Civil governance should only intervene in parent-child conflicts when there are violations of the NAP or when basic necessities like food and shelter are withheld. When government extends beyond these fundamental protections, it infringes upon parental rights.
Non-violent conflicts between parents and children can be resolved through market solutions and community support---one of the key functions of communities. Anyone raising children understands the numerous disagreements that can arise. Parents disagree with their children, with each other, and with other adults about the best approaches to various situations.
These regular disagreements don't signal a problem requiring state intervention. Rather, they reflect the challenges of a free society, which needs both a dynamic market offering multiple solutions and a recognition that certain truths about raising children exist. The fact that better ways to raise children might exist suggests there are truths worth pursuing.
Consider the age of consent debate. This involves complex questions: What constitutes consent? How do we determine someone's capacity to give authentic consent? What does coerced consent look like? How can one resist such coercion? How do these issues manifest in close relationships? Unless violence is involved, civil governance isn't equipped to address these questions.
Regarding transgender policies for minors, we must first apply principles of self-ownership and the NAP before discussing policy. Governance should intervene where NAP violations exist. In non-violent conflicts, persuasion becomes essential. Throughout these discussions, everyone is ultimately seeking truth.
This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, available in paperback, PDF, and Kindle.