When Folk Healing Clashes with Child-Protection Law: Cases, Risks & Policy Solutions

Introduction: When Healing Traditions and Child Safety Collide

Across jurisdictions, families and communities sometimes rely on folk, spiritual, or faith-based healing in place of conventional medical care. While cultural and religious practices deserve respect, a disturbing body of evidence shows that refusing medically indicated care for children can lead to preventable injuries and deaths — and to criminal prosecutions or child-protection interventions. Policymakers must therefore balance two obligations: safeguarding children's right to life and health, and protecting religious and cultural freedoms.

A landmark review of religion-motivated medical neglect found that many fatalities following exclusive reliance on spiritual healing were preventable with routine medical care. This research and subsequent legal responses have shaped how states and countries approach child-protection law and exemptions.

Case Studies: What Courts and Child-Protection Systems Are Seeing

Kara Neumann — Wisconsin (2008–2013)

In 2008, 11‑year‑old Madeline Kara Neumann died of undiagnosed diabetic ketoacidosis after her parents relied on prayer instead of medical care. The parents were convicted of reckless homicide in 2009; their convictions were later upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a decision that clarified limits on religious defenses when a child’s health is at serious risk. The case is widely cited in U.S. child-protection debates about when criminal liability is appropriate.

Followers of Christ — Oregon (recent prosecution following a 2023 death; sentencing 2025)

Members of the Followers of Christ church in Oregon have a long history of refusing medical treatment for children. In a high-profile case, a newborn (born June 2023) died after parents relied on prayer and anointment rather than urgent medical care; the parents later pleaded guilty to criminal mistreatment and were sentenced in 2025. Episodes like this prompted Oregon legislators in 2011 to remove a faith-healing defense for serious crimes against minors.

Elizabeth Struhs — Queensland, Australia (2022 death; 2024–2025 trial)

In a prolonged, widely reported legal proceeding, members of a fringe religious group called "The Saints" were found to have encouraged the withdrawal of life‑saving insulin from eight‑year‑old Elizabeth Struhs, who subsequently died of diabetic ketoacidosis. In 2024–2025 the court found multiple group members guilty of manslaughter. The case underscores that the legal distinction between personal faith and criminal culpability often turns on whether others pressured or counseled the caregiver to withhold care.

Legal Landscape & Policy Context

Legal responses differ widely by country and subnational jurisdiction. Many U.S. states historically included religious exemptions that shielded parents from prosecution for withholding medical care on doctrinal grounds; a mix of litigation, scholarship, and advocacy led some states to repeal or narrow those protections. Oregon’s 2011 legislative change (House Bill 2721) is a prominent example: it removed spiritual‑treatment immunity in cases involving minors, enabling prosecutions for serious neglect or manslaughter where appropriate. At the same time, courts continue to weigh parental belief, intent, and coercion when deciding criminal liability.

From a public‑policy perspective, authorities must also consider: (1) preventive oversight (public health, outreach and education); (2) the threshold for criminal charges versus civil child‑welfare action; and (3) culturally competent enforcement that minimizes harm to families while prioritizing child safety. Historical research — including systematic reviews of religiously motivated child fatalities — has been central to these policy shifts.

Policy Solutions: A Practical, Rights‑Sensitive Toolkit

Below are policy and practice recommendations that have emerged from case law, public‑health research, and child‑welfare best practice. These measures aim to reduce preventable harm while respecting legitimate cultural and religious expression.

• Eliminate categorical criminal exemptions for medically necessary care. Where governments retain special defenses, they should be narrowly drawn to avoid creating safe havens for neglect; Oregon’s HB 2721 is a model of removing a broad immunity for spiritual treatment in serious child‑harm cases.
• Adopt prophylactic civil safeguards and mandatory reporting. Require timely reporting by schools, health providers, and other professionals when a child shows signs of serious untreated illness; use civil dependency proceedings to obtain court orders for emergency care when needed.
• Develop culturally competent diversion and education programs. Invest in community outreach that works with traditional healers and faith leaders to promote recognition of red‑flag symptoms (e.g., signs of diabetic ketoacidosis, severe dehydration, infection), and to create referral pathways to emergency care.
• Clarify standards for criminal liability. Lawmakers and prosecutors should specify when omission rises to criminal neglect or manslaughter, with particular attention to coercion, counseling to withhold care, and objective foreseeability of death or serious harm.
• Create cross‑sector rapid response protocols. Health departments, child‑welfare agencies, and local faith/community leaders should co‑design protocols for rapid assessment, temporary medical custody when necessary, and culturally sensitive follow-up care.
• Invest in data, research, and independent review. Fund systematic data collection and independent reviews of cases to identify risk patterns and to evaluate interventions — evidence that has previously guided reforms. The 1998 Pediatrics review remains a foundational reference.

Implementation should be trauma‑informed and legally precise: the goal is to reduce preventable child harm while avoiding unnecessary criminalization or stigmatization of communities. Where criminal charges are pursued, courts should have access to expert medical and cultural evidence to determine culpability and appropriate sentencing.

Conclusion — Toward Balanced Protection: Cases from multiple countries show the human cost when cultural or faith‑based healing replaces necessary medical care. Policy responses that combine legal clarity, preventive outreach, community partnership, and culturally informed child‑welfare practice offer the best route to protect children while respecting religious and cultural diversity.