The department could not get restraining orders, for example, because it would not know whom to restrain. It also could not prevent certain family members from having access to a child because it could not file a pleading or affidavit, which has to identify the parent and child the department seeks to keep apart.

The three dissenting justices also said that the trial court heard evidence that "the mothers themselves believed that the practice of underage 'marriage' and procreation was not harmful for young girls ..." the opinion said.

The department will not place children back with their parents until it is certain that the parents realize that what happened in the first place hurt the children.

"This is some evidence that the department could not have reasonably sought to maintain custody with the mothers. Thus, evidence presented to the trial court demonstrated that the department took reasonable efforts, consistent with extraordinarily difficult circumstances, to protect the children without taking them into custody," the dissenting opinion said.

---

E-mail: bwinslow@desnews.com; lindat@desnews.com; amyjoi@desnews.com