Elias-Perciful wrote that the 3rd Court of Appeals ignored evidence of underage pregnancies, and that despite extensive evidence of sexual abuse, incorrectly concluded there was no danger to other children. She said that the children deserve to be in a household free from sexual abuse and that to return the children now "would send a message that sexual abuse of young girls is not a serious matter."

"It will also eliminate the parents' incentive to make the difficult changes necessary to ensure the safety of their children," Elias-Perciful wrote. "For many, this will mean having to make a choice to leave behind a lifestyle that included sexual abuse of young girls, training girls to accept abuse, and training boys to be perpetrators. More importantly, as the Department has effectively established, the evidence shows a serious flight risk for these children."

Elias-Perciful said that removing the children is a step down a path toward a safer life for children.

"Removal is like the painful surgery that is necessary before healing can take place," she wrote. "It can be the best and only chance to protect the child and is the best chance to reunify the family in a healthy way."

---

E-mail: bwinslow@desnews.com