A week-old baby was taken from his parents in hospital by social workers after his father expressed unorthodox views about “the benefits of formula milk”, a judge has heard.

Social workers swooped on the baby boy after the dad raised medics’ eyebrows with his views on bottle sterilisation and formula feeding.

Now, in a damning decision, Kirklees Council has been ordered to pay the mother, the father, and the little boy a total of £11,250 in damages along with a proportion of the £120,000 legal costs.

At the High Court in London, Mr Justice Cobb said there was “no doubt in my mind” that the council had violated the family’s human rights – and even “misled” a family judge.

Kirklees had persuaded a judge to sanction the baby being taken into emergency care without even telling his parents about the hearing.

The mother, in her 20s, suffered from minor mental health problems and other difficulties and the father had in the past been aggressive to others.

But staff at the special care baby unit where he was cared for in the days after his delivery had expressed “no child protection concerns”.

Maternity ward medics did, however, tell the council they were anxious about the couple’s long-term ability to care for their baby.

Working in social work at Kirklees Council

Among other things, they said the father had “expressed unorthodox views about the need for sterilisation of bottles and the benefits of formula milk”.

Just before the baby was due to be discharged from hospital into his parents’ care, the council rushed to court and obtained an emergency care order.

The judge was told that the parents were “on notice” of the hearing and had “agreed” to their baby being taken away from them.

The council also “forgot to notify Cafcass (which represents children in family court cases)” about the case, so there was no lawyer present to represent the baby boy’s interests.

Mr Justice Cobb said the couple were in fact “unaware” of the hearing and were “understandably very upset” when they were told about it.

A spate of further hearings followed and the baby was finally sent home to his parents about three months after his removal.

In the year since then, the judge said the boy had “continued to thrive in his parents' care”.

He added: “There is no doubt in my mind, indeed it is admitted, that Kirklees Council breached the human rights of a baby boy and his parents.”

He added the failure to notify the parents of the care hearing was “particularly egregious” and involved “misleading the judge no fewer than three times”.

A Kirklees Council spokesperson said: “The court and parties accepted that the council was correct to issue these proceedings, but mistakes were made which resulted in the court awarding the family compensation. The local authority has been ordered to pay a contribution of the publicly-funded costs of the claimants, which cover specific periods of the case. This is due to the way the claimants' litigation was conducted.”