ABSTRACT
Though the state's abstract interest in protecting children may remain compelling, understanding the value of faith supports the parents' exemption from punishment. Only by attempting to understand the parent's faith to the best of its ability may the judiciary fairly conclude that the government's interest outweighs that of the religious parent. To punish parents for their reliance on faith, when their need for it is most acute and when faith's intrinsic value is the highest seems at best, nonsensical, and at worst, oppressive. Yet, although the compelling interest test does not allow the state to interfere in a parent's religious decision to forego conventional medical treatment for a child until the child's life is threatened, it supports punishment if the parent's reliance on faith is unsuccessful. The nature of the parents' faith in such a crisis also exposes the questionable effectiveness of punishment, which further reduces the countervailing weight of the state's interest in protecting children.
