No, you're overlooking the basic statement that dependence is a drive.
Behavioral Dependence is not a condition (as opposed to physical dependence,) it is a drive.
Dependence is a style of reproduction.
Some creatures, species do not appear to express dependence, such as some sea turtles who famously lay their eggs in the sand and then crawl-swim away.
Dependence as a drive requires participation by the neonate and by the caregiver (parent). As such i call it a bimodal expression.
The primary, existential expression by the neonate elicits the secondary (care) expression from the parent.
That is the "plan" according to evolution. The evolutionary effect, as I stated, a dynamic exists which is, the duration of the primary dependence state in the juvenile cannot exceed the capacity of the secondary response from the parent.
This acts to both extend and/or restrict the primary period.
This action is similar to Darwins observation about the role of mate selection, competitive sexual selection.
Primary dependence is incongruent with the conditions of the matured, sexualized psyche. Emergence of the primary impulse into the sexualized (socialized) psyche can be an intractable condition, as primary dependence must command the parental response.
I therefore hypothosize that obssesive maladaptive ideation of mortality could result from such an intrusion. This does not say why such an intrusion would occur, it only describes some conditions that would then present.
And again, don't forget that socialization is competition.
This brings up a bunch of other issues, such as, why are there pretty girls, which implies prettier?

Masculine superficial visual appraisal of apparent feminine attractiveness does not strongly influence feminine reproductive success. That is, in the general,population wide sense as opposed to the specific, individual sense.

So, pretty girls, why?
Diversity and disparity of feminine apparent attractiveness (and I don't mean fashion) induces regulation of masculine competition.
The overriding function of socialization/enculturation is regulation of competition.
To expand (yes please) on that-
For example, among some red tailed deer species the duration of a harum master is measured in weeks, after which he is dead from competitive combat.
Increased socialization, ritualization of competitive impulses has a regulating effect upon competition.
Essentialy, human society has evolved to the point where display of regulation of competition is competition.
So next, comes the issue of the enculturation or socialization, process as a competitive expression.
The primaries in this process are relatively unconcious of the competitive nature of the process.
This brings me to MARO- mutually assured reproductive opportunity and the evolutionary direction resulting from this change in competition.
Societal membership bestows MARO, in the general sense. However, membership acts as suggested by the pretty girl example, diversity and disparity of apparent competitive capacity induces or expresses regulation of competition.
I find that is the more difficult proposition to accept.
Membership is the competitive expression, not status.
Among most other primates, membership and status are competitive expressions.
Jeez whizz, and I wanted to talk about sex.