Thank you for pitching fat, slow softballs!
I habitually think in terms of market economics, and in this case, it offers a unique perspective. Theoretically speaking, I would try to "buy" the child and place it up for adoption in a loving home. That is to say, offer the parent a suitable compensation to allow the adoption. "Buying" people is illegal, wouldn't you know, so we'd need enabling law. I should think it could be done under religious auspices, privately financed.
Actually, that solves two problems, because a lot of people are eager to adopt and cannot, and the children who need a home can't get one either. This is due to a government monopoly on people trading. Only the state can own children and they do it by coercion, not be market prices. The DSS owns Haleigh Poutre, for instance. (These laws are thanks to past generations of liberal reformers who reasoned that fat, ugly capitalists with big cigars would buy the children and force them to work in coal mines or cotton fields.)
Staying with my economics metaphor, this is a classic example of government intervention wrecking the market, and the classic answer is to privatize the market.
(In fact we should get the government completely out of the child protection business, which socialism screws up as royally as everything else it touches.)
Slavery is alive and well. Massachusetts DSS owns Haleigh Poutre. Pennsylvania has new legislation that provides guidelines for determining who owns incapacitated individuals. Every state has legislation that provides rights of ownership over certain individuals. The specifics vary by state. There is not a state in the union that doesn't allow somebody to decide to starve and dehydrate another individual to death. If that isn't ownership, nothing is.