I mean the fact that when you have children it's not the parents who teach kids but it's the school who does so. If you have school as mandatory you cannot decide to home school your children since it's against the law. You then face the fact that teachers (total strangers) become your children's educators. Those adults who accidentally happen to school them can put their world view onto them by whim or by will. Even worse: their impulses.

When sons and daughters then enter puberty and you try to teach them as their parents about the importance of relationship and marriage, about other values of life, you receive downright rejection from them. They are going to compete with you about what they have learned outside their homes in theory, thinking that they are smarter despite the fact that they have zero life experience in terms of work life, running a household, managing finances and having intimate relationships with the other sex.

You can ask yourself a very simple question: Who has by nature the absolute relationship with their child if not the parents?

And if you undermine this absolute relationship and say: It's not the parents who should have it, then the question is: Who should?

Who, if not the father and mother, are capable of assessing the ability and maturity of their child? Therefore, the parent-child relationship is something individual in the internal context. The external context is the context that arises from the individuality and uniqueness of these relationships. And thus becomes general. Whether a child is fit for school, whether a young man is fit for military service, whether a young woman is capable of getting married, such things are better left to the final judgement of parents, as they are the ones who most accurately recognise how capable or incapable their offspring are - and who are the most invested. However, there is nothing wrong with parents listening to what other adults have to say. When they themselves give those other adults the mandate in doing so. And sometimes, exceptionally, intrusion has to take place against parents.

But since it became and is the other way around, since it's secular law which determines the relationship between parents and children, it determines the age at which a person is criminally liable, the age at which a person is considered an adult, the age at which a person can drink alcohol and have sex. Or can drive a car. When a person is entitled to vote, etc. It's all about age and nothing about ability and skill.

Since this is already going on for a very long time, society itself changed and parents changed, and parenting changed as a result of external education and many other factors. What society has received are parents who are stripped off of so many of their natural felt responsibilities that we can see the results today.
Long after Sokrates though, Christians have recognized that "honor your father and mother" is so important that it is integrated in the Ten Commandments. They doesn't say "honor your state" or "honor your monarch".

Now, if someone understands religion and Christianity as something bad, understands parents as conspiring with a malevolent system, this sentence cannot be understood as something ideal.

We have an upside down system, where in all instances I can think of, the exception was made into rule and the rule vanished as a result (which is my most important point). We've created a society vastly based on personal impulse, selling it as individual freedom. Impulses then make laws and impulses make then wars.

Now, I am not saying that Sokrates was guilty of undermining the absolute relationship between parents and their children. Since I cannot know. I only know what Hegel said about him, so far.