The problem in the US is that using racism as grounds for custody for one parent also creates a potential appeal of the ruling. While I think the racist mother shouldn't have her kids, I am unsure that a judge is going to be willing to put his neck on the line for this.

I think it really comes down to jusdging each case on its merits. But in this situation I really cannot see any reason for the children to be left with the racist parent that is using them as a propaganda tool for her racist cause.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-06-10 03:16pm

Cao Cao wrote:Well it's not only that they're being brought up with stupid values, but they're being used for propaganda.
That alone should send up red flags and get them taken away from their idiot mother.

To be given to their father, whom charges of child and drug abuse have been leveled against?
As much as I think their mother is despicable, the Judge in this case made the only decision he could have given the current state of the law and precedent in the US.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-06-10 03:23pm

Glocksman wrote:
To be given to their father, whom charges of child and drug abuse have been leveled against?
As much as I think their mother is despicable, the Judge in this case made the only decision he could have given the current state of the law and precedent in the US.

He could have put them in the care of CAS or the Grandparents if willing. Leaving them in the care of a racist seems like it's causing harm to the children.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-10 03:25pm

One problem. In the US, being racist isn't a disqualifier for being a parent. If one parent has drug problems while the other is racist, the judge only has one choice here. He can't send the kids to the grand parents or child services. He has to put them in the custody of the racist parent.

Now, if the father can clean himself up, the judge would strongly consider him.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-06-10 03:32pm

Alyeska wrote:One problem. In the US, being racist isn't a disqualifier for being a parent. If one parent has drug problems while the other is racist, the judge only has one choice here. He can't send the kids to the grand parents or child services. He has to put them in the custody of the racist parent.

Why isn't being a racist a disqualifier for being a parent? Racism is obviously a poison to society and raising your children to spread hate would seem like an obvious red flag to me.

Now, if the father can clean himself up, the judge would strongly consider him.

At least he got limited visits with them. Maybe he can use that to limt the BS the mother is feeding them.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-10 03:38pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Alyeska wrote:One problem. In the US, being racist isn't a disqualifier for being a parent. If one parent has drug problems while the other is racist, the judge only has one choice here. He can't send the kids to the grand parents or child services. He has to put them in the custody of the racist parent.
Why isn't being a racist a disqualifier for being a parent? Racism is obviously a poison to society and raising your children to spread hate would seem like an obvious red flag to me.

I doubt racism is a disqualifier in Canada. So enough with the BS. Yes, racists are shit. But they are pretty much legal. Whats more, they are completely legal while drug use isn't. So in the US there is only one option the judge can really make.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-06-10 03:43pm

Raising children to be racist will put those children at cross-purposes with stated US Law barring discrimination. I can't figure why a lawyer won't pick up on the idea that these children are being purposefully set on a course that will violate US civil codes...

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-06-10 03:48pm

Alyeska wrote: So enough with the BS. Yes, racists are shit. But they are pretty much legal. Whats more, they are completely legal while drug use isn't. So in the US there is only one option the judge can really make.

If a judge can decide which parent gets the kids in the US based on whether they are religious or not than I'm sure they can decide based on racism. It's simply a question of whether he/she has enough balls to do it.

I doubt racism is a disqualifier in Canada.

Racism may not be a disqualifier in Canada but this mother would aready be in jail under Canada's hate speech laws for her BS "white nationlist" music group antics. And her kids would then be in the fathers care by default or failing that CAS care.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-10 04:03pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:If a judge can decide which parent gets the kids in the US based on whether they are religious or not than I'm sure they can decide based on racism. It's simply a question of whether he/she has enough balls to do it.

A judge can't decide both parents are unfit in divorce court. Its one or the other. Considering what the mother does it legal while what the father does isn't, the judge has only one choice to make.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-06-10 04:07pm

Alyeska wrote:
A judge can't decide both parents are unfit in divorce court. Its one or the other. Considering what the mother does it legal while what the father does isn't, the judge has only one choice to make.

What a clusterfuck.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-06-10 04:07pm

They're 13 years old. Frankly, whether they come to their senses or not is now their decision, and unlikely to change based on which parent has custody.

Not that I think their crazed bitch of a mother ought to be raising anyone.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-06-10 04:27pm

Anguirus wrote:They're 13 years old. Frankly, whether they come to their senses or not is now their decision, and unlikely to change based on which parent has custody.

Not that I think their crazed bitch of a mother ought to be raising anyone.

Perhaps you have to be older than 13 to determine what parent you can live with in their state.