Supreme Court upholds Court of Appeals ruling

DFPS issued a statement shortly after the high court ruling, saying the agency was "disappointed," but would "take immediate steps to comply."

Still saying CPS' purpose in the case was to "protect the children," the statement notes the agency's goal is "to reunite families whenever we can do so and make sure the children will be safe. We will continue to prepare for the prompt and orderly reunification of these children with their families. We also will work with the district court to ensure the safety of the children and that all of our actions conform with the decision of the Texas Supreme Court."

The 3rd Court's ruling was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court last week and late Thursday, the high court issued its ruling, denying DFPS' appeal. "Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us," the opinion reads, "we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals' decision." The district court ruling must now be vacated.

In its opinion, the high court noted, "While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children…" It noted that there are other ways to ensure the safety of the children, such as prohibiting them from being moved outside a certain geographic location. "The Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care," the opinion states.

Just hours after the 3rd Court of Appeals ruled last Friday that the San Angelo district judge's emergency ruling giving custody of the children to CPS was in error, DFPS appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, filing a Petition for writ of mandamus.

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence the children would be harmed if allowed to stay at the compound and said the district court "abused its discretion" when Judge Walthers allowed CPS temporary custody of the children. The appeals court thus ordered Walthers to vacate her order, which could result in the children being returned to their parents.

DFPS, in its Motion for emergency relief, said that the agency had not yet even been able to determine the mothers and fathers of the nearly 125 children who would be returned to the nearly three dozen mothers who filed the original complaint against CPS. The kind of information that would be revealed from determining paternity in some of the cases might prevent those children from being the subjects of sexual abuse, argued DFPS. On the other hand, they argued, if the children were allowed to return to the compound, it would subject them to "continuing sexual and emotional abuse."

In response, the attorneys for the sect mothers filed a Response to motion for emergency relief, urging the Supreme Court to deny the motion for emergency relief, saying CPS has "no evidence of irreparable harm if the order takes effect," and in fact said keeping them away from their parents subjects them to "continuing, irreparable harm."

Their response noted, "Allowing the court of appeals' mandamus decision to go into effect will not moot the controversy nor otherwise threaten this Court's jurisdiction."