Not quite.
The TX SC did not impose continueing restrictions - they concurred with the 3rd TX CT of Appeals, that judge Walther could have imposed restrictions, as opposed to romoving the children.
They did, however, find thad she (Judge Walther), “had abused her judicial discretion” when she removed the children.
In Judge speek, they said she broke the law flagarantly.
If you read the 3rd CT opinion, they said the Ranch was not one home. The TX SC agreed - so you have to read both.
The TX SC did not bar anyone from returning to the ranch with the children - Judge Walther, after the TX SC slapped her down, barred ONE girl from returning to the ranch, as it appears she was actually raped by some old fart. She also issued a restraining order, that the old fart may not get anywhere near the ONE underage girl. First thing that Judge Walther did in this case, that was actually legal, and I support her on this one.
CPS perception that it was a single home was, in fact, ruled in error - the only court that agreed with them was Judge Walther, and - as I said - the TX SC has said she was full of it, when she did.
Irrelevant of which court brought the restrictions their ARE still restrictions. You are arguing with me about my response to someone who was arguing with me about ...etc etc etc...
The point is their is no constitutional crisis here.
The CPS workers determined certain things.
The first court concurred with all or virtually all of their findings.
Other courst (including the Texas SC) over ruled most of the first courts rulings.
The investigation continues and the are restrictions in place to protect the children (whether the ywil be successful or not nobody knows - as with many things in life).
It ain’t over and the fat lady hasn’t sung.
Me? I’m still glad the CPS acted, mistakes and all. They did their job and they did the vast majority of it right. I’m also glad the court system did and IS working out the issues.