Yes, what could possibly go wrong if you keep mother and child separate ... oh wait. That's actually well studied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attac

Yes, what could possibly go wrong if you keep mother and child separate ... oh wait. That's actually well studied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder That this can happen, of course, to any sane person would be a very strong argument not to interfere, and place the threshold for taking children forcibly away almost at the point they would die without aid, because the vast majority of problems neglect causes are much less bad than the problems CPS causes. Neglect causes "parentification" [1], where sometimes very young children take responsibility for themselves and sometimes also for others. The one psychological problem children can develop that can actually improve outcomes for them. Essentially if children "succeed" at parentification, it results in good outcomes. So you'd think we would alter society to make it easier for children to take care of themselves (e.g. guarantee medical access for children by themselves WITHOUT referring them to CPS, in abstract a clear, workable, understandable set of rules. Do X, Y and Z (e.g. school) and you get to do what you want, which must of course include telling social services to get the fuck out) The problem CPS has is that in general, very, very bad parents deliver better results with children than CPS interference. This is partly due to the state of CPS institutions and just how incredibly bad they are, but is also the result of how the human mind works. A constant relationship with even an abusive parent/caregiver is a lot better than many short caregiver relationships, even if those are pretty good ones. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parentification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parentification