This case suggests the following:

1. The witch hunt network in the "child protection" industry is extensive. Unsuspecting parents can easily fall prey for the wrong reasons.
2. Unlike what government officials or top dogs of "child protection" agencies often say to the media that child removal decision is not made lightly, children are often removed first and do investigation later. Child removal as the last resort is a propaganda designed to mitigate public resistance and to render the most intrusive, oppressive activity seemingly reasonable.
3. Flaws in medical diagnosis are often ignored by tunnel view "child protection" social workers.
4. Taxpayers are exposed to contingent liabilities by the activities of "child protection" social workers because of the indemnity from their employer, ie. the government.
5. Parents and children are powerless against the formidable "child protection" agency.
6. Despite so many atrocities and problems, there are naive people still believe that child removal should be allowed (see the TV debate on this case in the video on the top left hand corner of this page).
7. Although there is no law prohibiting drug addicts from raising children, child protection law allows authorities to remove their children at will. This amounts to an unwritten law barring junkies from raising kids.