Yes, she should. But as someone else pointed out upthread, that can cost anywhere upwards of 3k per week, to 10k per week, per child. Now we are getting to the crux of why it's easier to keep children with their fucking awful parents, aren't we? Money.
Someone else upthread said something along the lines of nothing will change until ordinary people start demanding that the government makes changes to stop this happening over and over. We all cry over it for a week or two, get angry, demand to know how it happened, then it's next week's chip paper and we move on with our comfortable lives until next time.
What can odrinary people do though? I know what most ordinary, decent, sensible people want. It's for children like Sara and her brother/s to be removed from their parents at the first available opportunity and never, ever given back.
Ordinary people want to see them to go to loving, adoptive families at the very first opportunity, not after several years of being passed around a broken care system until they themselves are damaged and dysfunctional and present a challenge to any foster or adoptive family that is brave enough to take them.
Ordinary people want to see forced sterilization of repeat offenders having numerous children they then neglect, abuse, or who get taken straight into the care system at birth for their own safety. Even the ones who get adopted are rarely adopted immediately because the feckless parents are given chance after chance to sort themselves out. So an endless stream of children are sentenced to suffer, because we don't have the guts to do the right thing in the very beginning.
Sara was on the radar of SS because both her parents were violent, abusive and incompetent before she was even born. She could have been removed at birth and adopted immediately, and be alive, happy and thriving today, but she's dead. Battered, broken and dead. Because the powers that be decide that they know better than the ordinary decent people of this country. the 'system' decides that every attempt should be made to keep children with their fucking awful dysfunctional parents because 'it's best.' Best for who? It wasn't best for Sara, or Arthur, for any of the Saras or Arthurs who have gone before them, was it?
It's only 'best' to try to keep children with their birth parents compared to being in the care system their whole lives. It's not better than being swiftly adopted by loving, non-chaotic, non-drug addicted, non-violent, non-dysfunctional parents who don't have very low IQs or serious MH issues or any other issues which will mean they are hopelessly incapable of providing a child with an adequate level of love and care and always will be. Even if they could change with enough support, how much time and money do we throw at one family, before we admit defeat and give up, by which time those children are already deeply damaged and institutionalised? And those very children are often the ones who go on to repear the same tragic patterns.
It's not that ordinary people don't care. It's that ordinary people don't get listened to because people in the civil service and government who like to think they are extra-ordinary insist on ignoring the ordinary people and making all the decisions for us, in spite of us. And any government that would do things the way most ordinary decent people would like to see them done would be considered too hard line and probably labelled 'far right.' That's the truth of it.