not read all of the above but taking children into care because they were left with at 17 year old whilst parents were at work seems a bit OTT in it's own right.
There's 17 year olds with their own very young children who live alone with social services not involved
That is because the author will have reported a half truth [ i may be ebing kind saying it is half true] and presented it as the real reason.
The author is a complete idiot who hates scoial workers and regularily writes Daily mail type rants about social workers
He really really hates then and there are many "scare" stories out there of him misrepresenting the facts to make social workers look bad and portray them as illegal child snatchers who we should all be scared of.
In essence he writes poor polemics designed to simply attack social workers that are often factually innacurate
Christopher Booker has written a number of articles raising concerns about the Family Court system in England and Wales. But his writings on this issue have also drawn criticism from the judiciary for alleged inaccuracy. In a High Court judgement in April 2011, Judge Bellamy stated that: "Mr Booker's articles contain significant factual errors and omissions", and took issue with Booker on two cases he had covered:
"In the first article Mr Booker gives the impression that it was 'faint bruising' which prompted the parents to take L to hospital and which gave rise to what he clearly regards as the over-zealous and unjustified actions of social workers working for the same local authority so recently criticised by me in Re X, Y and Z (Children). As he will come to understand when he reads this judgment, it was in fact L's floppy arm which prompted his parents to take him to hospital. That floppy arm was the result of a spiral fracture of his left humerus. X-rays showed that he also had six metaphyseal fractures. In his first article Mr Booker makes no mention of any of those fractures. It was those fractures which led to the safeguarding measures taken – and in my judgment appropriately taken – by this hospital and by this local authority...
In his second article Mr Booker asserts as fact that in this case 'the council has depended, in its campaign to seize this baby, on the same controversial paediatrician about whom the judge was so excoriatory'... I shall refer to that doctor, as I did in Re X, Y and Z (Children), as Dr M. At no time has Dr M had any involvement at all in the case I am now concerned with. Indeed, to the best of my recollection his name has never even been suggested as a possible expert to be used in this case."
FWIW haviong worked in theis are it is nigh on impossible to get intervention and when they do "snatch" it is because of immenent danger.
Even if a social worker [ in relaity it will be social services/ support services first] was involved say via a CAF the goal is to suppor tthe parets to parent well
It is all Bollocks tell her not to worry