You buy a child a toy, and when they struggle to get it working you take over and do it for them. You do your child's homework because it is easier than watching them struggle. You move your teenager from one school to another when the school administration insists that they follow the rules. You bail out your son or daughter (in the extended sense) every time they get into trouble, because you can. You treat younger siblings like children, taking care of their every need, no matter how old they are.
You are a rescuer. Not in the sense of saving from danger, but in the sense of not allowing others to take responsibility for their actions, or to learn.
You do it because you love them, and you don't want them to get hurt? That's what you say. Yet you are really doing it because you prefer to have the power to say 'look how you are paying me back after all I have done for you'.
The thing is, if people do not experience the consequences of their behaviour, how will they learn from it?
And how can you guarantee that you will always be there to bail them out? Is it fair to 'not teach' a child how to deal with failure? Or how do stuff for themselves? How is that love?
Stories abound of children who are completely lost when their parents are no more, because they were taught that Mum and Dad have all the answers, all the resources. How can that be?
Are you setting your children up, or bringing them up?
