A father who believed he had the right to smack his young children has had them taken into care by social workers. The parent, from Rotherham, told officials that he thought his children benefited from being smacked. He said that he hit his children on the bottom, legs and arms, using his hand, but that the red marks 'did not last long'. But a judge has now ruled that his 'entrenched' views were harmful to their children. A father who believed he had the right to smack his two young children has had them taken into care by social workers following a ruling at the High Court in London (pictured) The man has now had his third child, a six-month-old girl, taken into care by Rotherham Council officials. It comes after his middle child, now aged three, was also taken into care. It is not clear whether the man's eldest child is in care, although there have also been care proceedings issued in relation to that child. Handing down the judgement at the High Court, Judge Sarah Wright said she made the decision because there was no prospect of the father ever changing his 'domineering behaviour'. She added that the children's mother could not protect the youngsters from her partner's need to have 'total control' over his family. She said: 'It was clear to me that she cannot separate herself from the father and from his entrenched views. 'Sadly, she has put him before her children. She refused to accept any view or opinion that is not his. The parent revealed that he smacked his children on the bottom, legs and arms, using his hand (picture posed by models) 'She singularly fails to appreciate the risk that he poses to any child in his care'. During the hearing, it emerged that the man's son, now aged three, had been removed from the family home when he was just a few months old. Since then, he has been cared for by his 'quiet, considered and thoughtful' maternal uncle. The judgement also revealed that care proceedings had  taken place for another child, during which a family judge criticised the man's 'rigid and inflexible thinking'. The court said the man was not prepared to 'settle for a shade of grey', but saw everything in black and white. He also insisted on his right to smack his children, believing he had done 'nothing wrong', the judgement said. It added that both parents had been 'uncooperative and obstructive' with professionals. During the latest hearing, it emerged that, when the mother fell pregnant again, she tried to conceal her pregnancy so they would not flag up on social services' radar. Despite the mother arranging to give birth at a hospital in a different area, their attempt to conceal the birth failed. The little girl - known as E - was then taken from them under a police protection order. Explaining her reasons for concealing her pregnancy with E, the mother said she feared she would be put under pressure to have an abortion. She also insisted there was no basis for social workers' concerns, saying: 'There is no reason why we are here'. Whilst agreeing he could be 'slightly dogmatic', she said he had never been violent or aggressive, the judgement said. But the court ruled that the mother had 'aligned herself' with the father and said she was 'totally convinced' that he posed no risk to the children. It added that the father 'must feel in control' and was capable of rude, uncompromising and hostile behaviour in his determination to get his own way. 'There is also very little prospect of the father accepting the need to change', said the judge. Despite the parents' objections, Judge Wright ruled that E's welfare demanded that she also be looked after by her uncle and his partner, alongside her older brother. Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.
Parent, from Rotherham, told officials children benefited from smacking . But a judge has ruled his 'entrenched' views are harmful to their children . Father has now had his third child, a six-month-old girl, taken into care . Comes after three-year-old son was also ordered live with maternal uncle .