Many unanswered questions linger about the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup

Having had a few hours to ponder the implications of today's welcome ruling by Texas 3rd Court of Appeals that the seizure of kids from the YFZ Ranch wasn't justified (and to read what commenters and other bloggers had to say on the topic), here are some questions I'm still wondering tonight:

Overruling a judge on an "abuse of discretion" standard, by any measure a legal rarity, lays the blame for this entire fiasco at the feet of San Angelo District Judge Barbara Walther. How will she react? Will Judge Walther use the ten days given her by the 3rd Court of Appeals to hold a new round of "14 day hearings," or defer to the appellate court and just let the kids go home?

Any new hearings must respect the appellate judges' insistence that a) the entire ranch is not one household and b) that specific, immediate abuse must be shown to justify a seizure. From what I know, I'm not sure many, if any of the seized YFZ Ranch kids could be kept in custody under that standard. But in any event, the ball is definitely in her court. (Note to Judge Walther: Sometimes the only way to win is to not play the game.)

Also, how will this impact families not represented by Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid's motion? The same fact set basically applies to nearly every case.

CPS will likely appeal the 3rd Court ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. How are they likely to respond? I don't see any partisan trend that makes me think they'd be inclined to overturn the decision. Four of the six judges on the Third Court of Appeals are Republicans, including all three who signed their names to today's opinion. Are there ideological splits among Republican judges that would suggest the Supreme Court of Texas might rule any differently than these three R judges? If so, I cant put my finger on it.

Another question: What happens with families that already signed "service plans" before the 3rd Court ruling? Do they get to back out if CPS had no authority to coerce them into it in the first place?

In a similar vein: If CPS had no authority to seize FLDS kids, and while it illegally had custody CPS consented, as the minors' (illegal) legal guardian, to interrogation without counsel by law enforcement, will such evidence be excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree" from any criminal prosecutions?

On the legislative front, Texas CPS just got approval from the Senate Finance Commitee to hire 70 new unit staff (including 42 caseworkers), ten new attorneys, and seventeen other additional staff to handle the extra caseload from the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup (see the list of new positions on page 12 of this pdf). Will they continue to move forward with those new hires?

Will FLDS sue, or will they just go home and be happy things didn't turn out worse? The state might use discovery in civil proceedings to gather information for future criminal prosecutions, but on the other hand, they've already interviewed every person and vetted every document at the ranch. Would it be worth the risk to sue CPS (or for that matter, Sheriff Doran), perhaps in a federal section 1983 (civil rights) claim, or will they just let it drop?

Will the hundreds of ad litem attorneys who went to San Angelo for these hearings ever be paid for their time and expenses?

Will anyone from the state apologize to FLDS members for what happened? Governor Rick Perry? Attorney General Greg Abbott? CPS? Judge Walther? Sheriff Doran? Who, if anyone, among the decisionmakers responsible, will have the guts to stand up in the wake of this ruling and admit, "We were wrong"?

Finally, here's a key long-term question: What changes will result within FLDS as a result of this episode? Will they become a more insular, closed society, or will their forced interaction with the outside world convince them that they need to develop more attachments to and contacts with outsiders in order to protect their own rights and to improve the chances of their faith tradition's survival?

Let me know in the comments what you think about these questions, and what other topics remain murky or unanswered in the wake of today's ruling?

MORE QUESTIONS (5/23):

Why do so many media accounts say yesterday's ruling affects 48 mothers, but the opinion (and the New York Times) say 38? The error appears to have originated in the very initial AP story and was widely repeated, like lots of erroneous statistics in this case.

Why was the Dallas News using already discredited statistics in its editorials as late as Wednesday that dramatically exaggerate the number of teen moms and "lost boys," when other media have been reporting almost daily that those claims have been debunked because CPS claimed adult women were underage?

Relatedly, will this ruling convince the MSM to stop blindly repeating statistics from CPS's PR people that don't jibe with evidence presented in court? Simple due diligence by reporters would have prevented a lot of the worst obfuscation.

When will we hear more about/from Rozita Swinton, the hoax phone caller who began this fiasco? Why hasn't some reporter gotten her story yet? Who did she speak to besides the women's shelter, and when? Where did she get information about FLDS she gave during her "Sarah" impersonation?

Which MSM outfit will take on the investigative task of filing open records requests and investigating in full exactly what happened during the five day span between the initial hoax phone call and the raid. The most important parts of this story happened during that period, which is the part we still know the least about.

Photo LM Otero/Associated Press