Both the judge and CPS just can't seem to get into the notion that justice is dealt out to individuals, rather than groups. Sounds like Communists, Socialists and DemonRats doesn't it?
I think the issue is different than that.
If the "Judge" can get the parents to agree to these restrictions "voluntarily", then she can enforce them, and it is very difficult to get them overturned.
If the parents do not "voluntarily" agree, she can order the restrictions, but then they are subject to review by an appeals court. The "judge" has already gotten slapped down once, and doesn't want that to happen again.
I think the families have the upper hand here, the judge has been told what to do and evidently there is a Monday deadline. Lawyers for the families know this and all they have to do is hold out until Monday.
My guess is that the "Judge" will order the restrictions involuntarily on Monday, the families will appeal and the "Judge" will again be put in her place.
The real problem CPS has is that they don't have enough lawyers, or enough evidence to give each child an individual hearing. The state doesn't have enough judges, courtrooms, or money to have individual hearings. And, they have a horrible problem if different judges give different rulings with essentially the same set of facts for individual children. There are enough lawyers in Texas to represent the families.
If CPS had done a proper investigation and only gone after girls who were in real danger (if there were any) the whole issue would never have come up.
CPS is now really over a barrel. If the families agree to any supervision or restrictions it helps CPS justify their actions. But if the families can just hold out for a few days, CPS, and the "Judge" are both in deep yogurt.
Just out of curiosity, is the "Judge" also liable for federal civil rights violations? She may well be trying to cover her own rather exposed rear end, by getting "voluntary" agreements on restrictions. She certainly can't argue that she didn't know the law.
No, that ship has left the harbor too.
Since the judge unjustifiably made releasing the children contingent on signing an agreement, the agreements are not voluntary but have been obtained under duress. Expect the lawyers to appeal to the Appeals Court again to have the lower court judge vacate all of the so-called "voluntary" agreements.
I would say, "more than" rather than "different than". Otherwise I agree with what you posted.