Nicky and Mark Webster, the couple who lost three of their children to forced adoption after allegations of abuse were told on they could not have their children back, despite the fact it was ?possible? they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.
The couple from Cromer, Norfolk, were told by a top judge that it was too late to turn back the clock and return the children to them – he also said no blame should be attached to the family justice system.
The Websters were accused of inflicting multiple fractures on their baby boy in 2004, but expert evidence since then has sought to prove otherwise.
The Websters battled to persuade the judges that their baby son's injuries were due to a modern case of scurvy, brought on by his acute eating problems, which saw him existing on an exclusive diet of supermarket soya milk.
And Lord Justice Wall accepted it was ?possible, Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable? that the basis on which their children, referred to as A, B and C, were taken from them was ?wrong?.
However, the judge added that, even if the couple were entirely innocent, the children had been settled with their adoptive families for over three years and it was now ?too late? to turn the clock back.
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson, said: ?Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right.
?It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout.?
He said that any criticisms of the family justice system would be unjustified and that ?if there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual?.
Emphasising the ?finality? of the children's adoption, the judge said the injuries suffered by Mr and Mrs Webster's baby had ?a high specifity of abuse? and doctors who testified in the case had done so ?honestly, competently and in good faith?.
He added: ?Non-accidental injury is infinitely more common than scurvy. The medical evidence obtained in 2007 could and should have been obtained by the parents in 2004.?
The little boy, referred to as ?B? in court, was taken into care with his two older siblings after doctors said his injuries were ?non accidental? and they were all adopted in 2005.
Their parents have not seen them since January 2005, when they were aged just five, three and two.
The couple made national headlines in 2006 when they fled to Ireland to have their fourth child, Brandon, fearing that otherwise he too would be taken from them. Brandon is now living with his parents after the authorities examined the Websters' parenting skills in a lengthy assessment.
The Websters' counsel, Mr Ian Peddie QC, told the judges that the time had now come to clear their names and for a court to publicly acknowledge they are victims of a ?terrible miscarriage of justice? and should never have been separated from their children.
The court heard the tragic events unfolded in November 2003 when ?B? was suffering from ?extreme eating problems? which meant he could take no solids and had an aversion to cow's milk. He lived exclusively on supermarket soya milk, which contained no vitamin C.
He was having trouble walking and, after his desperately worried mother twice took him to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, doctors discovered six fractures which were said to have occurred over a 14-day period. Medics concluded the injuries were non-accidental.
In May 2004, a judge found after hearing expert medical evidence that either Mr or Mrs Webster had caused ?B?'s injuries and all three children were taken into care.
However, the tide began to turn for the family after Brandon's birth in May 2006, when an eminent American professor of forensic paediatrics investigated the case and concluded that all ?B?'s injuries could have been caused by vitamin deficiency and scurvy.
The professor's explanation came as an ?enormous relief? to the Websters and Mr Peddie said that, in the light of his report, one of the doctors who originally said ?B?'s injuries were non-accidental later accepted that they could have been caused by scurvy.
Other experts had reported since that ?abusive trauma was not a sustainable conclusion? for ?B?'s injuries given the bone weakness that is a recognised symptom of scurvy and that the injuries were the result of ?normal handling of abnormal bones?.
Mr Peddie said the ?only dissenting voices? to the weight of expert opinion building up in the couple's favour were one orthopaedic surgeon and one of the two paediatricians that initially treated ?B?.
The QC said the professor's report was an ?exonerating explanation? for ?B?'s injuries and it had become clear that the removal of the three children from their parents had been ?a tragedy for all concerned?.
?Their suffering has been unimaginable?, said Mr Peddie, who added that the Websters' main concern is to clear their names and to ensure that their children ?know the truth? about the circumstances of the family's enforced separation.
?The miscarriage of justice needs to be corrected and the children need to know the truth. This was beyond a mistake. We say this is a case where there has been a fundamental injustice, a denial of natural justice,? he told the court.
The court heard the two oldest children, then aged five and three, were placed together with an adoptive family in 2005. The youngest child, then only two, was placed on his own, although the siblings are allowed to have contact with each other annually.
Brandon has no contact with his siblings and Mr Peddie urged the judges that this was an ?exceptional? case where the children's adoptive placements should be cancelled, enabling their return to their natural parents.
However, Lord Justice Wall told the court the case emphasised the finality of adoption orders which are designed by statute to put children in the same position as if they had been ?born as the child of the adopters?.
?The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside is extremely limited. None applied in the present case.
?The court concluded that, after three years, it was in any event too late to set the orders aside and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so?.
There are currently 109 signatures for this petition: