In Re Texas Department of Family & Protective Services
255 S.W.3d 613, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 967, 2008 Tex. LEXIS 510 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To justify the continued removal of children from their parents' custody after an emergency seizure, the state must present specific evidence demonstrating a danger to the physical health or safety of each child. A generalized belief that a community's culture or practices are dangerous is insufficient to meet this statutory burden for a mass removal of all children from that community.
Facts:
- The Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch, a 1,700-acre complex, was home to a community associated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
- On March 29, 2008, the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (the Department) received a phone call alleging that a 16-year-old girl named Sarah was being abused at the Ranch.
- On April 3, Department investigators and law enforcement entered the Ranch to investigate.
- Investigators developed concerns that the community had a culture of polygamy and directed underage girls to enter 'spiritual unions' with older men and have children.
- Based on these concerns, the Department took possession of all 468 children residing at the Ranch.
- The Department was never able to locate 'Sarah', the girl who was the subject of the initial call.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Family Protective Services took possession of 468 children from the YFZ Ranch without a court order.
- The Department then filed suits in the district court (trial court) requesting emergency orders to retain custody.
- After an adversary hearing, the district court issued temporary orders granting the Department continued custody of all 468 children.
- Thirty-eight mothers (relators) petitioned the Third Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) for a writ of mandamus, seeking the return of their children.
- The court of appeals granted the writ, concluding the Department had failed to meet its burden of proof and directing the district court to vacate its custody orders.
- The Department (petitioner) then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas (highest court) for a writ of mandamus to overturn the court of appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence of a general culture of underage marriage and abuse within a community, without particularized evidence of danger to each child, satisfy the Texas Family Code's requirement to show a danger to the physical health or safety of every child removed from that community in order to justify their continued removal from parental custody?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The evidence presented was insufficient to justify the continued removal of all the children because the Department failed to meet its statutory burden of showing an individualized danger to each child. On the record presented, the mass removal of all children was not warranted. The court noted that the Family Code provides the district court with broad authority to issue less drastic temporary orders to protect children—short of separating them from their parents—such as removing an alleged perpetrator from the home or restraining a party from moving a child. Therefore, the appellate court's decision to order the return of the children was correct, though the trial court remains free to grant other appropriate, less intrusive relief to protect the children.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Neill
Partially Yes, Partially No. While there was no evidence of imminent danger to justify removing the boys and prepubescent girls, the Department did present sufficient evidence of a 'pattern or practice of sexual abuse' to justify the continued removal of the pubescent girls. This evidence included seized 'Bishop’s Records' documenting underage mothers and testimony that the community's religion accepted 'marriage' at the first sign of physical development. For this endangered group of pubescent girls, the Department's efforts were reasonable under the circumstances, as the community's widespread non-cooperation (e.g., refusing to give names or identify parents) made less intrusive measures like restraining orders against specific individuals impossible. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the pubescent girls, but it did regarding the other children.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high evidentiary standard the state must meet before infringing upon the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children. The ruling clarifies that the state's parens patriae power, while substantial, is not a license for broad, sweeping actions against a group based on generalized fears about its culture. Future child protective actions involving insular communities will likely require more specific, individualized investigations and evidence of harm to each child before a court will sanction a mass removal, pushing the state toward less intrusive protective measures first.
