Since regulations differ by state, I can’t answer the question completely. But in the states I’m familiar with around here, child welfare (by whatever name) can’t take children away without a court order unless there’s immediate danger to the child’s life or health. Even in that case, a hearing must be provided within 48-72 hours.
The general procedure for a non-emergency case goes something like this:
The case is reported to the child welfare people.
They screen the report. If it seems valid, they interview the parents (and sometimes the child.)
If the evidence warrants, a follow-up meeting is scheduled. This meeting will outline a corrective program, instruct the parents on what assistance is available, etc.
After a period of time (30-60) days, the case is re-evaluated. If the family is making substantial process, the child stays in the parents’ custody and there’s additional follow-up.
If substantial progress is not being made, the parents may be asked to voluntarily put the child in the care of a close friend or relative.
If that isn’t possible, they may be asked to voluntarily put the child into foster care.
If the parents don’t agree, then a hearing may be scheduled in front of a judge for a court order.
Even if the judge orders the child removed at that point, it’s only for a temporary period. The parents will have multiple opportunities to show they’ve gotten their act together.
I don’t know what the laws were 25 years ago. But reading through the other thread and the original site, it looks like the authorities were dealing with an emotionally troubled mother, a father who was insisting everything was fine, and an unwillingness/inability to come in for monthly meetings and an attitude that they were self-righteous bureaucrats.
Honestly, they traveled the country in a big bus and then insisted they’d have to hitchhike into town for monthly follow-up? The account seems a little self-serving to me.