Point here is that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, and need not relinquish that responsibility to the state. Obviously, that right does not and should not extend into situations which are illegal, nor situations where the well-being of the child is unambiguously threatened.
I think this is tautologous though, unless I am misunderstanding you. You allow state intervention (I’m using the most value-neutral term I can think of) in cases where there is illegal activity. But I thought you were also opposed to over-regulation of parenthood?
This seems inconsistent to me. On the one hand, you seem to imply a kind of legal positivism, i.e. the law is the law, right or wrong. On the other hand, there seems to be a more normative aspect; an intuitive sense that the law is an ass, and that bad laws must be avoided.
If so, then ‘illegal’ is a red-herring, on penalty of logical inconsistency. In which case, “situations where the well-being of the child is unambiguously threatened” seems to be the criterion.
Physical torture and unwarranted emotional abuse and manipulation are both clear-cut examples of that, though. Why not just let them grow out of it, instead of performing creepy and scientifically disreputable medical experimentation on them, like they were lab animals?