people should get rid of social services because they take children who are well looked after and leave the ones who's parents beat them up so there should be know more social workers

sammy, gloucester, gloucestershire

Last night's episode of Coronation Street was a perfect example of the way things happen.
Neighbour rings social services expecting to get some support for the family, instead a social worker visits, decides Chesney is at risk and instead of seeing if friends could help out takes him into care WITHOUT ANY COURT ORDER, just by calling the police. They even took the dog without attempting other arrangements. This is the way social workers behave every day.

Social workers probably don't take part in this debate because they can't defend the indefensible!

helisa, Southport, Merseyside

Why don't I see the social workers contributing to this debate?

David, Bromley,

Roy,
A social worker can obtain an EPO on the flimiest of reasons and the case is immediately in court.All communication with other agencies is via the social worker.
Information from the other agencies is given to and from the court by the social worker. As a Head Teacher, you will never know what the Judge was told about your views, the same with police, health visitors etc. Everything relies on the social worker, and the sad reality is that they cannot be relied upon to present truthful information.
Social workers are not accountable.
The LA do not investigate conduct of court proceedings.
The ombudsman does not investigate conduct of court proceedings.
The GSCC does not investigate conduct court proceedings,
The family are not allowed to discuss the proceedings with the other agencies to establish the truth.
The Judge's role is to decide the child's future based on the expert reports, the basis of which rely on the interagency assessments relayed by the social worker!

Helisa, Southport, Merseyside

I originally wrote in support of your article, but on reflection, and from my experience as a former secondary Head Teacher well used to social cases, I think that it does not give a balanced view.

Before coming to court the primary case social worker would have to involve other agencies such as the police, education authorities, Health Service who would have their own independent views on the case. The judge would also be independent. The family would have the opportunity to call on an the court ad litum, or a member of the legal profession, to represent their interests as well as recourse to the appropriate Ombudsman. Finally, the family could call on their MP to act in confidence. Could it be that the family have not helped themselves through ignorance, inability to cope or simple bloody mindedness?

You need to address these matters before I am totally convinced that you have given a fair summary of the case rather than creating an unfair sensation. Answer reqd pls

Roy , Sandwich, Kent

Jane!
The important factor in the family court regulations is not whether the press and public can be admitted.As you say few if any spectators or journalists would bother to turn up !
What is vital is the democratic right of PARENTS who wish to protest to the media against what they perceive as the unjust removal of their children and the consequent right of the media to make all the details known publicly in the interests of justice and possible law reform.
Social Services advertise children for adoption on the internet and in periodicals with colour photos ,birth dates,and first names so their concern for concealing the identities of children involved in family proceedings is completely bogus!

ian josephs, monte carlo, monaco

Can I just point out that the press have always had access to the magistrates' Family Proceedings Courts, in which all public law Family cases start, and where a large number of cases are settled without being transferred to the higher courts. There are some reporting restrictions in place, which are designed to protect the parties (and especially the children) involved. In 10 years of working in these courts, I have never ever seen or heard of a press representative attending.

http://www.jsboard.co.uk/publications/rrmc/mf_03.htm

Jane , London,

Readers may think this story is remote from their everday lives but please note that if you have children, it could very well be you involved in a nightmare with social services.
Social services in the UK receive around 550,000 to 600,000 referrals per annum. These range from clear indications of abuse to malicious gossip and tittle-tattle.
However, once you're in the system, you have very few rights and are utterly dependant on the social servcies and related agencies using sensible judgement and being objective about your case. If this is not the case, then you will find it almost impossible to bring any attention to the way social services have viewed your case, particularly if it reaches the family law courts.
It is instructive that the miscarriages of justice (and the ruining of Meadow and Southall's reputations) in the Cannings and Patel cases only came to light in the open criminal courts.

AH, Brighton, UK

Paul from Bristol: a lone voice of reason amongst a sea of hysteria.

Nick, Bath,

"I suspect there is more to this story than has been reported. Our public authorities are not in the business of taking children from their parents out of malice."

Jamie, London

Actually this is entirely untrue. The sad case is, with the hijacking of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) by the psychiatric profession (in collusion with the goverment) and attempted reduction of the disease from a neurological illness to a psychiatric conditon (which goes against WHO classifaction of the disease), children with M.E. are being targeted and removed from their parents because their parents are helping them to continue with their "faulty illness beliefs" rather than being concerned parents with their childs best interests at heart.

Incidently, I was persecuted for 1 year by social services on a trumped up charge of child neglect based on the fact my "child is thin." It took a year to clear myself and caused me so much stress I lost my job. So that ended up really benefiting my child and I.

Sally, Plymouth,

"The court appeared to blame her for not ending her marriage more quickly, which had put strain on the boy, while social workers seemed to insist that she now build a good relationship with the man she had left. Eventually, she came to believe that the local authority intended to have her son adopted. She also seems to have feared that they would take away her new baby, Hugh's baby, when it was born."

I'm mystified as to why people almost unanimously agree with Camilla. Her article is liberally sprinkled with words like "seems" and "appears" and "believed" but no actual facts. Personally, I don't feel I am in a position to make any judgement on the merits or demerits of this case and certainly not on the basis of this article. Do all the people writing in know something about this case that I don't?

Marion Morrison, cheltenham,

I asked social services (children with disability team) for help with my severely autistic son. I was told to go GP and get antidepressants (assumption bad parenting not my sons disability). It took 5 years for support be approved alas many services such as MENCAP are oversubscribed and there is a 2 year waiting list for help. I reached such a low point and asked for my son to be placed in foster care. I also have a daughter who has autism. I had also split with their dad. Once in the care system (although I retained guardianship) I had to prove my worth and fight to have him back. I was made to attend parenting courses/counselling. Parenting courses/counselling/antidepressants were used against me (by SS) as evidence of my bad parenting. I had a major fight on my hands to get my son back. Luckily I am articulate and found the best way to deal with them was to write everything down. trust nothing to verbal agreement - parents are treated like guilty criminals!

Carol J, London,

(a) These courts take children from loving parents who have committed no crime. (b) These parents lose their children for ever to adoption by strangers. The children adopted are refused access to records of their birth parents or siblings at least until they are 18, and usually for the rest of their lives; (c) Parents are GAGGED and regularly sent to prison in secret proceedings if they reveal what went on in court; (d) judges make decisions to take thousands of babies in case of risk of possible future emotional abuse - “Emotional abuse” has has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection. WHY? - The Government have set a number of targets on adoption, in particular to increase the numbers of looked after children who are adopted from care.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297573.stm

A parent who fought back, London,

Reading this sickening article I am asking fot the Times to set up a petition.

The Comment from another writer says it all.
...............................................................................................................
It is a fundamental principle of the legal system that justice be done publicly, and in a manner open to scrutiny. This should apply to family courts just as it does to every other court.
................................................................................................................

Stalinist Britain

Trish Niblock, Edinburgh, Scotland

It is the 'secrecy' in family law that allows incompetence and bias to flourish.

Social Services/Cafcass reports are unable to be challenged within a system that protects its own 'lawyers, judges & SW's/Cafcass' instead of protecting children and families.

As the recent damning OFSTED report into Cafcass showed, many of these workers in the secret family law system are so far removed from any kind of scrutiny they do not even understand there is a problem, this goes for the lawyers and judges who are immune to scrutiny as well.

Other countries have an open family law system that works well for those involved, why is the the UK 30 years behind when many children's and families welfare is being destroyed by the incompetence and bias within the UK system.

Jeff, Surrey,

I hope the social workers, and possibly the judges, Crown Prosecution Service's lawyers and even some members of the current Government are aware that when the law is changed - and it will be, one day - this tyranny will be exposed. They will then be abandoned and treated like criminals for what they have perpetrated, just like the former leaders in similar regimes such as Argentina, Iraq and Serbia.
And for them to argue that they were "only obeying orders" will rightly fall on deaf ears.
Unfortunately, this will not undo the many tragedies effected by their secret courts and will rightly remain an open wound in the international standing of British justice, its legal system and so-called democratic traditions.
Our own Augean Stables need to be cleaned without further delay.

Robert , Moscow, Russia

What a luck I Thought to live in France: here the social services are concerned about how NOT take your kids! Since it would be too much of a hassle in their work. Nevertheless, the State in the EU is becoming increasingly stern and blind... Should we stand this any longer, and ask for openness?
Jacques, Lyon

Hennebert, Lyon, France

I wonder why no one ever went with this to European Court of Human Laws in Strasbourg. These secret courts are very much like stalinist Russia.

Bronek Kozicki, Isleworth, Middlesex

Chris, France,

"Out of interest the new Treaty allows police from one EU state to arrest someone from another EU state in their own country so go to it people."

Why do you think it is being kept secret - it is to protect the social workers silly!

Morvan, Saulieu, France

Camilla - what can be done.

Surely the Times can publish this story overseas so we can see the evils done in our name and paid for by our money? This cannot be allowed to rest after recent family court travesties. We need some facts or names

The justice system is being destroyed from within by the incompetence and cowardice of our judiciary.

TC, London,

I suppose the first question has to be asked is, Does the writer have all the facts? I would guess not. This case sounds exceptional, but generally speaking public agencies are bound by a duty of confidentiality, while families who go to the media are giving their point of view, which may not be totally accurate. Family law cases are held in private - not in secret - to protect the children involved. More broadly, who would want details of their private family lives to be splashed across the newspapers? Who would want voyeuristic strangers sitting in court listening to intimate details of their lives? More importantly, who would want to do that? Sounds to me like a charter for paedophiles, perverts, busybodies and nosey parkers

Richard, Bexhill, UK

This nulabor government's principle of dispensing justice secretly and unlawfully is not confined to child welfare issues - it is becoming increasing ubiquitous

martin brighton, sheffield,

Well done, Camilla! Unfortunately, this kind of story is not as unusual as may seem to many readers. Great that someone still dares put this kind of story into the media, it is frightening what goes on around us today and has been going on for years when it comes to forcing children into care. And now all present are expected to sign on as citizens, presumably to enable 'big brother' to control us even more effectively.
WM, London

WM, London,

How can a parent be said to abduct his or her own child?
It's those who want to take the child from the parents who are the abductors. Camilla Cavendish's reportage is not the only kafkaesque nightmare happening in Britain today. She should take a look at the people being 'sectioned' in England simply because they have upset a social service worker and have no way of getting out of the mental home they get put into. It's in the interests of these so called social workers to put children into care or section people so as to perpetuate their own jobs which are usually filled by people who the State need to get off the dole because they could not get employment elsewhere.

john bentley, loule, Algarve

Excellent article, very well written, and should be made more public, and available to a larger audience. I have already added my signature to the Downing Street e-petitions, and would urge anyone who feels strongly about this issue to do so also. Secretive family courts have no place in a civilized society. This family has been show a horrendous injustice. The husband should be freed from prison, and the wife allowed to return to the UK with the guarantee that she will get a fair hearing with her MP, the press, and the public made aware of the process. Only then can these social workers be made to be accountable for their actions.

Ex-pat, Taipei, Taiwan

I can understand a court preventing publication under extreme circumstances, but to combine this with an order not to talk to the MP involved is neither justice nor defensible morality. Does the MP concerned know of the case? Has the MP asked a relevant question in the house? If not, why not?

All readers please email to your MP immediatelydemanding that this question be tabled for a reply in the House. My email is already on its way.

KR, Stockport,

It is all too easy to lament the past or believe ourselves powerless. But we are not. We have journalists like Camilla Cavendish, who write in the finest traditions of British journalism - to expose wrongdoing, and protect those who can not protect themselves. She has the strength of The Times behind her. We can write to our MPs and challenge this. I have enormous faith in the common sense, decency and humanity of the British people.
'...we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet'
It is time and high time that we did.

Andrew, Suffolk,

It's been a long time since I've felt like my once-great Britain was one of 'the good guys'.

Anna, Plymouth, UK

The dividing line between a democracy and dictatorship is not as wide as we might think.

KD, Devon, UK

It is half a step.

John, Reading, uk

A Richards' argument can apply to any court case. It is therefore worthless. It is a fundamental principle of the legal system that justice be done publicly, and in a manner open to scrutiny. This should apply to family courts just as it does to every other court.

Tim, Auckland, New Zealand

Winston Churchill in the general election after the war said that "the socialists will have IN THE END to resort to gestapo methods ...."
As usual a far seeing man who noone beleived.
Because he understood the nature of sociailism not just listend to thier words and promises.
Jospeh Goebells that father of political spin (lies in other words) Said that if you tell alie long enough and loud enough people begin to beleive it.It is the states job(an imoral one of course)to not only uphold the lie but to protect the people from the consequences of beleiving the lie.:The truth then becomes the enem of the lie and in consequence the truth becomes the enemy of the state."
Well the lie of socialism is that every person is an economic unit and is belongs to the state.
The propagte the lie that to rob the (so called) rich to give the to the poor is justyfied.
Yet when the rich get poor you dont get rich poor people you will get beggers.
What you are seeing is what Churchill saw in 1945.

G Blezard, London, uk

I find it very hard to believe that cases like this are happening in the UK - of all places! The twin evils of authoritarianism and secrecy have clearly become endemic in our system of government, and this trend has already gone much too far. I thought cases like this only happened happened in Nazi Germany and the old Communist countries. It is high time that we all took action to reclaim our lost freedoms - e.g. by emigrating to Eastern Europe!

Anthony Burns, Banbury, UK

Yes, the father is hero.

Justice conducted in the shadows can never be fair.

My advice is get out of the UK and find freedom abroad.

John Rawlins, Valencia, Spain

I find it hard to see why the courts need to be secret. For example a small child of a primary school age does not read papers and is unlikely to make the evening news. Neither for that matter do his peers and they probably have little ability to understand the situation.

What is the problem in opening up the courts and naming the parents and allowing the evidence to be out in the public. In the case of an older child subject to serious abuse then some protection of her identity could be provided. After all if she goes into care then who is going to know that Jenny Smith is actually the daughter of the parents in question if pictures were not allowed.

In any case once the child is an adult would they not want to know the reasoning behind putting them into care in the first place.

John, Egremont,

I can imagine your outcry if it was the child's father who had abducted him. Dads and their kids are usually the victims of family courts but in this case the judge wanted the youngster to stay in touch with his biological father. This kidnapping is now preventing that from happening and, as always, it is the child who will lose out most.

Trist, London,

What about the human rights act I am sure that no continental country would adopt such secret state machinery as regards family matters. Its about time the tables are turned on these so called do gooders and have them arrested when they leave the UK for acts against the person and see how they like it. Out of interest the new Treaty allows police from one EU state to arrest someone from another EU state in their own country so go to it people.

Chris, France,

Kafka-esque.

Jonathan, Southampton,

This case just sums up what is happening to Britain throughout our government.There is a sickness running through the whole corrupt edifice,the sickness of "the authorities knows best and whatever you think or say we will ignore".
Common Sense has no place in this way of thinking and with the increase in red tape and bureaucracy it can only get worse.
We need fewer laws,bureaucrats,quangos,regional authorities,officials but where oh where is any politican who will stand up and say it.There arn't any as they are all part of the same system.
My heart goes out to this family.

Nigel, wimbledon,

This writer's emphasis is on the distress caused to the mother by the Family Court system. Usually it is the father that suffers most from the injustices of the Family Courts and the Social Workers/Probation officers of CAFCASS. Their decision cannot be challenged and small children can be bullied by them with impunity. One day a British Prime Minister will have to say "sorry" for the generations of children that have been torn apart from one of their parents (usually the father, but occasionally the mother).

Jyotin, Georgetown, Cayman Islands

Basil of Cambridge calls for a petition on a government website to be started. If you visit the 10 Downing Street website, select e-petitions and type "family Courts" into the search engine, you will find that petitions calling for opening up the family courts have already begun. What needs to happen is the existence of the petitions to be publicised. Everyone who has a website, youTUBE, Facebook etc and the various childrens / parents organisations and the media should publicise this or create a link from their own site. If this happened, the current pitiful amount of signatures for this very serious subject may increase to the same levels as those calling for Jeremy Clarkson to become Prime Minister.

Andrew, Lancs, England

justice and family proceding don`t go togheter in the country.
i have my two children adocted from birth because my ex partner is paranoich. because of this after fostering go in adoption.
sound so tragich, tis is nothing compared to the only a year visit who i am be allowed by the social worker.
and this year 5 and 8 i don`t have my visit yet.
in the country of east origin is worse ?
somebody there...you are not alone
i can provide you..with food ,shelter...
security...

fernando torchia, london, england

An fellow student at uni had her own child taken into care then went on to be a social worker! Says it all really!

sophie, london,

Well done for breaking this tragic story and having the courage to expose the shameful secrecy of the family court system.

One has to ask, what exactly, is the point of social workers?

They are either conspicuously absent when they are needed as in the Victoria Climbie case or completely obsessed with taking the children of families who have never ever abused them. It is such a frequently recurring pattern in the news, media and in anecdotal experience that I think that we will all be a lot better off if we just abolished the vaguely defined profession of social work.

It is even more disturbing to hear the same people defend so-called professionals who have made disastrous errors like Dr. Southall or Prof. Roy Meadow. Yes, it is high time to end the secrecy of family courts, put social workers out-of-work, hold professionals to account and find new ways or methods of protecting children.

Who is going to protect us from the child-protectors?

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

Instead of complaining about secrecy and the suppression of names, Camilla Cavendish ought to name names. As a journalist she is honour bound to do so. And The Times is honour bound to support her to the hilt. And if the price is prosecution by the authorities and even jail, so be it. Courage and integrity will ultimately win the day.

Eve Ventura, Nottingham, UK

It is a bitter irony that their department is known as (the) SS.

Tricia, Sussex, uk

Is the man called Hugh still in prison ? Surely we can campaign to get him out. He needs to keep his business going to support his family. To imprison this man who only stands by his family is vicious; if he loses his business too then the actions against him are unbelievably evil.

Judy, Leighton, Beds

If everyone cares so much, why hasn't anyone set up a petition here: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/
yet?...

sarah, London, UK

I used to believe that professionalism meant doing the best for the people you serve. Now I know that people want stats to move up their career ladder, or choose not to have any interest so that they can go home to their chilled chablis with no intention of questioning the rightness or wrongness of their actions.

Stay out of the way of professionals. Inform yourself about every surgical procedure and even how a plumber's visit should go.
Ask questions, and never leave anything in the "safe" hands of the "experts."

Maria, Santa Barbara/Las Vegas, USA

This is a shocking story. Many thanks for writing about it, and as another reader urged, please pursue the case. It merits thorough media scrutiny.
Emily, Beijing

Emily , Beijing,

"It is a malevolent machine of Orwellian proportions," writes Carolyn Abernathy from the USA, but strangely enough (or actually, not strange at all, given the state of Britain today), there are plenty of Britons who are willing to go along with this. What did one say about Hitler's willing helpers? No "ship of state" can function without its trusties, and it seems that Britons are only too happy to provide that support if it puts food on the table. Of course, those supporters and helpers would be incensed and greatly offended to be told that they are helping to persist this blot on Britain's escutcheon. They think they are doing the right thing.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

This is a valuable article, highlighting an evil which many fear. Few of us now believe the courts are on our side. The secret family courts keep producing evil-smelling scandals. Let them be opened up. In an age when no-one knows their neighbours, is there really a pressing need for all this secrecy?

Roger, Ipswich, UK

To A Richards. You say that "without a doubt, if the family court system hearings were public, you and your ilk would primarily rake over the juicy scandals, not the miscarriages of justice.." That is the argument which is made, by judges and most recently Lord Falconer, to keep the press muzzled and the family courts secret. I don't disagree that some journalists would seek "juicy" details. But a properly managed system could strike a balance. The fact is that as long as the courts remain secret, shocking miscarriages of justice will continue. I do a great deal of research on the cases I write about, and I assure you that they do matter. What is wrong is that these people should only be able to find their voice through me.

Camilla Cavendish, London,

PUBLISH!! Take a stand for free speech and what is right, publish the names of the social workers and the judge and the full facts, and dare the government to take you to court. This is what journalism in a free country is about, this is what is required of a paper with the reputation and resources of the Times. Publish, now, and you will have done something good and valuable.

Rob, London,

I suspect there is more to this story than has been reported. Our public authorities are not in the business of taking children from their parents out of malice.

It is not for us to judge the imagined "secret State" guilty, and certainly not based on one person's version of events. This is particularly so when this article concerns the absence of fair trial.

Jamie, London, UK

I hope that The Times has the guts to keep pushing this until justice prevails.

David Bevan, Watford,

Well done for breaking this tragic story and having the courage to expose the shameful secrecy of the family court system.

One has to ask, what exactly, is the point of social workers?

They are either conspicuously absent when they are needed as in the Victoria Climbie case or completely obsessed with taking the children of families who have never ever abused them. It is such a frequently recurring pattern in the news, media and in anecdotal experience that I think that we will all be a lot better off if we just abolished the vaguely defined profession of social work.

It is even more disturbing to hear the same people defend so-called professionals who have made disastrous errors like Dr. Southall or Prof. Roy Meadow. Yes, it is high time to end the secrecy of family courts, put all the social workers out-of-work, hold professionals to account and find new ways or methods of protecting children.

Who is going to protect us from the child-protectors?

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

My (now ex) great neice has been convicted of child abuse towards her son, she burnt him in various places on his body with a lighter, but maintained until 2 days before the trial she didn't know what happened or how they got there. He was taken into care, fostered by a wonderful couple and later adopted by a distant relative on their side of the family. She fell pregnant again, the social services muttered about child care lessons, home visits etc. She didn't turn up to supervised visits with her son, she wasn't in court on days when she should have been. She lost the baby, promptly fell pregnant again, the same noises were made by social services - again. But nothing was actually done when she finally had the child. She now lives in a bedsit, with a big dog, and has repeatedly left the baby on it's own while she goes 'out' and is trying to get the adoption reversed as she wants her oldest child back. It works both ways, something is going to have to change.

Name withheld, London,

I say well done too!! I fostered for years and years and met some very shady characters! SW's obsessed with sex! One poor boy in my care was charged with rape and put on the sex crimes register because he may have 'done it' with another child. Another time I was threatened with having a foster child 'taken away' because I fed her brocolli which didn't reflect her previous lifestyle. I could go on and on. I agree with other letter writers that it would be a justice if those involved could be made answerable. Believe me some social workers are dangerous!!

Diane, Cambridge, England

I am a child care lawyer. I happen to be in favour of more openess, not least because a more balanced view of child protection could then be given. For example, few people know that the baby wrongly removed by the LA was made the subject of an interim care order and removed lawfully the next day. The balance to be struck is between allowing the press access to report the essential facts and reasons behind a decision and protecting children from the harm of adverse publicity. Children in care have a raw enough deal as it is. I suspect that if all the facts about the above case were in the public domain it would not seem so outrageous. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents in this case have not been well advised and have acted unwisely. It's worth noting that the Govt's legal aid reforms will lead to a drastic reduction in the number of competent child care lawyers. Finally any party may disclose a judgement to his MP for the purposes of making a complaint.

Paul, Bristol, UK

Camilla Cavendish, if you know the names of the officials in this story you have a duty to name them and equally I have a duty to contribute to your legal costs. I'm ready.

Roger, Southwark,

The IPCC encourages transparency in policing, the BMA overlooks practice in the medical professions, teachers are regularly and publicly inspected by Ofsted. Social workers, particularly those working in child welfare, don't seem to be required to conform to similar controls. Family courts conduct cases with too few checks and balances. Of course, there will be a need of privacy for some, but for others, that same secretiveness allows for miscarriages of justice to take place with horrendous results. Isn't it time for the legal system to move this along?

R Thorn, Kent,

It's a shameful disgrace for our country.

But this depressing and chilling facet of our social services has been reported upon before, and still nothing has changed.

Will the politicians ever take on this issue as part of an election campaign? I hope so, but of course this is unlikely to happen as all the restrictions on reporting the problem prevent it getting the publicity the politicos crave.

Pete, Bristol, UK

What is missing from the above comments are the views of those taken into care. I have rarely heard from anyone who has been the child subjected to the above situation. I'm not saying that they feel differently - those that I have heard from have been unremittingly negative, and "care" as anyone will admit, is a misnomer. May be the small numbers of complaints from the "cared for" kids might be related to their generally poor educational acheivements, above-average dysfunctional behaviour and frequent criminality - there aren't many opportunities for access to computers in prison and if you don't know how to use them? The sad fact is that government is routinely the poorest route to decide anything and with childcare, what can we do to improve it? This needs to be looked at but is there anything being done about it? Time to forget sexy and worthy politics - how about some real politics?

John, Knutsford, UK

This seems unbelievable but then there was that recent case where social workers snatched a child as it was born and then had to return it.
The trouble is that there is no proper supervision of these people - these sorts of lower courts do not work properly as they will be too inclined to trust the social workers they know as opposed to parents whom they do not.
It should be the last resort to take children away from their parents and should be based on proper evidence other than the social workers' word or other professionals who are part of the system. There is a need for parents to have affordable access to support and advice so that social workers have to work to help families.
As you say the biggest issue is the secrecy which cannot be justified. That should be ended and the social workers should be subject to the normal public review of their work - if they are doing a good job they have nothing to fear. If they are acting improperly they should not be able to hide in secret.

Tim Richter, Charlwood, UK

I agree with the previous poster - why is this shocking story hidden away in Comments - why is this not on the Headlines?

LondongirlinManchester, Manchester, UK

The rule of law no longer exists in Britain, we're very, VERY close to being a fascist police state and the media especially needs to wake up and start working with the people, the people are ready. Just leak the people's names and watch a nation stand by you, people have just about had enough, it's time for change!

Mriam, Paris,

Camilla,
why dont you start a petition on a government website concerning this issue??

Basil, Cambridge,

1- I had no idea that the state could force a gag order on anyone (in the UK, that is - here it is the norm, the 'segredo de justica', very convenient to keep things hush-hush). I'm appalled!

3- This is sadly not an isolated case in the UK - there are many more, including the recent one of the young pregnant girl who, too, had to flee the UK in order to be able to keep her baby.

2- As someone else has already asked: WHY is this not on the front pages of every newspaper in the UK?! When did newspapers become so afraid of the state? What can we, ordinary citizens, do to make sure this practice STOPS once and for all? Whatever has made people too afraid (or indiferent?) to go out on the streets to protest and express their 'revolt'?

MJ, Lisbon, Portugal

I am not surprised at all by the article, the vast majority of social workers lack common sense and once they start on a course of action nothing will deter them from their goal, not even devine intervention. They pay far more attention to their budgets and targets and ride rough shod over the feelings and needs of families. Why do people not complain more, because they are either frightened, or simply too exhausted to.

Marguerite, Auxerre, France

Well done, Camilla Cavendish. Thank you for writing about this. I echo other's comments about publicity.

It is noteworthy however that a website set up outside UK juristiction could say what it liked.

John, Birmingham, UK

Well done Camilla - don't drop this case - you have more support than you could ever imagine.

Secrecy is used to protect national security and to conceal incompetence and professional embarrassment – it has no place in most courts of justice.

There was recently an outcry from MPs about their special relationship with a constituent and yet this woman was ordered NOT to talk with her MP! Where is the outrage from these MPs now?

R Bingham, Lauzun, France

Secret or private? One can understand that as a journalist, it sticks in your craw that you can't open up the family courts to pore over all the juicy details of failed relationships and family's in trouble. Think of the fun you would have had if you could have had access to the McCartney hearings. That, rather than any real concern over the welfare of children and families, is why you want a system where you can post pictures of children across newspapers. Without a doubt, if the family court system hearings were public, you and your ilk would primarily rake over the juicy scandals, not the miscarriages of justice (don't seem to manage that in the criminal system...)

The court structure does operate with accountability and scrutiny, it just doesn't always end up with the result that pleases the family. It might be beneficial to open it up in that sense, to really show how little miscarriages of justice there are, and just some bloody awful parents (middle class or not)

A Richards, London,

Ms. Cavendish, well done for writing this story... but.... Why not go one step further. Name names and publish the story in full. With the full glare and light the Times and its support would bring would at most bring a slap on the wrist for you and maybe help right the wrongs of such injustice. It's a lot to ask, but really, isn't that why you are a journalist?

Dave, Coimbra, Portugal

In recent years several children have died whilst the family have been "looked after" by the Social Services (SS). SS workers deemed not guilty of murder by the Courts. Orkney - years of hell for parents until SS shown to have fabricated evidence. Notts case recently when SS ILLEGALLY abducted child (compensation granted) BUT another (Note: a LESS Senior) Court then decided child could be removed by the SS from family after all. Our country is no longer a democracy. All this has heartache has been caused by THE UNELECTED (courts and SS) poking their noses into other peoples lives and destroying them for no good purpose.

Angus MUNRO, DONCASTER, UK

Funny how this becomes a 'monumental injustice' when a woman goes through what men have been suffering for years.

Derek S, Dundee,

The problem with social workers (and have I known a few), is that you have to have troubles yourself to be attracted to the profession. People without issues tend enter other more mainstream professions.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

Come on, Mr Murdoch! This article could and should be stronger than this. With your financial clout, you could employ the best lawyers in the land to drive a coach and horses through any action taken against The Times and its journalists if they "named and shamed". What happened to Publish and be Damned? Injustice MUST be confronted with all guns blazing.

John Tomlinson, Brentwood, UK

I have been caught up in a horrendous international legal battle and UK law allowed the police to come in the middle of the night and to take me away in handcuffs in front of my children.
During the course of the legal proceedings, the court applied a gag order threatening me with contempt of court if I went to the press. My story has a happy ending but it was a horrendous fight and there are more battles against injustice going on all the time. You can read about some of them on the website 'jessicasvoice'. This legal proceedings should not be held in secret with threat of imprisonment. The dividing line between a democracy and dictatorship is not as wide as we might think.

KD, Devon, UK

Social workers and the whole social services infrastructure have a vested interest in taking children into care - it guarantees their employment and increases their power. If they didn't do it, they wouldn't have a job and so the whole industry is self-perpetuating. The fact that they keep the whole process secret as described above only confirms this.

Mark, York,

Secret family courts are indefensible, protecting only those with vested interests, wishing to remain unaccountable. It has nothing whatever to do with the protection of children, who are in desperate need of a system open to challenge, and everything to do with hiding the mistakes and incompetence of those administering the family courts. Eventually, this grossly unjust system will be exposed, scandals will follow and fortunes will be spent in compensation. By then, of course, the real costs will have been unimaginable.

Alan Johnson, ALTON,

I know 4 social workers: One, married an emotionally unsettled woman who almost immediateley had an affair leading to seperation and divorce. Another appears to be anorexic and has had a child with a very unsuitable partner who subsequently left her.The other two were just not that intelligent .

the thought that this calibre of person is responsible for the welfare of our children and appears to operate with impunity from the law gives me sleepless nights.

Martin, Solihull, England

God Almighty have mercy.

Farrukh, Woking, UK

This is an appalling story, if it's all true. I'm particularly revolted by the assertion that 'the local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP'. What legal validity did this kind of threat possess? Was it an apparatchik overreaching his authority, or are petty bureaucrats entitled to attack members of the public whilst legally preventing them from defending themselves? Whilst you might not be able to investigate this particular case, you can rigorously investigate this kind of abuse of power so that whatever structures exist that enable these things to occur can be exposed to public scrutiny and torn down. There is no moral difference between this kind of behaviour and the incarceration of people without due process in Guantanamo Bay, Russia and other illiberal and oppressive countries.

Jacques Francis, Westcott, UK

I can't see that making it public would change things. Courts and tribunals make crazy decisions in public. What is needed is an effective appeal procedure. Social workers seem to be getting out of hand these days.

andrew, swindon, uk

Whilst the events are distressing, the most dispiriting factor is that the journalists will now move on to another story; the editor will not want to continue printing old news; the authorities involved know this is how the game is played and in less than a week we will be given something else to find apalling. How about just for once, the media apply all its skills and power to keep this as front page news and to press not for this particular case, but for the end to the absolute secrecy of these courts. Why not take the argument that the individual was ordered not to talk to her MP as a good basis fora challenge to the system.

However it is sadly guaranteed that this story will simply sink away from the press like all the others of its type.

Jonathan Mills, Brighton,

Social workers. What can we say about them, when children suffer years of abuse right in front of their PC eyes and nothing is done until the child ends up on a mortuary slab?

Like the tax inspectors, they go for the easy prey: people who are open and who make themselves accountable to the authorities.

The kinds of minds which now govern this country, already with a mania for control, have become so degenerate, so warped and perverted, and so incapable of empathy or sympathy that our only course is to make our own laws for our own lives.

These laws should be in accordance with conscience instead of the mealy-mouthed bits of paper which the government pass around and hide behind. The government is not fit to rule over a toilet. It is every man for himself.

iain carstairs, bedford, uk

From what I see, social workers normally have more personal problems than their clients.

Johny, Kings Langley, England

Isn't part of the problem that social workers are themselves acting in a climate of fear? They fear the next media backlash and attack in the event a child is abused and not removed from a home and then goes onto be further abused or die, so instead they take a 'safety first' approach, that sadly results in almost a reversal of the presumption of innocence.

Sadly in this culture of blame and fear (for which the media and politcians must take their apportionment of blame and not merely point again at social workers) it is the children that are too often the losers, as appears to tragically the case here.

David, Amsterdam,

Why is this story tucked away in comments when it should be headline news for all to see?

George, Glasgow, UK

There is "The Law" and there is "Justice". They are not the same. England is getting more laws (daily) and less justice.

Ray Warren, Dartmouth,

Why doesnt someone lodge the full story on YouTube or similar? Once it's out in the public domain, maybe those of us who sit back and watch while our rights are slowly diminished will finally stand up and be counted. This sort of thing is happening to often, In law there is no place for secrecy. Justice for all? Dont make me laugh.

Wendy Lamb, bergerac,

Allow any organistaion to operate in secret and it will inevitably oppress and abuse as sure as night follows day. It doesnt matter whether it is the gestapo, a Magdalen laundry or indeed the British courts it is unavoidable.

The social services organistaion in this case is now anxious to avoid any daylight on their activities no doubt compounded by the usual unbelievable incompetance endemic in local authorities.

John Rowland, Rochford, Essex

We frequently see references to estate agents or tax inspectors being the most unpopular people. They are not. It is social workers who take taht prize as some of them seem to be pure evil - remember the 'Satanic' abuse scares?

Craig, Liverpool, UK

As they say in Glasgow - "it's easier to get your child away from a rottweiller than it is to get it away from a social worker".

Our country really is going to the dogs.

Gordon, Glasgow,

words can not express my horror at this injustice.

gfplux, Luxembourg,

Thank you for publishing this story. It highligts the destructive power of over zealous social workers. Why aren't they using their powers to help abused children who so often end up dead or maimed for life. The husband should waste no time in taking his case to the ECJ.

r. Ince, ISTANBUL, Turkey

This is far from being an isolated case. In the East of England babies are being taken away from parents in increasing numbers and rapidly adopted because it is cheaper than providing decent family support, or putting children into care. Social workers have to harden themselves against the distress they cause the parents, and do so by caricaturing them as hopeless. Local authorities boast of reducing numbers of children in care - sounds as though they are helping families do better! - but they should reveal the number of court ordered seizures and adoptions their staff apply for each year. Who is left to care for the vulnerable parents? Only those savvy enough to get a smart, committed lawyer , or a highly principled social worker who will stand up to the bullying stand a chance, and few have the funds to get help.

Daniel, Cardiff, UK

Family Courts in a democratic nation with a long and venerable history of individual freedoms should be ruled by the best interests of the child, not the best interests of the State and of its career social workers.
Down with the Star Chamber. Up with the Family.

D. L. Pitchford, Juris Doctor, Clovis,

Sounds much like the Australian child 'care' meted out to the Aboriginal's children for which the Oz government has recently made a decent apology. I wonder when or if a UK government will ever admit the injustice rather than leave things to those that they believe know best! Difficult to believe it can still happen today in Britain.

Colin Bedwell, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Surely if the mother is outside the UK with both children then she is free to tell the story now?

Mark, Westminster, UK

When NYC had its crack epidemic in the 1980s, Family Court judges were removing children from their mothers at birth,while still in the hospital, because of a positive cocaine toxicology. This overwhelmingly affected poor Black and Hispanic families, and once a family was disrupted thus, the odds against family reunification were poor.

I was a caseworker then and ran up against biased judges who were so afraid of a negative outcome ( and afraid of the possible damage to their careers) that they took the drastic step of removing children on scant evidence. Cases involving alleged sex abuse were similarly disposed, as were those alleging corporal punishment.

I can well understand why this family decided to defy the system. Family Court is intractable and does not always act in the child's best interests. It is a malevolent machine of Orwellian proportions.

Carolyn Abernathy, Glenham, NY U.S.A.

One can imaging an intelligent and open minded social worker being told that the decisions had already been made and it would be better to drop out of this case. After all wasn't the employment contract up for review at the end of the month. You don't want to jepardise that, do you?
Thus all social worker sing the same song.

Mike Sedgwick, Eastleigh, UK

With respect, fathers have been pointing out this utterly repugnant situation for well over a decade. Unaccountable justice is justice denied. If it affects one group, gender, race or religion now it will soon enough affect everyone else.

Britons have known since Saxon times that the only fair justice is open, visible and accountable to one's peers. Family court is a disgrace which manipulates the lip service phrase "in the child's best interests" in ways which have nothing remotely to do with it.

Creeping unaccountability is not the exclusive domain of Family court: increasing denial of jury trial and legal aid, secret control order hearings, asbos and weeks of arbitrary detention added to new 'crimes' of the vaguest nature all create a climate in which justice itself is increasingly held in contempt.

The Rule of Law is best served by allowing justice to be seen to be done, without the dubious benefits of ministerial intervention, secrecy or special privilege.

RickH, Horley,

Kay Tie says you need a proper constitution. What if your new constitution also allows these tribunals to exist outside of proper scrutiny or recourse? Watch the news in Canada right now, where tribunals that were created as a result of our bill of rights operate outside of common law. What you need is not a new constitution but the restoration of English common law as the law of the land.

Mark Mealey, Calgary, Canada

Sadly these people operate in a vacuum of evil, seeking at every turn to justify their jobs and their budgets, and trampling over the interests of children and their parents or wellwishers with impunity. They need to be personally accountable financially when they misuse their powers for self-aggrandisement, and hauled before the courts. Justice must be SEEN to be done.

Michael Llewellyn, Bridgetown, Barbados

This reminds me of what I experienced in the US. It is NOT what one would expect in the UK. Please follow up this story .....it must indeed be publicized. Thank you for writing about this. At least the children are fine!

kja, london,

Things might change if adults who had been child victims of all this started coming forward demanding explanations or even compensation. Surely no one could then claim that secrecy was in the best interests of the child. Perhaps you should appeal for such people to contact you, Camilla. If you got that kind of evidence you might bring about some changes.

Peter Ryder, Middlewich, UK

And I always thought the UK had the best justice that money can buy.
Seriously, though, this is incredible. I just cannot understand how "Justice" could be so blinkered as to believe that "care" can ever be as good as normal or even near-normal life with a parent or both parents. While admitting that there are social service professionals who are good (ie they have the knowledge of life to understand that even the best parent, like all of us, has faults) in their work, sensible and humane - I believe that their training instils in some of them rigidity, a measure of arrogance and the belief that they and the state apparatus that they serve know best, leading to decisons that rive families asunder.
The Courts are probably also much to blame for relying too much on "experts".
The lawmakers responsible for the veil of secrecy described, which results in a denial of justice because the weak are not allowed to seek assistance, deserve to suffer as they make some families suffer.

Amin Aswet, Gibraltar,

What's happening to British morals and values? One of the reasons I am now living in France (may not be any better, but at least family values are held in high regard).

A disillusioned Scot

Simmy, Bordeaux,

Sounds like a HRA case, taken to the ECJ if necessary. A perfect example of why we need a proper constitution in this country to protect us all from the State.

Kay Tie, York,