The notion of rights and choice and free will do not apply to minors in the same way as the rest of us.
Children are human beings who are not (yet) competent to make (all of) their own decisions. Children have guardians who are usually (but not always) their parents. They must be taught the necessary facts and skills to make appropriate analysis in order to make these decisions. Sensible and caring guardians will teach them these facts and skills, and allow them to incrementally take responsibility as they become competent adults.
Other people are incompetent to make decisions too, and we have obligations to them. For instance, a woman who falls asleep at a party is not competent to say "No thank you, I don't want to have sex". You have a choice of leaving such people alone, or acting in their interests.
Can you initiate force against such people? Yes: The car accident victim who is so traumatized she refuses to leave a burning car; the mugging victim with the slashed artery who is unable to keep still for long enough to apply a tourniquet; the child who is about to run in front of oncoming traffic.
The meaning of 'force' changes in such situations, and it becomes elitist and touchie-feelie because there is a notion of 'knowing best' (or at least 'knowing better') for someone who is incompetent. The problem arises when leftists, collectivists and intellectual elites consider that 90% of the population are incompetent, and that a public servant appointed by politician is the only person who can make decisions for them.
When interacting with a competent person, the rule is 'do not initiate force'. When dealing with an incompetent person, the rule is 'do what a reasonable person would agree to'.
In the case of a child-rearing, there are times when a parent sends a child in their room out of pure frustration. While this may appear to be initiation of force, consider the following contract proposal:
I will care for you for 18 years. I will feed you when you can't feed yourself, clothe you when you have nothing and nurse you when you are sick and helpless. I will teach you the basic life skills, treasure you and your well-being more than anyone else, and I will demand nothing in return. However very occasionally I will be unreasonable. I may shout at you to shut up after a hard day, or send you to your room when I just can't stand the noise any more.
The adult that the child will eventually become would probably see that as a pretty good deal. Not a perfect deal, but a very good one. Most parents feel pretty comfortable with agreeing to that contract on behalf of their children, and pretty confident that the adults they will become will be quite grateful.
Now consider
I will do what is necessary to keep you alive, but I will also burn you with cigarette buts when I am high on drugs and beat you for no reason for much of the 14 years it will take until you have the skills to run away.
That is not a contract that a competent person (a 'reasonable man') would agree to. It's a violation of right, and others have the right to intervene in such cases.
See