And Social services wonder why we are demonstrating.

Couple wrongly accused of abusing their baby cannot have their children back because it is 'too late', court rules
By Daily Mail Reportrs
Full story:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141811/Couple-children-adoption-miscarriage-justice-returned-judges-rule.html
Last updated at 3:18 PM on 11th February 2009
Comments (67) Add to My Stories
A couple who lost three of their children after they were accused of abuse may have been the victims of a miscarriage of justice, the Appeal Court has ruled.
But Nicky and Mark Webster were told they could not get their children back because it was 'too late', the court added.
The couple, from Cromer in Norfolk, were accused of inflicting multiple fractures on their baby boy in 2004.
Care proceedings were taken by the local authority and three of their children were removed.

Evidence came to light in 2007 showing that the child may not have suffered deliberate injury - his fractures may have been attributable to scurvy or iron deficiency caused by a feeding disorder.

Nicky and Mark Webster with son Brandon. Their other three children have been adopted
The couple applied to the courts to try to get their children back.

Today, Lord Justice Wall accepted it was 'possible, Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable' that the basis on which their children, referred to as A, B and C, were taken from them was 'wrong'.
However, the judge added that, even if the couple were entirely innocent, the children had been settled with their adoptive families for over three years and it was now “too late” to turn the clock back.
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson, said: 'The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders.
'The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case.

'The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.

'It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster's alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong.'

Court win: The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order
The statement continued: 'Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right.

'It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout.

'If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual.'

The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order - a move which could have enabled the children to be returned to them or at least allow them to have contact.

At the hearing in December last year, their counsel, Ian Peddie QC, told Lord Justice Wall, Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson that it was an 'exceptional' case.

'We say there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice and the natural parents' primary concern is to correct it.'

He added: 'It is our assertion that the children need to know the truth as to why they were adopted.'

Mr Webster, 35, and his 27-year-old wife fled to Ireland to stop their fourth child, Brandon, six, being taken into care at birth but last year the local authority dropped proceedings after accepting that he was in 'robust good health'.
The parents have not seen their other three children since January 2005, when they were five, three and two. They have always denied they had caused the fractures.
Brandon has never had contact with his siblings.

The tragedy began in 2003 when Mrs Webster took child B to hospital because he was having trouble walking.

Doctors at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital discovered six fractures which were said to have occurred over a 14-day period. Medics concluded the injuries were non-accidental.

In May 2004, a judge at Norfolk County Court found, after hearing expert medical evidence, that either Mr or Mrs Webster had caused the injuries and all three children were taken into care.

After Brandon's birth in May 2006, an eminent American professor of forensic paediatrics investigated the case and concluded that the injuries could have been caused by vitamin deficiency and scurvy.

One of the doctors who originally said the injuries were non-accidental later accepted that they could have been caused by scurvy.

Lord Justice Wall said in an introduction to his judgment that it was 'deeply worrying' that the four children involved - Brandon, his sister and two brothers - had been denied the chance to argue that they should grow up together with the parents as a family.

'For Mr and Mrs Webster, the parents of the children concerned, the case has been a disaster, quite apart from any breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

'From their perspective they have been wrongly accused of physically abusing one of their children, and three of their children have been removed wrongly and permanently from their care. The only mitigation, from their point of view, is the local authority's belated recognition that they are fit and able to care for Brandon.'

He said the case had also been a 'deeply regrettable experience for the local authority' and a 'painful learning experience' for the medical profession.

'Finally, both for the family justice system in general, and for this court in particular, any miscarriage of justice - or potential miscarriage of justice - is both regrettable and embarrassing, not least when so much multi-disciplinary effort has been put into the promotion of good practice and the creation of procedures designed to ensure that the events which occurred in this case are not repeated.'
He said it would be wrong to criticise any of the social workers or doctors who advised the County Court judge.

'It would, moreover, be quite wrong to seek to scapegoat any individual for what may or may not have been a systemic failure, or what, in particular instances, may not have been a failure at all.