A lot of times the problems with dysfunctional families are so blatantly obvious that making the case to remove children for their own welfare is a matter of paying close detail to filling out the forms correctly and following the law the way it is stated to deprive parents of the children who they place in danger.

In the caste system of modern societies, doctors are rated very high in the comptetence, intelligence, and income considerations that would normally be discussed when regarding the fitness to be parents.

Poor or less-well-off parents who break the law in some other way (not child endangerment) generally don't lose their children as a result of their act, unless there is no one who can temporarily care for them or if the one being arrested is the custodial parent. If both parents have been charged, the state will make the move to place them if the parents haven't made such arrangements. Is there a mechanism in place in the process of arresting someone to ask "do you have minor children who depend on you exclusively for their welfare?" Here in the U.S. if parents are being investigated for endangering their children, the kids are at least temporarily moved out of the family home. (Unless they are the children of illegal aliens . . . but that's for another thread.)

If the parents are being investigated in one country and officials in their home country learn of it as is the case here, then it seems that the U.K. should take the logical step to at least temporarily intervene to protect the children. If the parents are cleared, fine, but if the parents aren't such good parents, better to err on the side of the child welfare. Sure they're doctors, but don't be blinded by that caste system (that of course exists, despite protests to the contrary).

SRS