This is not bad. The Supreme Court said under the limited question before us, we won't reverse the Court of Appeal. But it pointed out the ongoing jurisdiction and importance of the proceedings, while providing some guidance under how to proceed in a less earth-scorching fashion. (Q you made up from whole cloth that part about bringing forth specific charges for criminal action - I am giving up on you.)
----
The Department petitioned this Court for review by mandamus. Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us, we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals' decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted.

The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals' decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children's safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders "for the safety and welfare of the child",4 including an order "restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court".5 The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child's home6 and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.7 The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,8 and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.9

While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children, as the mothers involved in this proceeding concede in response to the Department's motion for emergency relief. The court of appeals' decision does not conclude the SAPCR proceedings. Although the SAPCRs involve important, fundamental issues concerning parental rights and the State's interest in protecting children, it is premature for us to address those issues. The Department's petition for mandamus is denied.
------