The decisions in my case were literally rubberstamped by a judge and I was denied a right to a contested hearing to make representations and challenge the parties therefore it is wilful ignorance to state other wise without insight into all cases

Julie Ann Cipriani, Wigan, Lancs

The Appeal courts ruled in their judgment that the care order and section 34 order was granted by default when I was denied a voice in the care proceedings and defrauded of my three children without any justifiable reason .I was the victim of domestic violence and I have all the documentary evidence

Julie Ann Cipriani, Wigan, Lancs

The guardian is far from independent! The one on my case was a social worker for the same borough involved in these proceedings in which i am the survivor of domestic violence

Julie Ann Cipriani, Wigan, Lancs

These courts hold secret meetings - it is in these meetings that the families fate is decided, NOT in the courtroom. It is an absolute scandal and must stop right now.

Barbara , Staffordshire, England

Social workers do not make 'sweeping decisions' about removing children. All decisions are ultimately made by a judge after hearing representations not only from the social workers and their solicitors, but also the parents and their respective solcitiors as well as an independent guardian.

Sarah, manchester,

Well done indeed on (somewhat) improving the secrecy issue.

As stated social workers have "sweeping powers." There is very little supervision of how they remove kids.

This case also shows how a parent is not permitted to even say they disagree.

This is like the Inquisition.

Shan Morgain, Newport Wales, UK

It Seems obvious that the mother loved her child very much and had taken some steps to improve her circumstances.This should be enough for the courts and social services to give her a second chance. The fact that she obviously hates the social services and the Courts shouldn't enter into it.

Nick, Brisbane, Australia

It is the gagging order which causes enormous psychological damage to parents
I had to have my jaws manipulated open,after 14 yrs silence.
The specialist was shocked when I explained why I was in such a state.

Barbaric and Draconian were the words he used.

I am a crocodile now who speaks out

Lady Portia, London, UK

These courts operate in an enviroment of incompitence so the secrecy laws work for them in hiding this fact trouble is this also includes lawyers socialworkers and often thepolice.They are all quilty of this conspiracy of silence, and there is no course for redress as the complaint is just dismissed

Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England

Times readers seem to be of the attitude that social workers are tyrannical dictators, desperate to take away our children at every oppurtunity. Judges take social worker's views into account and make their decision. In this case that decision seems very justified, to prevent "emotional harm" to S.

Lewis MacDonald, Nottingham,

This is the power social workers have. The family court judges do NOT DECIDE, they let their so called experts decide and they merely 'RUBBER STAMP' the decisions. I say this from first hand experience and I won't be surprised if I my family is in this situation due to CAFCASS!!!

Janeja, Loughborough,

It is great that the judgement has been published but there is still a question for me as to whose opinions on 'S' needs were accepted as fact by the the Judge. Of course an acrimonious divorce is very bad for a child but care proceedings and talk of adoption is surely much more harmful.

LM, Merseyside,

I think the whole civil court system need to be overhauled and this might be a good start. I would have a problem if i had a child taken with out very good reason and being open means the reasons had better be good and valid.

Nicola Clubb, Bournemouth, UK

And if she had not challenged the judgements social workers would of accused her of haveing no interest in her childs upbringing. Catch 22. The basic theory is ,social workers are always right,parents views are always wrong ; and they answer to no one . 1984 for kids and parents.

roscoe, Luton,Beds.., england

Well done indeed on (somewhat) improving the secrecy issue.

As stated social workers have "sweeping powers." There is very little supervision of how they remove kids.

This case also shows how a parent is not permitted to disagree.
This is like the Inquisition.

Shan Morgain, Newport Wales, UK

Judges frequently rubberstamp whatever SS says. SW's are free to "manage information to their advantage" and when they are caught, they are placed on medical leave so they can't testify in court. Rather than investigate the impropriety, another SW is put in place to start the charade over again.

Lynn, USA,

How can the reader come to a balanced judgment when press stories (both the Daily Mail and The Times) took the mother's side and did not disclose the parts unfavourable to her? (Particularly the conclusions of the assessment team at points f and g in para 19 of the judgment)

David Boothroyd, London, UK

The council wanted to keep the first child, and take her second child, even though mum was happily married to another man.

This father was an innocent man.
His unborn child was to be taken, for the violence of another man.

Can anyone please explain why innocent men are losing their children??

Sally Ann Cooke, Newport, South Wales

What is to be done? I hope someone is going to punish them? Are the social workers & councillors to be named? Arrested? Jailed? Preferably raped, beaten & tortured whilst in jail? Set fire to the Medway council building? If not, why?

John R, glasgow,

It is not the secrecy (privacy?) that matters so much as the GAGGING OF PARENTS ! A parent whose child has been taken should NEVER be gagged but should be free to reveal all details of injustice not sent to pris Outrageously a mother in the above case was forbidden to discuss it with her own son.

ian josephs, monte carlo monaco,