First. Rightly said, it's an assumption. Then, I'd like to highlight that resources are limited. This means that if want to spend resources on X you have to take resources from Y, and is this trade-off really acceptable for this case in particular?
What outcomes can we really expect from a law like this? How do we know? What's the best and worst scenario? How will it be enforced?
I'd bet nobody can answer these questions with data supporting them. Including policymakers.
> And I don't think social safety nets can prevent children from being abused
Just today on the front page: >>39374152
Anyway, all of this is just speculation because research on this topic is banned in practical terms.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00057... See graphs on pages 687 and 689
I was only assuming that a higher happiness was correlated with children not being abused. It was just speculation on my part. Sorry I should've clarified that.