Elizabeth Struhs Inquest: Why Child Safety Deemed Her Safe 2026

The Elizabeth Struhs inquest has cast a harsh light on how child safety officers in Queensland deemed the six-year-old "safe" just days after she nearly died from diabetic ketoacidosis. The inquest, which has heard nine days of evidence, is examining the actions of multiple government agencies and what went wrong in the lead-up to her death in January 2022.

What Happened to Elizabeth Struhs?

In July 2019, Elizabeth's father, Jason Struhs, took her to Toowoomba hospital in a coma. She was diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from previously undetected type 1 diabetes. She was intubated and ventilated, and some doctors believed she was already dead. Both parents were later convicted of child neglect for waiting until she was so sick to seek medical help.

Despite this near-fatal incident, an officer from the Department of Child Safety assessed Elizabeth as "safe" two days later. This assessment would prove tragically wrong.

The Inquest: Examining Systemic Failures

Coroner Ainslie Kirkegaard has heard evidence about the adequacy and appropriateness of actions taken by child safety, Children's Health Queensland, Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service, the Queensland Police Service, the Department of Education, and Queensland Corrective Services. The inquest is scrutinizing how these agencies managed the risk to Elizabeth.

The case has raised serious questions about how religious beliefs and parental assurances can override professional judgment. In December 2021, Elizabeth's mother, Kerrie, was released from jail after serving five months for the earlier neglect. She told her parole officer she would do everything the same again, stating she "would keep that trust in God that he would heal." That officer assessed Kerrie as posing "no" risk to herself or others.

About a month later, on 6 or 7 January 2022, Elizabeth was dead.

Key Takeaways from the Inquest

• Child safety officers assessed Elizabeth as "safe" just two days after she nearly died from neglect.
• Kerrie Struhs told her parole officer she would repeat her actions, yet was deemed no risk.
• Multiple agencies, including health, police, and education, are under scrutiny for failing to protect Elizabeth.
• The inquest highlights the tension between respecting parental rights and ensuring child safety.
• Religious beliefs appear to have influenced decision-making, raising concerns about bias in assessments.

Why This Matters: The Bigger Picture

This case is not just about one family's tragedy; it's about systemic failures that could affect any child. The inquest is revealing how agencies can miss warning signs, especially when parents are articulate or hold strong religious convictions. It also underscores the need for better communication between health and child safety departments.

As the coroner examines the evidence, the public is left wondering how a child known to be at risk could slip through the cracks. The answers may lead to reforms in how child protection cases are handled.

What to Watch Next

The inquest continues, with more evidence expected from key witnesses. The coroner will ultimately deliver findings and recommendations aimed at preventing similar tragedies. For now, the focus is on understanding the chain of events that led to Elizabeth's death.

One critical issue is the assessment of risk when parents express extreme religious beliefs. As detailed in our coverage of the Elizabeth Struhs inquest and missed curiosity about religious beliefs, officers failed to probe deeply into the family's faith-driven refusal of medical care.

Another concern is the workload pressures on child safety staff. Evidence suggests that cases like Elizabeth's may not have been prioritized due to resource constraints. This aligns with reports that the Elizabeth Struhs child protection case was not prioritised due to workload, a systemic issue that puts vulnerable children at risk.

The inquest has also heard how a child safety officer incorrectly assessed Elizabeth Struhs as safe despite clear evidence of neglect. This raises questions about training and oversight within the department.

Furthermore, there are claims that child safety staff ignored doctors' concerns about Elizabeth's welfare, highlighting a breakdown in interagency communication.

As the inquest progresses, it may also examine whether involuntary mental health assessment should have been considered for the parents, as reported in our article on how doctors urged involuntary mental health assessment in the Elizabeth Struhs case. Such measures could have prevented the tragedy.

Finally, the case has drawn attention to the doctor warning ignored before the sect death, underscoring the need for agencies to take medical professionals' concerns seriously.

FAQ