Guy Choate, a lawyer who worked on behalf of the State Bar of Texas to find legal representation for children at the ranch, as well as some of the parents, said he was disturbed by the breadth of both the state's action and by the court's ruling -- though he sympathized with both. . . . .

"They were looking at it thinking, 'We may never get another shot to go in there, and this is just unacceptable,'" said Mr. Choate.

He described the appellate court's decision to send all the children back to the ranch as "awfully broad." The question left amid all the legal maneuvering: "What do we do about what I think everybody agrees and acknowledges are problems with underage child sexual abuse?"

The answer remains unclear. Shelly Greco, a Dallas lawyer representing two children involved in Thursday's court ruling, speculated that even if the court's decision is backed up by the state supreme court, Texas authorities would be able to retain custody of at least the children for whom they had the strongest evidence of abuse.

"I think the state will be able to present specific evidence that should have presented before, and keep those children," Ms. Greco said. If not, she said, she would be "concerned."

Other lawyers disagree. Amanda Chisholm, a lawyer for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, an organization representing the 38 mothers who were the subject of Thursday's court opinion, said she thinks the ruling means all children must be returned to the ranch.
-------------------------------

The same article in the Wall St. Journal says that the State agreed to return 12 children while the appeal marches on. But there are 38 mother-appellants. (I wonder why there were no father-appellants.)