Procedurally, she was faced with an enormously difficult task. She was required to hold a "full adversarial hearing" within 14 days. At the conclusion of the hearing she was required to return the child to the parent unless there was evidence of "danger to the physical health or safety of the child" AND an urgent need for protection required immediate removal AND all reasonable efforts had been made to return home, but there is a substantial risk of continuing danger if the child is returned home. (Section 262.201, Texas Family Code).
She could hold joint or combined hearings for the children, but there would have to be the required level of evidence referable to each individual child, IMO. I know a number of visiting judges came in to help, but I don't really know the manner in which they were set up to function.
The higher courts found the evidence to be insufficient. The CPS basically wanted to maintain control of the kids for however long it took to make sure the parents would not harm the kids with all those weird beliefs, especially, I'm sure, the underage sex thing. As the parents showed themselves to be properly reformed, they would have a shot at getting the kids back, but the CPS would be in charge, basically. The trial judge went along, but she was reversed.
Remember, the cases are not over. The suits go on. The issue of permanent custody is still in litigation. The supreme court just ruled on temporary orders at this point. It remains to be seen if CPS is firing blanks as far as the permanent orders are concerned.