This absolutely. It happens far too much. Poor Logan would likely still be alive had his father still been in the mix.
As for Logans 'mother' - I use the term loosely - she seemed to have massively downgraded in terms of partner choice. It seems outwardly, that she might have been very depressed and possibly dealing with low self-esteem at the time she met Mr Cole and then felt motivated thereafter to prioritize keeping the relationship in order to avoid being alone and/or without sexual intimacy.
The relationship seems to have been an insecure attachment based on 'reward and deprivation' and relationships like that can become all-consuming mentally and emotionally. It's a form of drip feed abuse really, and it wouldn't have left much headspace (her partner would take up all her mental energy) or emotional resources for the caring responsibilities of a child (which children take huge emotional resources) when her own needs aren't also/have never been met. So cruelty and impatience would have been dominant responses. But paradoxically, that does not mean she didn't love him as far as she was able. Simply that she literally hasn't the resources to be a protector, nurturer, provider, etc to a child which has demands that must be met and under the power of a dominant partner wouldn't be able to act in her child's welfare.
It's relatively common in these situations for previously half decent mothers to then become ineffective protectors under the influence of a dominant man.
But can someone explain how SS allowed this? (Correct me where I'm wrong I missed a few parts of the program) Why didn't they see a new man moving in as a big red flag? Let the violent brother move in? Not inform the biological father fgs?
Another thing that struck me was that Logan's real dad was clearly either mixed raced or black, with, it seemed (at the end) at least possibly, some black family members. Why didn't Social Services think that it was important that Logan retain a link to his father and by extension his father's culture and heritage? Why did they think it was ok for his father and by extension his heritage to be cut off? They seem to place emphasis on this in adoption cases - the child must retain exposure to their cultural heritage - but not when it comes to a parent being removed?
I'm so glad the Father is fighting for the right of non-residential parents to be informed when SS are involved with their children. I found a need for that gob smackingly shocking.