re: 'Prayer Baby' drowns in church's baptism tank

I'd say the child's estate has a claim if the baptismal had certain circumstances surrounding its existence that made it more dangerous.

The attractive nuisance doctrine first needs an object likely to attract children and then a hazardous condition posed by that object, IIRC from torts I. If the baptismal was kept filled, or partially-filled, and no baptism services were planned or conducted, or if the door to the baptismal was non-existent or open, those could potentially be circumstances that could shift the case in favor of the child's estate.