I don't know what I personally think, but my guess about the justification is that the state intervenes when it's in the best interests of the child. Its purpose is to protect and aid the minor when families can't.

It is considered a harm to deprive children permanently of access to their parents, without showing that it's more harmful for the kid to be around them. So crime doesn't automatically remove access. Is the theory.

The state isn't supposed to treat permanent removal of access to a child as another criminal punishment. One thing I do agree on, though, is that people who rape kids shouldn't have unsupervised visits with their minor children, since they've proven themselves harmful specifically to children. Not even supervised, honestly.

I guess I'd want to see studies about outcomes of kids who are allowed around convicted adult rapist parents, vs those allowed access to parents convicted of nonviolent crimes. Or a study designed by people who know how to design studies well. Instead of my rambling suggestion.

I worry that our vibe checks get warped around kids, and we ignore what's proven right vs what feels right. Like people who feel really strongly that kids need their parents specifically have warped the narrative on this issue, and I don't want to warp it in a different way.