Indeed, I should have read more closely. However, may I point out that defaulting to ignorance is a far cry from failing to look for evidence in the same way that a presumption of innocence does not preclude a criminal justice system.
The social services failed in their duty - but that duty exists regardless of whether in the absence of direct evidence one assumes specific intent to harm.
Moreover, failure of intent to harm does not remove the responsibility for harm caused (and I consider failure to take responsibility for unintended harms to be nearly as bad as intending malice.) Nor does assuming that harm is caused by ignorance preclude protecting oneself against unintentional harm.
Now I’ll certainly acknowledge that assuming malice or guilt would result in a more forceful investigation. But I believe that the harm caused by the assumption of malice would probably ruin more lives that it would save (different lives, of course), as our default assumptions do colour our interpretation of evidence.
The vast majority of parents love their children. For the agents of the state to assume otherwise, especially in areas disproportionately affecting the minorities and the poor does not seem (in my mind) to lead to better outcomes in the aggregate, even if there would be cases it would save lives.
But make no mistake - my particular bugaboo “every policy decision has costs and our job is to acknowledge them” applies here as much as everywhere else. Assuming ignorance instead of malice is no different. No doubt failing to assume malice costs lives. However, I think the benefits strongly outweigh the costs.
