I think it's far more likely than not that these children are at risk.
I know that a lot of people have issue with ss, and there certainly have been some questionable cases where children have been taken into care, but in general these have been babies or young toddlers who some have argued are used to fulfill adoption targets.
What do ss have to achieve by taking these 5 children into care - the eldest of which is 13, so by no means of an age where they could be used to meet any targets? I don't imagine there are many foster carers out there willing or able to take in a family of 5, so taking these children into care would mean having to use several foster families, having to split up the siblings, and whatever else ss do they do aim not to do this.
I know it's far easier to think of the persicuted mother in all this, but I do question the motivation of those people who on the one hand criticise the authority who failed one child and allowed him to stay with his family with devostating consequences, and on the other criticise the authority who want to act and remove the children from a home where they may be at risk.
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.