The scenario I made is that there are kids who could be made homeless via this law.
I was heavily implying that it is a dangerous downstream ramification of that law, and is a reason to not have a law like that which forces universal non-discretion.
Rather than say something like "oh right, you might be onto something there, maybe we shouldn't enact laws that will potentially render children homeless"
You basically said "whelp, they're going to be homeless, we should invest in programs that help the homeless"
You and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.
This is why I said you were so attached to that idea that you'd already discounted the idea of safeguarding and discretion to prevent them from being homeless, because you did, possibly without even realising it.
It isn't me reading too deep or not enough, it's literally the first thing you said.
Again, read your own words, or at the very least read mine FFS.