There are two mistakes you can make here. The first is to consider HUCO-prevention paternalistic. The second is to take valuable space in your paper discussing HUCO-prevention when you could be deepening your discussion of paternalism. However, HUCO-prevention will probably come up. So feel free to discuss HUCO-prevention, but make sure it remains a secondary issue.
Paternalism is the primary issue.
This is simply inconsistent. You'll just have to decide what competency is, when a competent person's autonomy takes priority over health, life, and safety, and when it doesn't. Hence they mistakenly classify paternalism over children and the incompetent, which they approve, as non-paternalism rather than as justified paternalism . You don't have to approve this or any other kind of paternalism. But you should not automatically infer that a practice is non-paternalistic just because you approve it.