I wept, but let's not become too quick to seize kids

The Baby P case is very distressing.  I confess that I haven't briefed myself very closely on it, because reading too many details made me cry.  Many people are saying that the social services failed to act when they should have done.  Perhaps that's right.  But I would urge one thing.  Remember that there have been a number of past high-profile cases in which child abuse was alleged, local authorities did take children away, those allegations were later concluded to be false, and the local authority and the social services profession in general were roundly condemned as interfering busy-bodies who create misery for innocent parents - particularly by Conservative MPs and right-leaning journalists.  Partly in response to the issues arising in such cases, social services have a number of hurdles that need to be overcome before children can be taken away from their parents.  This surely must be the right instinct.  We want to protect children - of course - and cases like Baby P are harrowing.  But the state should have to follow "proper procedures" "strict protocols" (no matter how callous and irrelevant that phrase seems in a case like this) before taking children away from their parents, and the natural tendency should be to aim to leave children in their parents' care, even though that inevitably means that there will be cases in which social services look at a situation, decide not to act, and abuse occurs.  I'm not saying that the balance was right in Baby P's case.  But we should not allow our sorrow and (probably rightful) collective guilt over such a case to lead us to formulate new rules that impose life-breaking misery upon innocent (or salvageable) parents by needlessly taking away their babies.