Faith healing and neglect was established as abuse in my first post, there is no needed for presupposition at this point of the debate.
Let's look at it from another aspect of abuse and remove faith healing. If a parent is physically or mentally abusing a child does the state have a right to step in and protect the child's rights? Liberties are not infinite; they are limited by man’s capacity to do evil.
You refuse to equate for the well-being of the child independently. In the extreme cases of any form of abuse or neglect when a life is on the line, how can you not see one option as unequivocally better for the child’s interests (State vs Parent)?