Never said there was. I just have a preference for statutory provisions.
Clearly citing the district Judge for contempt is well within the power of the courts above, as would be ordering her arrest on contempt. ('d pay good money for a video of that arrest. :)
Vacating the order directly themselves, I would think would be within their power, but as a procedural matter, I don't *know* that it is. Ditto directly ordering CPS to release the children.
I would think that vacating the order directly would almost have to be among the things they could do, given the possibility that the lower court might do as we have seen; that is, fail to carry out the order of the higher court.
In the infamous Miller Decision, the US Supreme Court "reversed and remanded" the case before it. They could have simply ordered the original court to reverse its own decision.
The way the Texas Appeals Court did it, it gives the original judge an opportunity to explain the legal ruling. Otherwise, the judge would simply announce the ruling, perhaps with no explanation. The Texas Appeals Court, I think, was just doing the polite thing, but Judge Walther didn't realize that she is BOUND by that decision. I find it hard to believe what she is doing and has claimed.
I think Bush v. Gore had an element of this. The US Supreme Court provided guidance to Florida initially, I think, and the Florida Supreme Court didn't take the hint. After the Florida Supreme Court effectively refused to recognize the law, the US Supreme Court made the ruling itself.
Liberals in general seem to be so hung up on being "fair" that they are willing to change or bend the rules whenever those who make the rules decide that fairness argues for the change. But they seem totally blind to the idea that sticking to the rules agreed to initially is the way to be fair.