In re Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (2008): The YFZ Ranch Removal

The short answer

In this 2008 case, the Supreme Court of Texas let stand a court of appeals ruling that the Department's removal of children from the YFZ Ranch was not warranted on the record for the children involved In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). The Court said the Family Code gives trial courts "broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care" In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

What the case was about

The YFZ Ranch was home to a large community associated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). On March 29, 2008, the Department received a call reporting that a sixteen-year-old girl was being abused there. It later took possession of all 468 children at the Ranch without a court order. It never located the girl named in the call In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). The Department called it "the largest child protection case documented in the history of the United States" In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

On April 17-18, the district court held the full adversary hearing required by Family Code section 262.201(a). As quoted in the opinion, the statute required that hearing within 14 days after the children were taken In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). As the opinion quoted the statute, the court had to return a child unless the evidence would satisfy "a person of ordinary prudence and caution" of three things In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam):

• there was a danger to the child's physical health or safety caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession;
• the urgent need for protection required immediate removal, and reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal; and
• reasonable efforts were made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of continuing danger.

The district court kept the children in the Department's custody and allowed parent visits only with the Department's agreement In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). Thirty-eight mothers asked the court of appeals for mandamus to get back their 126 children In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). The court of appeals held the Department had not met its burden on the first finding and directed the district court to vacate its custody orders. The Department then asked the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

What the court decided

The Court ruled in a per curiam opinion and denied the Department's petition In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). It said: "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted" In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

Other ways to protect children. The Court listed tools the Family Code gives a trial court short of foster care In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam):

• making and modifying temporary orders for the child's safety and welfare;
• ordering an alleged perpetrator out of the child's home;
• issuing orders to assist the Department's investigation; and
• the Code's ban on interfering with an investigation.

The district court had to vacate the custody orders, but it "need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children" In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). The ruling did not end the underlying cases, and the Court said it was "premature" to address the larger questions about parental rights and the State's interest In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

The separate opinion. Justice O'Neill, joined by Justices Johnson and Willett, concurred in part and dissented in part In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). She agreed there was no evidence of imminent danger to boys and pre-pubescent girls. But she would have upheld the trial court's orders as to pubescent girls In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

In the court's words

On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted.

In plain English: the evidence did not justify taking these children from their mothers In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

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

In plain English: removal is not the only tool a court has to keep children safe In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).

Why it matters for Texas families

In this case, the mothers challenged the temporary orders by mandamus in the court of appeals, and that court's ruling stood In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). The Supreme Court's ruling was tied to "the record before us" In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). The opinion quoted section 262.201 as it read in 2008, so ask a lawyer about the current text.

Some of the provisions the Court cited appear in today's Family Code. A court may make temporary orders "for the safety and welfare of the child" Tex. Fam. Code §105.001(a). And a person "may not interfere with an investigation" by the department Tex. Fam. Code §261.303(a). In some cases, a court may also order a parent to allow entrance for an interview, examination and investigation Tex. Fam. Code §261.303(b). See Order in Aid of Investigation: When DFPS Asks a Court for Access (Family Code §261.303) and The Texas CPS Investigation Process, Step by Step (Family Code §§261.301–261.302).

This is legal information, not legal advice.

Related

• Order in Aid of Investigation: When DFPS Asks a Court for Access (Family Code §261.303)
• The Texas CPS Investigation Process, Step by Step (Family Code §§261.301–261.302)
• Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307)
• In re E.R. (2012): Notice by Newspaper When CPS Knows Where to Find You
• In re Derzapf (2007): Grandparent Access and the Fit-Parent Presumption