No one who has any knowledge of this family is in any doubt that the action is completely unjustified; there is no suggestion, even from the stupid and deluded State functionaries who are pursuing the vendetta, that the parents were violent, or abused her. They seem to have made a snap decision based on an erroneous impression of a 'messy house'.
God help a Catholic academic of my acquaintance, whose immensely loving but chaotic and utterly disorganised home is filled with the laughter of his four children; the State 'mess police' would recoil at the state of his wife's studio, have vapours at the teetering piles of books and papers in the room he uses to work, and no doubt ascribe demonic intentions to the Byzantine icons that decorate the hallway with improbably painful scenes of Christian martyrdom.
This distasteful case reminds me of the authority that the family has lost under this evil Leviathan State; Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum reminds us what relationship should pertain;
No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: "Increase and multiply."(3) Hence we have the family, the "society" of a man's house - a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.Thus only when the fundamental rights of family members are 'transgressed' in Leo's words, by physical or sexual abuse for example, does 'society' in the person either of the State (bad) or of neighbours and the local community (good) have the right to interfere. In the absence of such evidence, a mere deviation by a family from the prissy norms of a low-level State functionary, be such deviation however eccentric, gives no right of interference.
A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.
And before anyone quotes the case of Baby Peter, a whore sharing a house with two of her for-today sexual partners as well as the poor bastard by-blows of her whoredom doesn't constitute a 'family' - whatever the views of Harriet Harman and her evil doctrine - and should never have been supported by public money or provision in the first place.
Parhaps Labour ought to listen to the words of Barack Obama on the subject.