Let's see. The mommy gets daily beatings from her hubby, so finally she divorces the asshole and raises the kid by herself. The kid reaches teenage years and starts behaving like the daddy: calling her mommy a bitch, screaming and punching her when he gets upset with her over her not doing what he wants. When asked by a counselor/therapist/social worker about his behavior he explains he does so out of his anger because his mommy "abused" him by depriving him of his daddy (who BTW does not give a shit about the brat he sired), dating other men, or generally not letting him do what he wants. I bet that the majority of self- or state-appointed "child advocates" would agree or at least be sympathetic toward that kid and see his mother "unfit."
Now, enter the ageing new-agers who still psycho-analyze their own childhood, hate the mainstream society, and long for "alternative" lifestyles. Violence in general, and much less so violent children, are not a part of their upper-middle class background. They do not experience the ugly aspect of teenagehood nowadays, its fascination with violence and adrenaline rush, gun-toting brats ready to shoot anyone who stands in their way or just for the thrill of it - unless they read about them in the paper. All they can see is a "flower child" being punished by his/her unconventional behavior.
Well, dream on. In my book, medicating such children until they reache 18 when I can leaglly kick out the house, and thus stop posing a threat to their (oftentimes) single parents - is justified self-defence and a favorable alternative to locking them up in a mental institution or prison.
wojtek