ABUSIVE PARENTS CHARACTERISTICALLY CLAIM THAT THEY ARE SERVING THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS IN GUIDING HIM TOWARD NORMS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DECORUM. THEY ARE BLIND TO THE DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE PAIN INFLICTED ON THE CHILD AND THE MINOR BREACHES OF DECORUM THAT PROMPTED PARENT RETALIATION. A SIMILAR UNCONSCIOUS HYPOCRISY EXISTS IN STATE INTERVENTION IN CHILD ABUSE CASES. CHILD NEGLECT AND ABUSE LAWS, IN THEIR OPERATIONS, FREQUENTLY FALL FAR SHORT OF THEIR PURPORTEDLY BENEVOLENT CHILD SAVING INTERVENTIONS IN TWO CRITICAL WAYS: THEY FAIL TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE STATE AGENCY HAS ANYTHING BETTER TO OFFER IN THE WAY OF CHILD CARE AND PROTECTION OR WILL INSTEAD INFLICT EVEN WORSE HARM BY INTERVENING. STATE OFFICIALS ARE NOT WELL-SUITED TO THE TASK OF ANALYZING COMPLEX INDIVIDUAL FAMILY DYNAMICS AND DETERMINING THE 'BEST INTERESTS' OF CHILDREN. INSTANCES OF THE ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF FOSTER CHILDREN AND OF HORRIFYING CONDITIONS IN CUSTODIAL SCHOOLS AND IN JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT COURT INTERVENTION CAN VICTIMIZE CHILDREN. AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRUE NATURE OF EFFORTS IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO FIND SOME SENSIBLE GUIDES FOR ACTION. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (MFE)