Parents Can’t Discipline, But They Can Be Punished — Where’s the Line?

Across the country, a quiet but consequential battle is unfolding over who gets to decide what’s best for a child — the parent or the government. In Washington, D.C., that battle is playing out over “redshirting,” the practice of delaying a child’s start in kindergarten by a year. For years, some parents had the leeway to make that choice. Now, D.C. Public Schools says no: if your child turns five by September 30, they must start kindergarten that year. Rare exceptions are determined by the school — not the family.

That policy shift has real consequences. Jennifer Lilintahl’s daughter, nearly six and still struggling to read, was denied the chance to enter kindergarten this fall despite years of play-based pre-K and advice from her child’s preschool teacher and pediatrician. Instead, she’s been told to skip directly to first grade. For Lilintahl, this is not about gaming the system — it’s about giving her child the best chance to succeed. But her judgment, and the judgment of other parents like her, has been overruled by a rigid age rule.

In Gastonia, North Carolina, tragedy struck when a 7-year-old boy was killed by a car while walking home unsupervised with his 10-year-old brother. Two days later, his parents were arrested and charged with felony involuntary manslaughter and child neglect. Police said the charges were about accountability — that adults have an obligation to protect their children from foreseeable harm. For some, the case underscored the limits of parental discretion; for others, it raised questions about when the state should intervene and when it should stand back.

And in New Jersey, a new local ordinance has sparked outrage for taking that intervention to an extreme. In Gloucester Township, parents can now face up to 90 days in jail and a $2,000 fine if their children are convicted of multiple juvenile offenses — ranging from assault and drug dealing to loitering or destruction of playground equipment. The law was passed after a massive brawl at a township event injured police officers and led to multiple arrests. Supporters say parents must be held responsible. Critics say the measure is heavy-handed, stripping parents of rights while punishing them for behavior they can’t always control.

“Parents are feeling pretty outraged. They’re getting attacked from every angle here,” Alex Bougher, chair of the Bergen County chapter of Moms for Liberty, told the New York Post. She also pointed to what she sees as a contradiction in state policy, citing New Jersey public schools’ Policy 5756, which directs teachers not to inform parents if their child changes gender identity in the classroom. “If you’re going to block the parents, how can you blame the parents?” Bougher told the Post.

Nicole Stouffer of the New Jersey Project called the ordinance “a snake eating its tail” — a system that undermines parents in one breath and criminalizes them in the next. She argued that the measure could harm families more than it helps, especially those already struggling to manage a child with behavioral issues.

And there’s an even deeper frustration among many parents: they feel they can’t discipline their kids for fear of being reported to Child Protective Services — yet now the government wants to punish them if their kids misbehave. Where is the line? The state can’t tie parents’ hands when it comes to guiding and disciplining their own children, then swoop in later with fines, jail time, or criminal charges for outcomes it helped create. The government should not be parenting our kids.

These examples, taken together, reveal a widening fault line in American family life. In D.C., the state claims the right to override a parent’s judgment about school readiness. In North Carolina, the state responds to tragedy with criminal charges. In New Jersey, officials say parents should face jail time for repeat juvenile misconduct. The settings and circumstances differ, but the underlying question is the same: where does the parent’s authority end and the state’s authority begin?

Parents argue they know their children best — their strengths, their struggles, their readiness for new challenges. Governments argue that consistency, fairness, and public safety require clear rules and enforceable standards. Both sides say they are protecting children, yet their visions of protection often collide.

What’s missing in much of this debate is balance. Birthdates alone don’t determine readiness for school. A single incident shouldn’t always define parental fitness. Laws meant to keep communities safe shouldn’t destroy families in the process. The goal should be partnership — a system that works with parents, not against them, and respects both individual judgment and the need for fairness.

Because the bigger question isn’t just about kindergarten or curfews or even who’s responsible when things go wrong. It’s about whether the government’s role is to support parents or to replace them. And if we keep moving toward the latter, we risk creating a society where the state holds the final word on raising our children — and parents are left as little more than bystanders in their own families.