"Those poor kids just screamed and screamed and I just stood there and went, 'What the fuck is happening here?'," she said.

"It was horrific. One of the boys got away and came back inside the house and they found him hiding in a suitcase and dragged him out again.

"What those [Child and Youth Protection Services ] officers allowed to happen that night, it was wrong. It was wrong."

The parents, who cannot be named to protect the identity of their children, have been fighting for more than a year to have them returned.

The children were taken from the family home at close to midnight in September last year after several hours of negotiation with CYPS officers and then police. One of the children was still being breastfed.

The parents say they have no issue with the police and say they are grateful to the police negotiator who broke the tension between them and the CYPS officers.

They are angry the children were taken via an emergency action, rather than a court order, and believe, on the day, they had every right to refuse the removal of their children.

The neighbour was present when CYPS officers spoke to the parents earlier in the day of the children's removal.

"I was asked to come over [by the parents] and I told them I had only seen the children well-cared for and happy," she said.

"The officers left and I told [the mother], 'You'll never see them again. There's nothing to worry about'."

But CYPS officers returned later that afternoon with an emergency action to remove the children. Police were also present from about 6pm and a stand-off ensued. Police documents describe the scene as a seige and Specialist Response Group officers were called in. The children were removed close to midnight.

The neighbour, who was inside the parents' home during the negotiations, says she never felt threatened by the parents but understood why they did not want to hand over their child, without a court order.

"The way it was done, it was just not humane," she said. "I don't care what anyone says, I was there. Those kids were dragged away."

The children have been in kinship care with relatives interstate.

Child and Youth Protection Services also wanted to take another child born to the couple this year, from the hospital, on the day the child was born. The infant did go into interim care for a short period with the mother allowed breastfeeding visits.

A magistrate later dismissed the application from the director-general of the Community Services Directorate for the youngest child to remain in interim care but that decision was appealed by the director-general.

The youngest child remains in the care of her parents.

The matters are still before the courts, with a decision imminent determining the future of all the children.

CYPS officers have told the courts the children love and want to live with their parents but their have concerns about their capacity to care for the children.

The parents have given their consent to publicly air their concerns about the manner in which the children were taken and their efforts to have their children returned.

"Our life is our children," the mother said.

"They are at an age when they need their mummy and daddy and want their mummy and daddy.

"I don't wish this upon any mother or any father. My heart was ripped out the day they were taken."

Child and Youth Protection Services have not alleged any abuse or violence against the children.

It has alleged neglect and questioned the parents' capacity to care for them.

The father has an acquired brain injury from a car accident. The mother is his carer.

The courts have heard conflicting evidence from experts.

A psychiatrist who met with and assessed the mother says she does not have a mental illness. She was stressed due the removal of her children and the care of her husband and would benefit from counselling, he found. Her GP of long-standing says she is a fit and capable mother.

Other experts enlisted by the directorate who have never met with the mother have advised she is mentally ill and needs to take drugs.

"It's just getting beyond the point of ridiculousness," the father said.

The couple agree they need the help of support services if their children are returned, not least because the father's struggle with his brain injury.

"We've never said no to any sort of help," the mother said.

"For the last 10 years, all we've been doing is going to doctors [for the husband] and trying to get help."

The involvement of CYPS stems from the father leaving his oldest child in a locked car while he attended a meeting in Civic.

Police and CYPS officers attended the car. CYPS officers subsequently visited the house the next day.

The officers found there was minimal furniture in the house and the family was sleeping on mattresses.

The couple maintain their furniture was re-possessed by their landlord during an ill-fated move to Sydney. They had been attempting, at that stage unsuccessfully, to get money from his trustee to buy new furniture.

The couple did attend the CYPS offices the next day to discuss the matter. Through a series of miscommunications, they were told the person they were supposed to see was not in.

The CYPS officers attended the family home later that day and within hours there was the high drama of the stand-off and the children were removed and put into care.

The neighbour has questioned why she has never been asked to present her version of events.

"I've never been spoken to by police or Care and Protection about it," she said.

More than a year later, the house is fully furnished. Carefully-made beds, stocked cupboards, newly-bought toys await the children's return.

"All we want is to bring them home to a beautiful house," the mother said.

The Community Services Directorate was asked if the manner in which the children were taken from the family home was heavy-handed and unnecessarily traumatic.

The children were taken on a Friday and the following Monday was a public holiday. The directorate was also asked why the officers could not wait until the Tuesday for a court order to be issued.

It was also asked to respond to the conflicting evidence regarding the mother's capacity to care for her children.

A spokesperson gave the following response, emphasising the directorate could not comment on specific cases:

"Intervening in the lives of families is always emotional and highly complex. Governments must intervene when families abuse or neglect their children. Child and Youth Protection Services are obligated by law to not release child protection information publicly to protect children in care and their families," the statement read.

"Child and Youth Protection Services proceeds with Emergency Action to ensure the immediate safety of children. Police attendance during Emergency Action is not always necessary. The decision to include police attendance in an Emergency Action is undertaken in consultation with the police and takes into account information available at the time including police, mental health, drug and alcohol history and other relevant information.

"Following Emergency Action, the evidence that the decision was based on must be presented to the ACT Children's Court within two working days unless interrupted by a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday then the next sitting day of the court. Parents are parties to the proceedings and have the opportunity to present their evidence to the court. In any proceedings, children are also independently represented by a Children's Representative (solicitor).

"Parents may, and sometimes do appeal interim decisions made by the Children's Court. An appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. Who then has parental responsibility for the children during this time is determined by the court.

"After Emergency Action, Child and Youth Protection Services often seek independent expert opinions on which to base decisions about the arrangements that would be in the children's best interests. The independent experts are then required to present their reports to all parties and be available to give evidence before the courts.

"Child and Youth Protection Services believe that children's best interests are best serviced by living with their parents where it is safe to do so. Any recommendations to the court on treatment or support by the parents are in order to support a safe return of children to their parents' care."