Of course, I assume that women are volitional human beings and thus should be held responsible for their actions. A concept quite foreign to the Ango-Saxon legal tradition.
Let's check if I understood you correctly, though: your opinion is that parents who can't afford their kids anymore should have their kids taken away from them. And you are sure that is what is best for the kids?
We're all talking about parents taking care of their kids: If moms have the option not to have to take care of their kids - as they currently do - then fathers should have that option as well.
Once fathers have that option, and women are thusly treated as responsible adults, then we will come across situations in which mothers claim not to be able to care for their children. They will require assistance, or so they shall claim.
Simple solution: If the caretaker is sufficiently irresponsible as to have children without the means to care for them - which is precisely what they are claiming - then the children should be removed from their irresponsible care. Offer the father custody, and if he isn't interested then off to foster care.
Why is this so important? Why am I being so callous? Why is this relevant?
Simple. You incentivize behavior, you get more of it. Current law in Anglo-Saxon nations incentivizes irresponsibility by women. Get rid of these silly laws and you'll have less of this silly behavior.
If parents are unable psychologically to take care of their kids, I suppose the state should step in. If it is just money woes, I am not so sure. Especially as it might be cheaper to give money to parents than to finance foster homes (I don't know). I also don't trust that foster homes generally provide good care for children. I suppose some do, but it seems difficult to assess, so there are probably a lot of bad apples. You can't make people love a kid - caregivers in foster homes are being paid to take care of the kids, but maybe they won't be able to provide some crucial things like love.