Two cases on opposite ends of the spectrum, both handled improperly

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ir7_SQyuZ7HaWjeK3E61X0nVqpSQD8U1M9580

This article discusses the excessive use of force in trying to protect a child, and taking away the right of the parent to make decisions about his/her child. Tom Shiflett, the childs father was a medic during the Vietnam war, clearly capable of caring for his own child.
If there was a warrant to provide the child with medical attention, it should have been served peacefully- the traditional justification for no knock warrants is that evidence can be destroyed. This was clearly not a situation in which evidence could be destroyed.
The father claims he was willing to let the police in, but they did not even announce that they had a warrant.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jgQq_Pn5o6mQHLQWGyzBoiaz4nOwD8U5RN580
On the other end of the spectrum, we have too little, too late.
According to Lopes, the woman was showing signs of mental instability- implying that she may have been unfit to care for her own children.
The authorities took insufficient actions on this case, and as a result four innocent children died.


So, the question I have is where does one draw the line? Is it government's job to protect those who can not protect themselves- such as children. What about people who can not protect themselves from corporations that are out of control- such as anyone but the super wealthy (often the ones that control those corporations).
I say that yes, those without rights (such as children, who do not have the same rights as people over 18) should be protected by the government. But NOT from people who aren't a threat (such as Tom Shiflett), and certainly not by using the maximum amount of force possible without first considering alternative, less traumatizing options.
Now, as far as protection from corporations. This is a more delicate question. Realistically, the purpose of a business is to make money. If an organization can monopolize a necessary market, then they may raise prices to astronomical levels, in order to maximize their profits. But, if a business has a strong business model, and becomes successful by offering good customer service, and competetive prices, should government punish them via regulations?
A friend of mine from mexico said that the standard of living was good (he hardly ever cleaned his own house because he had people to do it for him) due to the fact that there is no minimum wage, and people will perform undesireable functions (such as cleaning toilets) for low wages in order to survive- but this can be show to closely parrallel large corporations paying minimum wage, and providing no benefits. Neither of these practices are morally acceptable, nor do they make for a society in which justice can prevail.