You're not wrong. Programs like SNAP, WIC, Medicare, and etc. seek to provide funding for specific services of need to families with children that can only be spent on those particular services. By and large, as a result of welfare few children starve or die of lack of medical care because it cannot be afforded. Parents with drug problems tend to be poor parents in many ways, and neglect or worse is often experienced by their children.

I experienced some neglect as a child, although it was of social nature, and not of my physical needs. I began trying to live on my own at 12, and as a result of the conditions lack of support creates, I also became acquainted with many peers who were fostered, physically neglected, and sadly, far worse. I do not ignore this experience when I consider the matter.

A sad truth is that people aren't infallible, completely sane, or even capable of independent, rational thought in a highly variable suite of flaws. There is a supposition that the most mentally capable best secure desirable resources, but one mugging will reveal that violent aggression and sociopathological traits are a factor in resource acquisition. Since the golden rule is that them with the gold rule, society ends up ruled by clever sociopaths who get the resources to rule without scruple, while people with scruples end up subjects.

Thus every authority given government is filtered by sociopaths whose acquisitive traits cause the programs to be surreptitiously twisted however bureaucrats can manage to benefit themselves. Of course the rhetoric surrounding such initiatives does not reflect this reality, and clever sociopaths are expert at getting away with crimes, so normally sociable people are shocked as we discover unconscionable horror instead of reasonable assistance resulting from actions of government. While it's true that food, medical care, and other benefits reach many children as a result of welfare, it comes at cost. Over half the Fed.gov budget is 'non-discretionary', i.e. welfare. An unknown part of this budget more empowers sociopaths than it does children, and since children are involved, many children are terribly harmed by those sociopaths and their minions.

Sometimes trying to help does more harm than help. I have become convinced that trying to help people using government force always does more harm than it does help, even if some get help. There are other ways to help. Prior to welfare other social groups motivated by the plight of children of poor parents sought to provide assistance, and still do. Sadly, every institution is a vector for sociopaths, and it is cliche today to consider schools, churches, and NGOs as vectors for child abuse.

None of them have the authority of government however, and as a result such organizations are less capable of doing harm. There may be some difference in the ability of non-governmental institutions and private persons to provide assistance from government, but I do not consider the potential difference to justify the vastly increased level of harm that involving government force causes.

We not only don't need CPS, we'd have far fewer problems to solve if government weren't involved. It is necessary to consider that involving government in a matter necessarily involves sociopaths empowered with a monopoly on violent force, and IMHO that disqualifies government from being suitable for providing assistance to children.