However, that still doesn't answer why the state took any interest in this particular case. Who cares if she's immature? For a lot of people, simply saying she'd rather die is a sign of immaturity. The thought of suicide terrifies a lot of people and any suggestion that death is better than life for a particular individual is a sign of a mental problem. I reject that idea.
Define "responsible medical decisions". Is that any medical decision where the daughter is not forced to remain alive at any cost?2) The mother is proving herself to be incapable of making responsible medical decisions on her daughter's behalf, per the opinion of the judges plural who have heard this case and judged it on the merits, based on the evidence in front of them.
I'm not so sure about that. I guess we'll find out once she's 18.3) Once she reaches the age of 18, she can eat shelled pistachios and drink lime flavored sparkling water and pretend that it's a natural treatment for cancer, and the state will not intervene.
Why a 17-year-old with cancer is being forced to undergo chemo against her will - Vox
3) Why would the state intervene?
DCF, acting on behalf of the state, says it's obligated to intervene in this case. It's their duty to act when a child would die if medical decisions were left up to the parent. DCF's decision is based on experts — in this case, the doctors who diagnosed and are treating Cassandra who all agree she needs the chemo. To step in, DCF had to win temporary custody of Cassandra.
"Even if the decision might result in criticism; we have an obligation to protect the life of the child when there is consensus among the medical experts," DCF said in a recent statement.