This point is particularly important:
There is a misconception that the child-protection system is broken because child services fails to protect children from dangerous homes. That’s because the media exhaustively covers child deaths, but not the everyday tragedy of unnecessary child removals.The problem is not that child services fails to remove enough children. It’s that the agency has not been equipped to address the daily manifestations of economic and racial inequality. Instead, it is designed to treat structural failings as the personal flaws of low-income parents.
See also this Michelle Goldberg piece from a couple of years ago, which makes the same point.
I don’t envy people who work in child protective services offices. The fine line they have to walk must be maddening. If a kid gets abused or worse because you’ve misjudged a family, you’re a pariah. But erring on the side of removal also does violence to struggling families, and it seems to be far more common.
Most of us would rightly recoil at a law that bars poor people from having children. But if poverty alone can be justification for removing children from their parents, we’ve basically achieved the same result.