Attorneys for the mothers said the simplest solution would be to ask the men to leave the ranch — an action that would have caused less harm to the children.

"Testimony from doctors in case after case attests to the harm caused to removed children," the attorneys argued. Quoting another case, the attorneys wrote: "Taking a child whose greatest fear is separation from his or her mother and in the name of 'protecting' that child by forcing on them, what is in effect, their worst nightmare ... is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound."

TRLA also said there was no evidence to show that any of the mothers are flight risks.

The group representing mothers also argued the while there may have been a number of underage girls who are pregnant or were believed to have been pregnant while underage, it does not justify the removal of all children.

"The department cannot take the circumstance of less than 5 percent of the children and extrapolate to over 400 children at the ranch. In short, to remove a child from his mother, there has to be individualized proof as to that mother. To interpret the statute otherwise would render it unconstitutional under the due process clause," the response states.

The Court of Appeals could rule on the issues in the petition or may hold a hearing to consider oral arguments.

---

E-mail: bwest@desnews.com