I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?
Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.
Even Thomas Jefferson realized that this is not so when he proposed the General Welfare clause to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare .
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. It only means to act within the powers that are enumerated within the constitution: that doesn't include coercive, involuntary welfare. So, Thomas Jefferson had no such thoughts in regards to voluntary charity. Hopefully he doesn't kill you in your sleep.
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148