Are you willing to take the inversion of your position: that you should have no ability to control what information the state exposes your children to?

What about media with sexual content? Or content that promotes creationism or the idea that there are two biological sexes, which were created by God?

My position is balance between the family and the state for the maximal benefit of the child.

Also the balance should be towards access to information. There is no symmetry between exposure to harmful ideas and restricting good ones. With your example of two biological sexes created by God it is pretty easy to explain that the reality is more nuanced. If parents restrict access to information and the state doesn't intervene, the harm is bigger.

To what degree should the state be able to intervene if parents are preventing their children from access to the truth? Should homeschooling be allowed? Should children be taken from their parents? Should parents who don’t agree with certain content be compelled to fund distribution of that content via public libraries?

In other words, good things are good and bad things are bad.

It's astonishing how many people (or bots) in 2025 talk as if the only allowed positions are "the state is good" or "the state is bad" and "parents are good" or "parents are bad", like they have no ability to recognize when individual separate actions are good or bad.