They wouldn't give her radiation?

There's something missing in this story. I wonder what got left on the editing room floor. AP appears to believe it's a fight between Texas and some eccentric parents. Why do I get the feeling there's more?

Here's the highlights:

A judge ruled Thursday that the state will retain custody of a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her parents after they refused to continue her cancer treatments and the cancer, which appeared to have been eliminated, returned.

Katie Wernecke, who has Hodgkin's disease, will remain with Child Protective Services pending another hearing late next month, juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis ruled. Katie was scheduled to see doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston on Thursday.

Katie's parents tried to convince Lewis during a custody hearing that they would not resist efforts to resume her treatment. But he refused to return the girl to their care, noting that Katie's mother had previously fled with Katie and her father had rejected several doctors' findings.

"I really don't have a parent that I can say I can return the child to without putting that child in danger of her health," Lewis said.

Why would parents refuse treatment for their thirteen-year-old girl? Well, according to the girl's father:

Edward Wernecke said he feared the radiation would put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.

Earlier this month, Child Protective Services officials took custody of Katie after doctors said the Werneckes were risking their daughter's life by refusing the radiation therapy. A scan last week revealed the cancer had returned, and Katie's former doctor testified he thought its return was linked to the family's refusal to go forward with the radiation.

Can radiation cause all of the harm that Mr. Wernecke feared? What did the girl's specialists have to say about side effects?

Did they really flee with their daughter?

The article leads to more questions than answers. If I had to go by the facts it presents, then it appears as though the Texas CPS actually acted in a child's best interest. For CPSs in general, this is a pleasant surprise. If the facts are correct, I can only wonder what these parents were thinking. Denial? Too much bad advice from well meaning ignoramuses? What's up with them?

The trouble is that the article doesn't pass the smell test for me. It sounds like something's missing. Does any one else know what's going on with this?