The De partment re moved over 450 children from their hom es on the Yearning For Z ion 1 ranc h over the course of three day s. This pr ocee ding does not involve pare nts of all of the childre n remove d. Th e te mpo ra

ry or de rs re vie we d in t

his pr oc e e din g we re iss ue d f oll ow ingthe he ari nghe ld 2 April 17-18, 2008, and w ere signe d the wee k of April 21, 2008. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 235 -CV

In r e Sar a St e e d , e t a l.

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M SCH LEICH ER COUNTY

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

This or igina l ma

ndamus proce eding involves the temporar y custody of a numbe r of children w ho wer e re moved from their homes on an emerg ency basis from the Year ning F or Z ion

ra nc h outs ide of

El do ra do , T e xas. The ranc h is associated w ith the Fundame ntalist Church of J esus 1 Christ of L atter- Day

Saints (FL DS), and a

number of f

amilies live there. Re lators ar e thirty -eig ht women who we re living at the ra nch and ha d children taken into custody on an eme rg ency

basis by the Texas Depa

rtment of Family and P rotec tive Service s based on alleg ations by the Depa rtment that there was immediate da

ng er to the phy sical hea lth or safe ty of the c hildren. Relators see k a wr it of mandamus requiring the district c ourt to va cate its temporary order s i n w h i c h i t n a m e d t h e D e p art m e n t t h e t e mp o r ar y s o l e m an a g i n g c o n s e r

v a t o r of the ir 2Beca u s e t em p o rary order s in a suit affe cting a par ent-c hild relationship are not subject 3 to interlocutory

appea l under the family code, mandamus revie w is appropriate. Da nc yv . D ag ge tt , 81 5 S.W .2 d 54 8, 54 9 ( Te x. 19 91 ); In re Ve rnor , 94 S.W .3d 201, 210 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, orig . proce eding ). Se c tio n 2 62 .2 01 pr ov ide s, in r e le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: 4 (a) Unless t he child has already been returne d to the parent, manag ing c onservator, possessory

conser vator, guardia

n, car etake r, or custodian entitled to possession and the te mpo ra

ry or de r, if any , h a s b e e n d iss olv e d, a fu ll a dv e rs ary

he ari ngsh a ll be he ld not later than the 14th day afte r the date the child wa s taken into possession by the g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y.

2 children. Relators complain that the D epar tment failed to mee t its burden under se ction 262.201 3 of the Te xas F a mil y

Cod e to d e mon str a te (1 ) that the re wa s a da ng e r t o th e ph y sic a l he a lthor sa fe ty of t heir c h il dr e n , ( 2 ) th a t t h e r e w a s anu r g e n t n e e d

f o r p r o te c ti o no f

th e c h il dr e nth a t r e qu ir e d the imm e diate re mov a l of the c hil dr e n fr om the ir pa re nts , or (3 ) that th e De pa rtme nt m a de re a so na

ble eff orts to eli m i n at e o r p re vent the childre n’s re moval from their pa rents. Te x . Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201 (West Supp. 2007). Wit hout such proof, Relators arg ue, the district court was require d to return the c hildren to their par ents and a bused its discretion by

failing to do so. Re mov ing c hil dr e n fr om the ir ho me s and pa re nts on an e me rg e nc y

ba sis be fo re fu lly lit ig a tin g the iss ue of

wh e the r t

he pa re nts s ho uld

c on tin ue to h a ve c us tod

y of the c hil dr e n is an extreme mea sure. I t is, unfortunately , sometimes nece ssary for the pr otect i o n o f the childre n invol v e d

. H o w e v e r , it is a s te p th a t th e le g is latu r e h a s p r o v id e d ma

y b e ta k e n o n ly when the circ umstances indicate a da ng er to the phy sical health and we lfare of the c hildren and the need f or prot ectio n o f t

he c hil dr e n is so ur g e nt t hat im me diate re mov a l of the c hil dr e n f

ro m th e ho me is

nece ssary . See id

. Se c tio n 26 2. 20 1 fu rt he r r e qu ir e s th e De pa

rtme nt, wh e n it

ha s ta ke n c hil dr e n in to 4(b) At the conclusion of the full adver sary hear ing, the court shall orde r the re turn of

the child to the par ent, manag ing c onserva t o r, poss essory conser vator, guardia

n, car et a k e r , o r

c u s to d ia ne n ti tl e d to p o s s e s s io nu n le s s th e c o u rt f in d s s u f f ic ie nt e vid e nc e to s a tis fy

a pe rs on of or din ary pr ud e nc e and

c a uti on that: (1 ) t he re wa s a

da ng e r t o th e ph y sic a l he a lth or sa fe ty of the c hil d wh ic h w a s c a

us e d b y an a c t or fa ilure to a c t of

the pe rs on

e nti tle d to possession and for the child to r emain in the home is c ontrary to the welfa re of the child; (2) the ur g ent need for protec tion r equire d the immediate remova l of the child and r easona

ble ef forts, consistent with the circ u m stance s and providing for the sa fety of the c hild, we re m ad e to eliminate or preve nt the child’s re moval; and (3) r easona

ble ef forts have been ma de to ena ble the child to re turn ho me , bu t the re is a

su bs tanti a l r isk

of a c on tin uin g da ng e r i f t he c hil d is returne d home.

. . . . (d) In deter

mining whe ther ther e is a co n t i n u ing da ng er to the phy sical hea lth or sa fe ty of the c hil d, the c ou

rt may c on sid e r wh e the r the ho us e ho ld t o w hic h th e c hil d would be re turned include s a per son who: (1) ha s ab u s ed or neg lected a nother c hild in a manner that cause d serious injury

to or the death of the other c hild; or (2) ha s sexually

abused a nother c hild. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201 ( West S upp. 2007).

3 custody on an eme rg en cy b as i s , to make a show ing of specific circ umstances that justify keeping the chil d re n i n t h e De partment’s te mporary custody pending full liti g ation of the que stion of perma nent custody

. Un l ess there is sufficient evide nce to de monstrate the e x istence of eac h ofO n e w o m ani s a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e c o m e p r e g n an ta tt h e a g e o f t h i rt e e n . S h e i s n o w t w e n t y- 5 two y ear s old. This number has f

luctuated. I t will li kely

conti n u e t o fluctuate somewhat a s disputes 6 reg ardingthe ag e of c erta in persons take n into custody are resolved. 4 the re quirements of se ction 262.201(b), the court is r equire d to r eturn the children to the custody of their par ents. Tex. Fam. Code Ann

. § 262.201(b).

I n th is c a se , th e De pa

rtme nt r e lie d o n th e fo llo wi nge vid e nc e wi th r esp ect to the childre n taken into custody from the Ye arningFor

Z ion ranch t o s at i s fy

the re quirements of section 262.201:

• I nterview s with investigator s reve aled a pattern of g irls reportingthat “ther e was no a g e too y oung for g irls to be marrie d”;

• Twenty fema les living at the ra nch had be come pr eg nant betwe en the a g es of thirteen a nd sevente en;

• Five of

the twenty

fema les identified as having become preg nant betwe en the ag es of thirtee n and seve nteen a re a lleg ed to be minors, the other fiftee n are no w a du lts ;

• Of the fi ve min or s w ho be c a me pr e g na nt, fo ur are se ve nte e n a

nd on e is six teen, and all five are alleg ed to have become preg nant at the a g e of f ifteen or six teen; 5

• The De partment’s le ad investig ator wa s of the opi n i o n t h at due to the “per vasive belief sy stem” of the FL DS, the male children are g roomed to be perpe tra to r s o f

s e xu a l a b u s e an d th e g ir ls ar e r a is e d

to b e v ic ti ms o f

sexual abuse;

• All 468 children we re remove d from the r anch unde r the theor y that the 6 ranc h community was “esse ntially one household comprised of e x t ended family subg roups” with a single , common belief sy stem and there was re ason to believe that a

child had bee n sexually

abused in the r anch “ household”; andUn de r T e xas l aw, it i s n ot s e xua l a ssa ult to h a ve c on se ns ua l se xual in ter cou rse wi th 7 a minor spouse to whom one is l eg ally marrie d. Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.011(a) , (c) (1), ( 2) (West Supp. 2007). Texas law allows minors to marry —as y oung as a ge s i x t een with parenta l consent a nd y oung er tha

n six teen if pur suant to court orde r. Tex. Fam. C o d e An n . § 2.101 (West 2006), §§ 2.102-.103 (West Supp. 2007). A person may not be leg ally marrie d to more than one per son. Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 25.01 (West Supp. 2007). 5 • Depa

rtment witnesses expressed the opinion that there is a “ perva sive belief sy ste m” a mon g the re sid e nts of the ra nc h th a t it

is a c c e pta

ble fo r g ir ls t o marry , eng ag e in sex, and bear children a s soon as they

rea ch p u b er ty , and that this “perva sive belief sy stem” poses a dang er to the c hildren.

I n addition, the rec ord demonstrates the followi n g fa ct s, which ar e undisputed by the De pa rtme nt:

• The only

dang er to the ma le childre n or the fem ale c hildren who ha d not rea ched pube rty

identified by

the Depa rtment was the Depa

rtment’s asse rtion that the “pe rvasive be lief sy stem” of the F L DS community g roomed the ma le s to be pe rp e tr a tor s o f s e x ual ab us e la te r i n li fe and ta ug ht t he g ir ls t o s u b m i tt o s e x u a l a

b u s e a f t e r r e a c h i n g p u

b e rt y;

• There was no e vidence that the male c hildren, or the f emale c hildren who ha d no t r e a ched pu be rt

y , w e re vic tim s o f s e xua l or oth e r p hy sic a l a

bu se or in dang er of being victims of sex ual or other phy sical abuse ;

• Whil e ther e wa s evidenc e that twenty fema les had become preg nant betwe en the ag es of thirtee n and se ventee n, there was no e vidence reg ardingthe marital status of these g irls when they beca me preg nant or the c ircumstance s under w hich they

beca me preg nant other tha

n the g ener al alleg ation that the g irls were living in a

n FL DS c ommunity with a belief sy stem that condoned u n d e r a g e ma

r r ia g e an d s e x; 7

• There wa s n o evidenc e that any of the fe male childre n other than the five identified as ha

ving be come p re gn ant between the a g es of f ifteen a nd sevente en we re vic tims or potential victims of sex ual or other phy sical abuse ;T h e D e p art m e n t ’ s p o s i t i o n w a s s t a t e d s u c c i n c t l y b y i t s l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r a t t h e h e ar i n g . In 8 response to an inquiry

as to why

the infants nee ded to be r emoved f rom their mothers, the investigator responde d, “[W ]hat I have f oun d i s t h at they ’re living under an umbre lla of belief that having children at a y oung ag e is a blessing there fore any child in that environment would not be saf e.” 6 • With the e xce pti on of the fi ve fe ma le c hil dr e n id e nti fi e d a s h a vin g be c ome preg nant betwe en the ag es of fifte en and se ventee n, there was no e vidence of any phy sical abuse or har

m to any other c hild;

• The Relator s have identified their c hildren amongthe 468 taken into custody by the Depa rtment, and none of the Relator s’ childre n are among the five the Depa rtment has identified a s being preg nant minors; and

• Th e De pa

rtme nt c on c e de d a t the he ari ngthat te e na g e pr e g na nc y , b y its e lf , is not a re ason to remove children f rom thei r home and pa

rents, but took the po sit ion tha t im me diate re mov a l w a s n e c e ssa ry in t his c a se be c a

us e “ the re is a mindset that eve n the y oung g irls report t h at t hey will marry

at whate ver ag e, and that it’s the highe st blessing they can ha ve to have children.”

The De partment a

rg ues that the fa ct that there are five minor fe m al es living in the

ranc h comm u n i t y who bec ame pr eg nant at ag es fifte en and sixteen tog ether with the FL DS belief sy stem condoning undera g e mar riag e and pr eg nancy

indicates that ther e is a dan ger t o al l o f the children that warr ants their immediate removal from their homes and pa rents, and that the need f

or pr ote c tio n o f t

he c hil dr e n is ur g e nt. The De partment also argues t hat t he “household” t o which the 8 children would be returned includes persons who ha ve sexually

abused a nother c hild, because the entire Y ear

ning F or Z ion ranc h community is a “household.” See id . § 262.201(d)( 2). The De partment fa iled to car ry its burden with respe ct to the re quirements of se ction 262.201(b). Pursuant to section 262.201(b)( 1), the da ng er must be to the ph

y sic al he a lthor

sa fe ty of the c hil d. Th e De pa

rtme nt d id n ot p re se nt a

ny e vid e nc e of

da ng e r t o th e ph y sic a l he a lthor sa fe tyTh e Depa rtment’s witnesses c oncede d that there are differ ence s of opinion among the 9 FL DS community

as to what is an a

ppropriate ag e to marr

y , how many

spouses to have, a

nd when to start having children—muc h as there are differ ence s of opinion r eg arding the details of r elig ious do c tr ine a mon g oth e r r e lig iou s g ro up s. The notion that the entire ranc h community constitutes a “house hold” as c ontemplated by 10 section 262.201 and justifies removingall children f rom the ra

nch community

if there even is one incident of suspec ted child sexual abuse is contra ry t o t he evide nce. T he De partment’s w itnesses 7 of any male childre n or any

fema le childre n who had not re ache d puberty

. Nor did the Depa rtment offe r any evidenc e that any of Relators’ pubesce nt f emale children wer e in phy sical dang er othe r than that those children live at the ranc h among a g roup of peo ple who have a “pe rvasive sy stem of belief” that condones poly g amous marria g e and unde rag e fe males havingchildren. The e x istence 9 of the F L DS belief sy stem as desc ribed by the Depa

rtment’s witnesses, by

itself, does not put children of

FL DS pare nts i n p h y s i ca l d ang er. It is the imposi tion of cer tain alleg ed tene ts of that sy stem on specific individuals that may put them in phy sical dange r. The De partment fa iled to offer any evidenc e that any of t he pubescent female children of the Relators wer e in such phy sical dang er. Th e re c or d is sil e nt a s to wh e the r the Re la tor s o r a ny on e in t he ir ho us e ho lds are lik e ly

to s ub je c t th e ir pubesce nt female children to unde rag e marria g e or se x . The re cord is also silent as to how many of Relators’ c hildren ar e pubesc ent fe males and w hether there is any

risk to them othe r than that they live in a comm unity

wher e ther e is a “ perva sive belief sy stem” that condone s marria g e and c hildr e ar i n g a s s o o na s f

e m a l e s r e a c h p u

b e rt y. Th e De pa rtme nt a lso fa ile d to e sta

bli sh that the ne e d f

or pr ote c tio n o f t

he Re la tor s’ children w as urg ent and r equire d immediate re moval of the children. As previously noted, none of the identified minors who are or have be en pre g nant ar e childre n of Relators. The re is no evide nce that any of the five preg nant minors live in the same household a s the Relators’ c hildren. There 10a c kn owl edged that th e ra nc h c omm

un ity wa s d ivi de d in to s e pa

rate fa mil y g ro up s and

se pa rate households. Whil e ther e wa s evidenc e that the living arr ang ements on the ra nch ar e more communal tha n mo st ty pic a l ne ig hb or

ho od s, the e vid e nc e was no t legal ly or fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a theory that the entire ranc h community was a “household” under se ction 262.201. The simple fa ct, conce ded by the Depa rtment, that not a ll F L DS f amilies are poly g amous 11 or allow their fema le children to ma rry as minors demonstrate s the dang er of removing children f

rom their homes base d on the broa d-brush a scription of every aspec t of a belief sy stem to every person liv inga mon g fo llo we rs of the be lie f s y ste m or

pr of e ssi ngto f

oll owthe be lie f s y ste m. 8 is no evidence that Relators have allowed or are g oing to a llow a ny of their minor fe male childre n to b e su bje c te d to any

se xua l or phy sic a l abu se . Th e re is simp ly no e vid e nc e sp e c if ic to R e la tor s’ children at all except that they exis t, they wer e take n into custody

at the Ye arningFor

Z ion ranc h,

an d t h ey ar e l i v i n g wi t h p eo p l e w h o s h ar e a“p er v as i v e b el i ef s y s t em ” t h a t c o n d o n es u n d er age marria g e and unde rag e pre g nancy . Even if one views the FL DS be lief sy stem as cre ating a dang er of se xua l a bu se by g ro omi ngbo y s to be pe rp e tr a tor s o f s e xua l a bu se and ra isi ngg ir ls t o b e vic tim s of se xua l a bu se a s th e De pa

rtme nt c on te nd s, there is no evidence that this da ng er is “immediate” 11 or “ur g ent” a s contemplated by section 262.201 with respe ct t o ever y child in the community . The leg islature has r equire d that there be e v i d ence to support a finding that there is a dang er to the ph y sic a l he a lthor

sa fe ty of the c hil dr e n in

qu e sti on and th at th e ne e d f or pr ote c tio n is urgent

and wa rr ants im me dia te remova l. Id. § 262.201(b). Evide nce that children ra ised in this particular environment may

someday have the ir phy sical health and safe ty threatened is not evidenc e that the dang er is imminent enoug h to warr ant invoking the extreme measur e of immediate re m o v al prior to full lit igation of the issue as re quired by section 262.201. F ina lly , th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e that th e De pa rtme nt m a de re a so na

ble e fforts t o eliminate or pre vent the re moval of any of Relators’ children. The evidenc e is that the De partmentThe a uthenticity

of this call is in doubt. Depa rtment investigators did not locate the c aller 12 on the ra nch. The children refer

red to are those children refle cted on Appendix Ito Relators’ re ply brief 13 and wh o a re sti ll i n th e c us tod

y of the De pa rtme nt. 9 we nt to the Ye arn ing F or Z ion ra nc h to inv e sti g a te a dis tr e ss c a ll fr om a sixte e n y e ar- old g ir l. After 12 interviewinga number

of childre n, they conclude d that there wer e five minors who wer e or ha d been pr eg nant and that the belief sy stem of the community allowed minor fe males to marr y and bear ch i l d re n. They

then re moved all of the c hildren in the community (including infants) fr om their homes and ultimately separ ated the c hildren fro m t h eir parents. This rec ord does not re flec t any rea sonable eff

ort on the par

t of the De partment to asc erta in if some measure short of re moval and/or sepa

ration fr om pare nts w o u ld h a v e e li minated the risk the De partment pe rce ived with respe ct to a ny of the c hil dr e n o f R e la tor s. We find that the Depa

rtment did not carr

y its burden of proof unde r sec tion 262.201. The e vidence adduce d at the hea ring held April 17-18, 2008, was leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to support the finding s re q u ired by section 262.201 to maintain custody of Relators’ children with the Depa

rtment. Consequently , the district court a bused its discretion in failing to return the Relators’ c hildren to t

he Re la tor s. Th e Re la tor s’ Pe tit ion fo r Wr it o f M and a mus is c on dit ion a lly 13 g rante d. The district cour t is dir ec t ed t o vacate its temporary order s g ranting sole manag ing

conser vatorship of the c hildren of th e R el at o rs to the Depa rtment. The wr it will i ssue only if the district court fa ils to comply with this opi nion.

Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Filed: May

22, 2008