The problem, surely, is poverty. You can't tackle "child poverty" without tackling family poverty and poverty in general.
No poverty is ok but in terms of understanding some of the root causes for poverty these are three key areas. The target was around child poverty (admit it, it sounds nicer for the media, we are rescuing the ones who are innocent in all of this, it's palatable), which cannot be tackled unless poverty for the whole family is dealt with - as you say.
In work poverty covers both men and women, but again the effects of poorly paid, crappy part time work and lack of affordable childcare is proportionately more likely to effect women. Ad astra per aspera
admit it, it sounds nicer for the media, we are rescuing the ones who are innocent in all of this, it's palatable
Admittedly, there is also the idea that in no way can they be held partly responsible for their plight (which, in all honesty, can be said for some of the adult poor, which end up being used as strawmen for all the other ones). Although Icarus of Economist's View apparently takes the view that you are never helping the children but the parents, and (I'm using his own words there) helping them would give incentive to poor people to 'impregnate each other', which is irresponsible and exactly what we must fight and therefore we should precisely never do anything to fight child poverty.
But, of course, he's insane. Interestingly, his job is offshoring consultant. Yikes. "Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. - Galbraith"