Hi @SeaOfDespair,
I have been watching this thread since the beginning and can't sit on my hands any longer.
The first thing I want to say is that I was in your position 25 years ago with regard to my infant DC. Mine was a different sort of case in that it was a medical controversy often framed - at least in the past - as pathognomonic of child abuse. Since then there has been some research and changes of practise on top of a high profile case which I believe has improved practise. At least I hope so.
Like you I was stuck in a never ending loop of asking what I could / should do, above and beyond the normal realms of parenting - aside from confessing to a crime I hadn't committed, it seemed that nothing would be sufficient. Aside from controversial "injuries" there was nothing significant to make our situation high risk.
I too have a litany of inaccuracies, erroneous accusations, wilful misinterpretation of comments and conversations, and it took 18 months for my DC to come home. He remained on the At Risk Register until he was 3.
I was extremely lucky with my outcome, as my case was framed to me by my own solicitor as the second worst case of "child abuse" in my county that year.
I am not saying any of this to make you feel more scared, but to try and explain that until you have been the subject of child protection proceedings it is very difficult to understand what a confusing and experience it is. Once the juggernaut is rolling, it's very much a case of just trying to keep yourself from being sucked under the wheels.
There are good and bad apples in the CP basket, as with any walk of life, but yes, sometimes you do run up against someone with their own personal agenda, no doubt coming from the best intentions to be seen as acting in the "best interests of the child", but executed in a detrimental manner.
The SW I had was utterly determined to have me prosecuted. The CPS didn't touch it. Even after my DC came home, she was pressing for an application to be made for Criminal injuries Compensation - she was admonished by both the Judge and the GAL.
Thinking back to my own experience, and reading your posts, what i recall most clearly is the feeling that I had slipped into a parallel universe where what one would assume were normal rules did not apply, and I hear a similar bewilderment from you.
If it is not too outing can you say what sort of order your DDs are currently under? Is it a full care order or an interim care order, or something else? My DC was voluntarily accommodated with fosterers until the Final Hearing, which apparently is unusual, but can happen.
Do your DDs have a Guardian Ad Litem to advocate on their behalf, and in addition their own solicitor? if so, how is this person dealing with the situation? Are they supportive?
I echo other advice that you have been given - keep accurate records of every interaction, and also of contact. When I had contact, always supervised, at a Family Centre, I would be asked to sign a summary of the days notes and add my own comments - this was then submitted to court when the time came.
The testing of parents to gauge your reactions is not uncommon - I confess I was sometimes overhwelmed and less than polite and reserved when dealing with particularly obtuse interactions, and a field day was had every time. I soon learned my place - to comply, and make my solicitor take note of everything to be followed up if pertinent.
To those saying there is no smoke without fire, and the bar for removal is set high, I say yes and no. I have just supported a friend dealing with the "Future Risk of harm" threshold. It is a minefield for the parent.
I have been told categorically by the well-meaning that my recollections of my experience are wrong and could not happen because law, because ethics, because "poor SWs damned if they do, damned if they don't", but I have three court bundles still which chronicle quite a few instances of error, some of it deliberate manipulation of a situation to improve their case.
One example - my DC was born five weeks early as a result of pre-eclampsia. We were kept in hospital for a week, then went home. Down the line, my non-attendance of ante natal classes was used as an example that I was at risk of not engaging with professionals and did not want to socialise with other parents. My solicitor was able to point out that the classes were scheduled to start the week AFTER he was born. Which information was available for all to see, in my medical notes, the HV notes, the mid-wife notes - but it was "mis-interpreted" and could have had an impact on the Judge's view.
That's a minor one, but I have worse if anyone would like to hear it.
The system is underfunded, time frames have been created which make it better for placing children permanently sooner but that make it hard for parents to mount a defence or improve significantly especially if their needs and challenges are complex. I still do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy to remove children from loving parents for no reason, but the way the system operates does little to make parents feel that they really are all working together in the "best interests of the child". Until I went through it myself, I could have said there must always be good reasons for removal - and I still accept that investigating my DC's injuries was absolutely right - but the way they did it, the passing of the issues like a hot potato between medical professionals and SWs, and the utter determination to demonise / break me into accepting a lie was pretty eye-opening. And I had alot of family and community support who als were baffled as time went on.
So i am sorry if I have hijacked the thread a bit.
I wanted to offer a handhold and say take the best bits of advice from people here, keep going, and keep your DDs the centre of you world. Get as much advice as you can, and as long as you are as honest with yourself as everybody else, there will hopefully be a turning point in the future.