"A five-year-old boy has been removed from his disabled mother’s care as a judge dismissed an allegation of ‘social engineering’ despite ruling it would cost too much to keep them together. "
"The family court judge ruled that the child must be taken from the care of his disabled mother claiming her disability made it impossible for her to meet her disabled son's needs by herself, and the level of local authority support she would need would be too extensive. "
"Judge Antony Hughes dismissed a suggestion of `social engineering`. "
"Detail of the case emerged in a ruling by the judge following a private family court hearing in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire."
"The judge, who said the boy could not be identified, said Buckinghamshire County Council wanted to take the youngster into care."
"He ruled in the local authority's favour, approved a care plan and said the boy needed a `permanent substitute family`. "
Suesspiciousminds goes into this in more depth, pointing out the opaqueness of the language, and quotes from the judgment:
"Crucially T’s care required someone to "forward think for him" and she did not think that the mother had that capacity saying that the mother does not possess the skills, the knowledge and the understanding to provide anticipatory help."
That is, the woman had done no harm to her son, but they were separated because one day she might not provide help for some undisclosed future `something or other.`