Newborn taken off his parents by social workers after his father expressed ‘unorthodox views about the benefits of formula milk’.

Social workers from Kirklees Council took away the baby boy after his father had voiced his opinion about bottle sterilisation and feeding, shares Daily Mail.

A judge has since ordered the council to pay the family £11,250 in damages. ($18,000 au)

Mr Justice Cobb said there was ‘no doubt in my mind’ that the council had violated the family’s human rights – and even ‘misled’ a family judge.

Kirklees Council employees had persuaded the judge to sanction the baby being taken into emergency care without even telling his parents about the hearing.

The mother, in her 20s, suffered from minor mental health problems and other difficulties and the father had in the past been aggressive to others.

But staff at the special care baby unit where he was cared for in the days after his delivery had expressed ‘no child protection concerns’.

Maternity ward medics did, however, tell the council they were anxious about the couple’s long-term ability to care for their baby.

Among other things, they said the father had ‘expressed unorthodox views about the need for sterilisation of bottles and the benefits of formula milk.’

Just before the baby was due to be discharged from hospital into his parents’ care, the council rushed to court and obtained an emergency care order.

The baby was finally sent home to his parents about three months after his removal.

In the year since then, the judge said the boy had ‘continued to thrive in his parents care’.

He added: ‘There is no doubt in my mind, indeed it is admitted, that Kirklees Council breached the human rights of a baby boy and his parents.

‘I am satisfied that the breaches were serious… the separation of a baby from his parents represents a very serious interference with family life.’

Awarding the mother, the father and the little boy £11,250 in damages. ($18,000 au), the judge said that was ‘just and fair satisfaction’ for the wrongs done to them.

Share your comments below

Image Shutterstock

We may get commissions for purchases made using links in this post. Learn more.
  • so they could have tried to educate the people? some people just don’t know better and would benefit from parenting courses as long as they are fit and stable, mentally and emotionally. I think that it is good that they had concern for the child’s welfare but they need to work with the parents, not make them automatic enemies.


  • So good that this baby got to stay with his perfectly fine mum and dad


  • Seems like the first court magistrate was very wrong in his / her findings. Glad the lad was finally returned to his parents.


  • It’s really confusing. Often child protective people leave children in unsafe situations, and then there are other times when they blow things out of proportion. These bureaucrats really need better training to know when a child is in real danger or not.


  • What does unorthodox views mean? Quite emotionally devastating for this poor family with months of being apart. The judge ruled that the child has thrived in their care, so it all seems quite peculiar and an unnecessary interference in family life.


  • This does sound rather odd.
    IF those are all the facts then the people involved in removing the baby should have to undergo extra job training as they have failed big time.
    I agree that the family deserve a payment and im not sure that $18,000 is enough for missing the first 3 months of a childs life.


  • Maybe the council was a bit hasty in stepping in but obviously they were concerned for the baby’s health and wellbeing. This article should have given the father’s views on formula milk, bottles etc. They would have been concerned what feeds the baby was going to be given and whether or not the baby’s bottles were sterile for its teat to put in a baby’s mouth. The article states the father had been aggressive to others in the past. Was it towards children or women? Hopefully the Mother’s minor mental health and other issues had been treated during the time before the baby went back to his parents. No doubt we are only being given parts ot the story by the media which possibly isn’t accurate.


  • Unbelievable ! How damaging !!
    I think $18.000 isn’t so much for the emotional damage and stress the council has done to multiple people in the case (especially to both the parents and the baby).


  • This seems quite unusual – typically they would need to hear from the parents.


Post a comment
Like Facebook page

LIKE MoM on Facebook

Please enter your comment below
Would you like to include a photo?
No picture uploaded yet.
Please wait to see your image preview here before hitting the submit button.
Your MoM account

Lost your password?

Enter your email and a password below to post your comment and join MoM:

You May Like


Looks like this may be blocked by your browser or content filtering.

↥ Back to top

Thanks For Your Star Rating!

Would you like to add a written rating or just a star rating?

Write A Rating Just A Star Rating