It's not unreasonable at all. The state shouldn't be pushing any efforts at "family control". I think the conservatives are being tempted by a powerful weapon that they've used successfully in the past, that is currently blowing up our faces. You give the government the authority to protect children, and now it's talking about how it has the authority to protect the state's children from their parents. We can't trust the government with public schooling as it is: the Progressive education system failed 50 years ago, and isn't being replaced.

That's kind of my problem with the Conservatives trying to turn what "ought" to be done optimally, into a minimum legal standard. It's kind of like with marriage: hell yes, society would be better off if people were forced to stay married permanently with some kind of enforcement mechanism. However, the Family Court system is criminal in it's conduct most of the time, is horrifically unjust, supports abusive parents, enables child abuse, and there clearly does need to be an out for destructive co-dependent families.

It's kind of like with abortion. No one actually treats abortion as murder, in the same way we don't treat a miscarriage as manslaughter. Even in more paleo-conservative time, women weren't going to be executed for having an abortion, or imprisoned for 30 years for asking for one as "conspiracy to commit murder". Clearly, people understood that infanticide should be aggressively avoided, but we include exclusions for rape, incest, and threat to mother's life for a reason: the life of an unborn person isn't the same as a 6 year old child, even if it 'ought' to be.

You 'ought' not be gay in an optimal environment, but we are in a fallen world (and a burning civilization) so 'ought' really isn't something we can demand be enforced with the government's gun.