Parents have released a secretly-filmed video of the harrowing moment social workers took their six-hours-old baby away from them.
The father surreptitiously filmed the seizure on a webcam attached to the family computer.
Until now the film was banned from being published by mainstream media – despite being available on the internet – but a new court judgment has now allowed it to be viewed and the Daily Mail has become the first website to show the disturbing video.
The baby at the centre of the controversy, known only as J, was removed from its parents after his birth in April.
In an interview with the Mail, the parents said social workers removed their baby because they decided their mother was incapable of bringing the baby up because of her learning disability.
The video shows the father holding the newborn infant at their home when social workers and police come to take it away.
In the video, the distraught mother holds onto her baby and rocks it as her husband remonstrates with officers and council staff.
One social worker can be heard telling the parents: "We are going to take [baby J]. I don't want to have to get physical."
The mother can be heard screaming 'no' as social workers take her baby.
The baby's father told the Daily Mail: "I taped over the light on the webcam so the social workers couldn't see it was switched on."
The couple - who cannot be named - have had four children removed by social workers. Three have now been adopted.
The father told the Mail they have never been accused of harming their children.
He said: "The social workers said my wife and I were in a volatile relationship. But we have been married for a long time and we do bicker a bit. We have differences of opinion.
"There has never been violence, and nobody has ever said there is any evidence to say otherwise." The father said his oldest daughter was seven years old when she was taken from her parents four years ago.
"There were no problems for seven years," he said.
"Then we had a new social worker who had a different attitude. My wife has a learning disability and for a period I was depressed, although that was quickly over after the GP helped. But the social worker tried to section me. The court was told that there was a risk the children would come to harm in the future.
"They were never harmed. They were taken away as a preventative or precautionary measure."
In a report in the Daily Telegraph, Sir James Munby said of Staffordshire's attempt to silence the parents: "The father wishes to share information with others. Why should he not be able to do so?
"And why should those who may wish to hear his views not be permitted to approach him?
"This is in effect, if not in intention, a means of indirectly gagging the father so that what from the local authority's perspective are his unpalatable views are less likely to see the light of day."
Sir James rejected a sweeping injunction designed to effectively prevent anyone in the world from seeing the film, knowing the names of the social workers involved, or even discovering the name of the local authority that applied for the order, Staffordshire County Council.
He added: "I simply fail to see how naming the local authority, the social workers, the local authority's legal representative or the children's guardian, or even all of them, can in any realistic way be said to make it likely that J will be identified, even indirectly. The risk is merely fanciful."
Suggested For You
SUBSCRIBE AND FOLLOW
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements.Learn more