If the bills' sponsors were not making those assumptions, they would see no need for the legislation they are proposing that redefines abuse and neglect, imposes higher standards of proof for child removal and parental-rights termination and makes it more difficult for the state to prosecute medical-neglect cases.

But those assumptions are dangerous and, if the bills are passed by the Legislature, will mean more children are left in the care of parents who are not providing them with safe, loving homes and adequate medical care.

Sen. Dave Thomas and Rep. Wayne Harper seem to be operating with blinders. Their proposals are aimed at protecting "good" parents from heavy-handed interference by the state without recognizing the sad truth that not all parents are "good" and some seriously neglect or abuse their children.

State law must strike a balance to help families stay together, but also to protect children when parents are not responsible and loving as they should be.

In reality, DCFS rarely intervenes in families. Its purpose is defined as promoting families and keeping them together, not, as Thomas and Harper seem to believe, snatching children from parents and prosecuting those who, though they make mistakes, are parenting the best they can.

One of the most frightening portions of Harper's HB202 is a redefinition of accidental abuse as "when a person is not aware that he is engaging in the conduct." That clause might keep DCFS from intervening when a parent beats his child while drunk or high on drugs.

On the other hand, a reasonable provision in Thomas's bill would allow parents to get a second opinion from another certified physician if they disagree with medical treatment the state or a doctor says is necessary. But a much less reasonable section requires "clear and convincing evidence" - one of the highest legal standards - that a parent's decision on health care constitutes neglect before the state can intervene.

Both bills presume that a parent always knows what is best for a child and will act in the child's best interest. While that is true in the vast majority of families, these measures put unnecessary limits on what the state can do when intervention is necessary to protect a child from danger.

Children, no less than adults, are entitled to state protection when they are threatened.