Should the state have taken the child from the parents for medical care? I think not.
The state—or even concerned friends and neighbors—ought to stand in loco parentis if the parents are non compos mentis (which these parents appear to be). If not, who will save the child?
And the idea that the remaining children in the home are not in danger is ludicrous.
It can now be easily demonstrated that the remaining children are in real danger.
Giving the state the kind of power to remove the child before this girls death is risky. They should have to meet a very high standard.
Even if a friend, neighbor, someone from the public school she had attended, stepped in and the girl received emergency care, would the subsequent diabetes treatments (meds) have been followed when she had been returned back to her parents. Or would the parents have renounced the 'state's treatment' and not given the meds (causing the same outcome). So not knowing if the parents would adminster treatment, would it be safe to say that the child should have been taken into custody by the state. But then child protection authorities would be made out to be overstepping their bounds by taking the child out of a prayerful home. When infact, state intervetnion would have saved her life. I can see how that scenario could have been played out. Sadly, though, no one outside of the family knew of her detriorating condition and help was called too late.