The decision does not let the FLDS off the hook, and in a measured and thoughtful dissent, Justice Harriet O'Neill said teenage girls at the YFZ Ranch face the danger of sexual abuse.

While she agreed there was no evidence of imminent danger to the safety of the boys and pre-pubescent girls to justify removal, she said the state agency needed more time to work to protect the ranch's "endangered" population — teenage girls.

For that group, O'Neill argued that the trial court did not abuse its discretion given the obstacles authorities encountered in gathering information.

The dissenting opinion was supported by Justice Phil Johnson and Justice Don R. Willett.

In their dissent, the three justices said evidence was presented that showed:

• Several teenage girls on the ranch were pregnant or had given birth.

• The ranch's religious leader had "unilateral power to decide when and to whom they would be married."

• Documents taken from the ranch showed there were "several extremely young mothers or pregnant 'wives'" on the ranch.

• One expert confirmed that the FLDS Church accepts the age of "physical development" (the start of a monthly cycle for a girl) as the age of eligibility for "marriage."

• A child psychologist testified that pregnancy of underage children at the ranch was the result of sexual abuse because children ages 15, 15 or 16 are "not sufficiently mature to enter a healthy consensual sexual relationship or 'marriage.'

"Evidence presented thus indicated a pattern of practice of sexual abuse of pubescent girls, and the condoning of such sexual abuse, on the ranch — evidence sufficient to satisfy 'a person of ordinary prudence and caution' that other such girls were at risk of sexual abuse as well," the dissenting opinion said.

"This evidence supports the trial court's finding that 'there was a danger to the physical health or safety" of pubescent girls on the ranch," the opinion states.

In addition, the dissenting opinion said that the Department of Family and Protective Services was hampered in its efforts to protect the children through any alternative means other than taking them from the ranch.

The department is required to "make reasonable efforts" to avoid taking custody of endangered children, but department employees found that children on the ranch would not give information about their birth dates, who their parents were, who lived in their homes, and, in several cases, lied repeated.

Parents at the ranch also gave inconsistent information and officials discovered a shredder that had been used to destroy documents just before department officials arrived.

"Thwarted by the resistant behavior of both children and parents on the ranch, the department had limited options," the dissenting opinion said.