## Facts

- DFPS received a report alleging a sixteen-year-old girl at the YFZ Ranch was being physically and sexually abused.
- DFPS and law enforcement entered the ranch, interviewed residents, and searched for documents but did not locate the reported victim.
- DFPS developed evidence suggesting a community practice of directing underage girls into “spiritual” unions with older men, including records of pregnancies involving girls as young as thirteen.
- Without obtaining a court order, DFPS took possession of all 468 children at the ranch, asserting emergency authority under Texas Family Code § 262.104(a).
- DFPS filed numerous suits affecting the parent-child relationship seeking emergency removal orders and appointment as temporary sole managing conservator.
- After a mass adversary hearing, the trial court issued temporary orders continuing removal and placing the children in DFPS’s temporary conservatorship.
- On appeal by multiple mothers, the court of appeals vacated the temporary orders as to 126 children (mostly boys and children under age 13), concluding DFPS failed to show sufficient evidence of immediate danger to each child in that group.
- DFPS sought mandamus relief in the Texas Supreme Court to reinstate the trial court’s temporary orders.

## Issues

1. Whether DFPS established the statutory prerequisites under Texas Family Code § 262.201 to continue removal and DFPS custody for boys and prepubescent girls based on evidence of sexual abuse risks at the ranch.
2. Whether the court of appeals properly required evidence of immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the particular children (or a similarly situated class) rather than generalized proof of a harmful community environment.
3. Whether mandamus should issue to overturn the court of appeals’ decision vacating the temporary orders as to those children.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court denied DFPS’s petition for writ of mandamus.
- The Court concluded the record did not show sufficient evidence of imminent danger to the physical health or safety of boys and prepubescent girls to justify their continued removal under § 262.201.
- The Court determined the trial court abused its discretion by extending evidence of sexual abuse risks to justify broad, categorical removal and continued conservatorship over children for whom the required statutory showing was not made.
- The denial left in place the appellate directive requiring the trial court to vacate the temporary custody orders as to the affected children and proceed with less restrictive orders consistent with the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Texas Family Code § 262.104(a) permits removal without a court order only when, based on personal knowledge or corroborated information, a person of ordinary prudence would believe the child faces immediate danger to physical health or safety or has been a victim of sexual abuse.
- At the adversary hearing under Texas Family Code § 262.201(b), the State must prove (1) danger to the child’s physical health or safety caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession, (2) that remaining in the home is contrary to the child’s welfare, and (3) that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.
- Generalized evidence of objectionable or illegal community beliefs or practices does not, without a concrete link to the child’s physical health or safety, satisfy the statutory requirement of immediate danger for continued removal.
- Temporary removal orders must be supported by evidence directed to the particular child or to a defined class of similarly situated children; group-based removal of all children requires a corresponding evidentiary basis.
- Mandamus relief depends on a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy; when the record does not support the temporary removal orders, mandamus will be denied.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court denied DFPS’s mandamus request because DFPS did not meet the statutory burden to show imminent danger justifying continued removal of boys and prepubescent girls, rejecting broad, culture-based rationales in favor of child-specific (or similarly situated class-specific) proof required by Texas Family Code § 262.201.


In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. 2008)