1. What was the name of the "orphanage"? The word "orphanage" tends to conjur up images of Oliver Twist, but the reality of these places are far different.

2. What other questions were the girls asked? It seems that a social services officer would be remiss if they did not ask questions pertaining to abuse. The press jumps on social services when someone slips through the cracks.

3. Not knowing the mothers condition, social services (according to the story) was trying to find a foster home. Given that the mother was ill, would you send two girls who could have been exposed to an undiagnosed illness to another persons home with checking on their condition?

4. They were "stripped". That is a loaded word. Do you take a shower with your clothes on? The article says their clothes were removed, but it doesn't say that they were physically removed. Did someone rip the clothes off them, or were they told to take a shower?

5. In abscence of their mothers consent since she was obviously ill, the law is that the state becomes the guardian. I think that is standard in any country in the world when no one is available.

6. The woman was sent a letter saying she was being investigated, but for what?   Could it be that they are investigating the situation to see if there was any wrongdoing in the treatment of the girls - or if there was something more than the story that the mother was saying. In either case, it would be prudent for a followup.

Since the story came from the BBC, and given their past, I would not expect a full independent or unbiased reporting of the incident. I am rather surprised that some Mudcatters who I respect would not at least question what they read.   There is a very good chance that this story is 100% correct and someone in Human Services needs to be held accountable, but there are enough questions that deserve to be asked before passing judgement instead of basing a decision on a piece of sloppy journalism.