In a ruling that could torpedo the case against the West Texas polygamist sect, a state appeals court on Thursday said authorities had no right to seize more than 440 children in a raid on the splinter group's compound last month.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.
It was not clear when the children — now scattered in foster homes across Texas — might be returned to their parents. The ruling gave a lower-court judge 10 days to release the youngsters from custody, but the state could appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and block that.
The decision in one of the biggest child-custody cases in US history was a humiliating defeat for the state Child Protective Services (CPS) agency. It was hailed as vindication by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), who claimed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
“It’s a great day for Texas justice. This was the right decision,” said Julie Balovich, a Legal Aid attorney for some of the parents.
Every child at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado was taken into custody more than six weeks ago after someone called a hotline claiming to be a pregnant, abused teenage wife. The girl has not been found and authorities are investigating whether the call was a hoax.
Child-protection officials argued that five girls at the ranch had become pregnant at 15 and 16 and that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex with older men and groomed boys to enter into such unions when they grew up.
But the appeals court said the state acted too hastily in sweeping up all the children and taking them away on an emergency basis without going to court first.
“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse ... there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’,” the court said.
“Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal,” the court said.