I have imagined all of those and still conclude that they need to be compared in order to weigh the pros and cons of making the decision.
If one makes such a decision without weighing the tradeoffs, they're being negligent.
If they refuse to make the decision, then they're choosing to never place abused children in foster care which is one of the options in the decision process, so they're still making a decision. There is no escape hatch.
I'd encourage you to do the same imaginative thought experiment for the kid who's in an abusive bio-family. Would it change how you decide?
At no point am I advocating for not removing abused children from their abusive circumstances and placing them in foster care
However the bar for that decision making needs to be very high
There is no room for false positives in this system. If that requirement leads to paralyzing the system, then the system is broken and needs to be changed
No false positives is an unreasonably high standard, as it no false negative. For example, children do sometimes lie, or they claim abuse when there isn't any when under the influence of other adults who distort the child's notion of what constitutes abuse. Perfection is not attainable, whether false positives or false negatives are concerned. Mistakes will happen. You cannot assume the worst as a precaution, nor ignore evidence that strongly suggests abuse. We cannot control the world. Lots of crime happens that is never punished, sometimes because of the neglect of the state, but also sometimes because chasing down every crime does more harm than good. In the case of child abuse, an overbearing state with oversensitive notions of child abuse is dangerous. The state must accept its limitations and mind the common good.
The question is a matter of having sufficient evidence, taking precautionary measures proportional to the evidence of abuse when it makes sense, and the use of prudential judgement. The last one is unavoidable. The law is not a mechanically applied algorithm. It is something that requires good judgement. The most important things are sound abuse laws, and competent people with good judgement who have a good understanding of abuse and the law.
children should never be taken away from their parents unless the children's life is in danger, or the children are clearly fearing their parents. in other words, simply ask the children, observe the situation and collect evidence.
the well-being of the children needs to be the first concern, and it needs to be understood that separating children from their parents against their will is detrimental to the children's well-being because can hurt the children more than the abuse they receive from their parents (unless the abuse is actually life threatening)
most children will not have a problem to stay with other people for a while if they are given a choice. at least the older ones who understand what is going on.
for parents with young children, i believe the better approach is family therapy or living under supervision.
but these things can only be done if we as a society accept that these are cases of mental illness, and instead of punishment these people need help.
If one makes such a decision without weighing the tradeoffs, they're being negligent.
If they refuse to make the decision, then they're choosing to never place abused children in foster care which is one of the options in the decision process, so they're still making a decision. There is no escape hatch.
I'd encourage you to do the same imaginative thought experiment for the kid who's in an abusive bio-family. Would it change how you decide?