A council has paid a family more than £11,000 in compensation for taking a one-week-old baby away from his parents for two months without warning because of unfounded concerns about their ability to care for him.
Kirklees council obtained an interim care order to remove a baby boy, who can only be referred to as CZ, from his parents while the mother and child were still in hospital in November 2015.
The council, which covers Huddersfield and its surrounding towns, became concerned about the child after a referral from the hospital questioned the parents' long-term capacity to care for him.
The referral noted that the mother had little family support and that the father had expressed "unorthodox views about the need for sterilisation of bottles, and the benefits of formula milk".
Despite the council initially claiming that a social worker had informed the family of its application and the subsequent court hearing on 13 November, the parents were not informed at all.
The father wasn't present at the hospital that day and while the mother signed an order effectively transferring custody, some hospital staff had concerns about her capacity to do so, the ruling said.
As a result, they didn't attend the hearing and were not represented.
A judge granted the order, placing the child with his grandparents, after being informed by the council's solicitor three times that the family were fully aware that they were in agreement with it.
When a social worker arrived to inform them of the hearing's outcome they were "understandably very upset", the ruling said.
It wasn't until 29 January 2016 that the baby was allowed to return to his parents.
The parents, who also cannot be named but are in their mid-twenties, both have mild learning difficulties and both have had assistance from adult social care services in the last 10 years.
The ruling notes: "The father at times struggles to manage his frustrations at times, and has displayed controlling and aggressive behaviours to others."
Kirklees council sent an email after the hearing had finished to say it had "forgot" to notify Cafcass, the body that represents children in family court cases, of the hearing or the application.
A subsequent review of the case found that the child's weight loss was not due to any problems in feeding him, but due to the traumatic nature of the birth, which was by caesarian section. No child protection concerns were raised by hospital staff at this point or when he was placed on a maternity ward.
The ruling noted that the council "did not take proper account of the positive reports of the medical staff on the ward about the parents' ability to care for CZ, nor of the increase in weight which had been recorded in the days immediately prior to CZ's formal discharge from the ward."
The family successfully argued that the council's actions were a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights because they had been denied their right to a fair trial, by not being informed of proceedings, and their right to family life.
The father, the mother, and the baby were each awarded compensation of £3,750, and Kirklees council was ordered to pay a portion of the costs of the case, which ran to more than £120,000.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Cobb said: "There is no doubt in my mind, indeed it is admitted, that Kirklees Council breached the ECHR rights of a baby boy and his parents in purported fulfilment of its safeguarding duties."
A Kirklees council spokesperson said: "The court and parties accepted that the council was correct to issue these proceedings, but mistakes were made which resulted in the court awarding the family compensation.
"The local authority has been ordered to pay a contribution of the publicly funded costs of the claimants, which cover specific periods of the case. This is due to the way the claimants' litigation was conducted."