## Facts

- The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) received a distress call from a child at the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch, associated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), alleging abuse.
- DFPS investigated at the ranch, interviewed children, and determined that five minors were or had been pregnant.
- DFPS concluded the community held beliefs condoning polygamous marriage, underage marriage, and underage child-bearing, and asserted those beliefs placed children at risk.
- DFPS removed approximately 468 children from the ranch on an emergency basis and sought court orders appointing DFPS as temporary managing conservator.
- After the Texas Family Code § 262.201 adversary hearing, the district court issued temporary orders continuing DFPS’s custody of the children.
- The relators were 38 mothers whose children were taken into custody even though those children were not and had not been pregnant, and DFPS offered no individualized evidence that these particular mothers had abused or neglected their children.
- DFPS argued (1) pubescent girls faced immediate danger of sexual abuse and underage pregnancy because of conditions at the ranch and (2) all children were endangered because the ranch’s belief system would lead boys to commit sexual abuse later and girls to submit to sexual abuse after reaching puberty.
- The mothers filed an original proceeding seeking mandamus relief from the court of appeals to vacate the temporary orders as applied to their children and secure their return during the ongoing cases.

## Issues

1. Whether DFPS proved the predicates in Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201(b), as to each relator’s child, to justify continued removal after the adversary hearing.
2. Whether generalized evidence about community practices and a belief system, plus evidence that some minors were or had been pregnant, could support continued state custody of the relators’ children without child-specific proof of present danger caused by the person entitled to possession.
3. Whether mandamus relief was available because temporary custody orders entered after an emergency removal are ordinarily not subject to interlocutory appeal, making appeal an inadequate remedy.

## Decision

- The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief.
- The court held the evidence at the § 262.201 hearing did not satisfy § 262.201(b)’s requirements for continuing DFPS’s custody of the relators’ children, because DFPS did not present sufficient child-by-child proof tying any present danger to an act or omission of the parent entitled to possession.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate the temporary orders to the extent they continued DFPS custody of the relators’ children, and to enter appropriate orders returning those children to their parents, subject to any lawful conditions the trial court found warranted.
- The court concluded mandamus was an available remedy because the complained-of temporary orders affected parent-child rights immediately and were not effectively reviewable by ordinary appeal in time to prevent the harm.

## Legal Principles

- Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201(b) requires the trial court, after the adversary hearing, to return the child unless DFPS proves (by evidence sufficient to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution) that: (1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and remaining in the home is contrary to the child’s welfare; (2) an urgent need for protection required immediate removal and reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal; and (3) reasonable efforts were made to enable the child to return home, but returning home would present a substantial risk of continuing danger.
- The § 262.201(b) determination must be supported with evidence connecting the statutory danger and required findings to each child and the parent from whom the child was removed; broad assertions about a community environment or generalized risk do not, by themselves, establish the statutory elements for every child.
- Allegations that a belief system may influence future conduct are not a substitute for evidence of present danger to the particular child at issue and proof that the danger was caused by the acts or omissions of the person entitled to possession.
- Mandamus may issue when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion in issuing temporary orders that continue state custody without the evidentiary showing required by § 262.201(b), and when there is no adequate remedy by appeal because temporary orders in these cases are generally not appealable before final judgment.

## Conclusion

In *In re Steed*, the Texas Court of Appeals held that DFPS could not continue custody of the relators’ children based on generalized evidence about conditions at the YFZ Ranch and a community belief system; § 262.201(b) required proof tied to each child and the parent entitled to possession. Because the temporary orders were not effectively reviewable by ordinary appeal and the trial court continued removal without the required evidentiary basis, mandamus relief was conditionally granted and the trial court was directed to vacate the challenged custody provisions and return the children subject to lawful conditions.


In re Steed, 2008 WL 2132014 (2008)