Is taking all 400+children from the FLDS texas compound constitutional?

this is beginning to become quite the hot topic in the local papers.

the case for removing the children pretty much revolves around the concept of pervasive patterens of abuse being so prevalant that there was legal cause for the childrens immediate emergency removal for ther protection. A pattern that is obvious to anyone familliar with the situation, especially the law enforcemenet agencies who spent three years looking for a reason to raid the compound but never could come up with one that had suficent legal precedent.

HOWEVER, it is being contested by many lawers for the FLDS church, as well as many not directly involved in the situation, that texas only had the right to take the inital 13 they claimed to be pregnant teens (and they are disputing if more than 2 of these teens exist anyways) and that the removal was, in efect, a "class action removal based on opinion" by a child protective services departmant known for it's very liberal/antoginistic views towards taking children, that the motive was actually to just simply get all of the children before they could be prevented by law, making it easier for them to keep the children in the end than it would be by trying to take them later, and that individual cases should have been presented and ruled on by virtue of clear proof BEFORE the rest of the children were taken, not AFTER due to repeated assertions that many parents of the children were not engaged in abuse, just some of them.

in effect, rights of the parents vs rights of the children.

now add to this that there is a 80-90% possibility that the call that sparked the raid in the first place was a deliberate hoax/prank call by an individual with a criminal record of calling the poice on false scares, and who is a anti polygany activist. making the original claim for probable cause very shaky to begin with. not good for the texas case.

also, consider the fact that many se the DNA testing primarily as a way to bring crminal charges, not just to prove paternity.

i'm split on this. i agree with both sides about equally. this will, imho, probably end up in the us surpreme court before it's over.

thoughts, anyone?