Yes, of course the children's welfare comes first, although as their ages ranged from 4 - 17, I am not sure I would describe them as 'babies'
But that does not mean we should ignore the other aspects of the case. This family had been living in this squalor for years. Did no one really not notice, did no one complain to some official, about the number of animals, even if they did not notice the state of the children. 9 adults and 35 dogs in a three bedroomed house.
I have googled the case and read the police and local paper reports and they all seem clear that the families £7,000 a month income came from benefits.
It would be interesting to know how that was calculated, even assuming all the children were on disability benefits, it still seems difficult to understand. To qualify for the higher rates the child would need to be very seriously disabled and surely that would require a significant involvement of GPs, nurses, carers and could any of those possibly have gone into the house and seen the neglect and squalor and done nothing. It seems unlikely. And what was the money spent on, since it clearly was not spent on the children, dogs or house?. There has been no reporting of drugs in the case