Fair warning: my take on this is not in alignment with any of the traditional interpretations. That said:
It has been clear to me since reading MN 117 right after reading the Upanisads that the contents of the tainted right view is not a list of what the Buddha teaches, but is using catch-phrases representing other views of his day.
From the first item that "There is..." what is "sacrificed" along with "offered, given" he is being clear that he's speaking mostly of Vedic and Brahminical worldviews, using terms found in the Upanisads; sacrificial rituals being very common, offerings to the gods during those sacrifices, and the officiants recipients of gifts -- all Big Deals in his time.
To read the list as him speaking of his own views is a stretch, though, as we all know, some of his wording on kamma ("fruit and result of good and bad actions") overlaps the other views of his day, with the meaning he applied different from kamma's original meaning as action within the ritual sacrifices. So the list's actions is pointing to "within the ritual sphere" whereas the Buddha's teaching on action is quite different. I expect that that one overlap is why people are so certain he's listing his own teachings, though -- as I say -- if we're honest, the rest of that list is a stretch to fit his teachings, as this question about denying mother and father indicates.
The Brahmins and recluses going to the other world and back is so fundamental to Vedic saṃskāra rituals that it's hard to miss if one has studied Vedic culture.
Overall in this list, he's saying that the common worldviews of his day are good at least as far as they are practiced by people of goodwill trying to do their best, and that's preferable to all the naysayers out there who just go about telling people they are wrong (note that wrong view doesn't list anyone's actual views, only them using the exact list of those who believe this or that to say they are wrong). He's saying that having these views is preferable to naysaying but they keep us bound to samsara.
So (to finally answer the question) the Buddha isn't saying that believing there is a mother and father is going to cause you problems -- it's just another catch phrase representing one of the common worldviews that when one dies one goes up to a heaven, and is sustained there by one's children's sacrifices. Therefore: you take care of your mother and father after death. And while doing this is evidence you mean well, it isn't a liberative understanding of how things are.
The "there is" in every case is referring to views of what's efficacious to foster a good life after death, to a self that survives death. "There is mother and father" who survive death and it's really nice of you to keep performing sacrifices to keep them in a good place in that other world, but the belief that one day you too will go to that good place so you hope your kids believe this too and do their duty is keeping you back from liberation.