Generally yes, that's why its foster and not adopting an orphan. Something considerably bad has to be done for the government to be willing to pay someone to take this child away from its mother.

And she wasn't broken, she was dangerous. Broken would imply an addict or someone simply incapable of taking care of the child through inability. This was a very distinctly criminal mother with a multi decade rap sheet. These are facts presented to you when you go through the process to foster the child, so they knew.

And again, people have priorities to protect certain reliant dependents, even in spite of others who might deserve help. Anyone could have fostered this kid, but their own child only had them and they decided to put that in risk. Either through naivety or the muchworse and selfish "reward from god" you gave them as motivation.

Which is why I keep coming back to the question you keep dodging. If that priority doesn't matter, and God's Reward is better than all things, why are you not getting brutalized in the jungle right now try to help some savages?