The mother of one of the boys discovered a photograph taken by one of the "foster parents" showing her son urinating.
(This is proof positive of sexual abuse? I don't find it necessarily erotic or even having "sexual content" without some additional information. Obviously it gets Ake excited, but is it sexual excitement? It sounds like it must be, but I'd hate to see Ake convicted on such scant evidence.)
She took the photo to the social work dept, who took no action against the couple allowing abuse to continue.
(Obviously castration, hanging from a tree, and removal of the children was the only thing that would constitute "taking action" for Ake. But maybe the foster parents claimed they were just trying to show the kid he wasn't hitting the pot? Only subsequent evidence indicates that the first picture might have been an indication of reason for suspicion for which the social work dept may not have found cause at the time to take action. It's also possible, that there was an inadequate investigation. While the photo may or may not be incriminating, without additional evidence it's hardly basis for a conviction.)
This photograph should have been taken straight to the police, and in my opinion the reason it was not is the climate of PC endemic to the social services.
(Urinating is a crime in Ake's town? Or maybe it's just communicating with one's children about body functions that's illegal? Or perhaps nobody should take pictures of their children without a chaperone? And does Ake think any picture of a naked child is erotic? That seems certainly enough for social sevices and the police to take action, according to the "solutions" recommended.)
"Political Correctness" is NOT THE SAME THING as "Due Process." Sometimes criminals are clever enough, or inconspicuous enough, to evade detection; and sometimes they lie believably to avert suspicion; but punishing people on the basis of what some other pervert thinks might be happening is not an acceptable answer in most of our cultures.
The social survice responsible may not have had sufficient credible evidence to place an investigation high enough on their priorities to devote resources to one. They may also have not recognized the need for more than casual investigation, on the basis of the evidence they had. They may have made an investigation and not found sufficient evidence for action - whether or not crimes were being committed. For the cited evidence, it's virtually certain that the police could have taken NO ACTION for the "incriminating photo" other than to refer the report back to social services to make the decision whether to investigate.
The social services people will certainly get "dobetter" letters from the boss, and may even be punished or discharged. It's probably a given the service won't get better funding, better equipment, more agents, or a better pool from which to select foster guardians for the children they try to care for. So what else is new?