[PHI 3000] The God-parent analogy

In discussions about the Problem of Evil, and the free will defense, the analogy God : human :: parent : child often comes up (see, e.g., Swinburne). I take it that the analogy is supposed to go like this:

1. Good parents allow their children to act freely, since free will is valuable, even if it could have bad consequences.
2. A benevolent God allows humans to act freely, since free will is valuable.
3. Therefore, a benevolent God allows humans to act freely, even if it could have bad consequences.

This is supposed to explain why there is moral evil (the kind of evil that results from human actions, such as war, genocide, murder, rape, etc.) in the world, even though God is supposed to be omnipotent and benevolent.

What do you make of this argument? Is it strong?

If we take the God : human :: parent : child analogy seriously, then wouldn't we have to conclude that a benevolent God would restrict human freedom? To illustrate this, suppose that you are a parent and you know that your child will grow up to be a mass murderer. Wouldn't you want to prevent that from happening? Wouldn't you do everything in your power to prevent that from happening? Similarly, wouldn't a benevolent God want to prevent that (and, by analogy, moral evil in general) from happening? Wouldn't an omnipotent God do everything in his power to prevent that (and, by analogy, moral evil in general) from happening?