One is this inequality. If you provide no money to families when they are in crisis and wait until the crisis gets bad and then remove the child, but provide unlimited funds to keep the child away from the family, that does two things: First, it ensures that a greater population of children go into child welfare care, and probably stay there because of the lack of the services that the family has to try and redress the situation.
Si l'on ne donne pas d'argent aux familles lorsqu'elles sont en crise, qu'on attend que la crise empire, puis qu'on retire l'enfant de son milieu, mais qu'on investit sans limite pour garder l'enfant à l'écart de sa famille, on obtient deux résultats.