You know, it's all well and good to say that a child who is (by Thomas' definition) being neglected should be taken away and raised by better "parents", but then reality bites, and you have to wonder where you are going to find these better parents.
There are literally millions of former and present foster care kids who have experienced serious neglect and even abuse at the hands of foster parents; people who are being paid by the state to take care of them.
So, yeah, you say, let them be adopted, but the state pays adoption-related costs, too, and if you flooded that many available adoptees into the system you would overwhelm the supply of available adoptive parents, and we would be back to warehousing kids in orphanages, again at state expense. Personally, I'd rather give a state-funded hand up to folks who are simply weathering a rough patch, in the end it would cost me less than trying to find "perfect parents" (and who gets to define THEM?) for every poor kid in the country. (And that is as specific as I'm going to be on this topic, because taking it any further will invite political discussion.)
And no, being so poor that you can't feed your kids isn't a crime, no matter how badly you want it to be, not unless the kids are the only people in the household who are not being fed. It is only criminal neglect when you fail to share what you have with the children in your custody: if all you have to share is nothing, then everyone in the household goes without, and there is no crime.