No evidence you say? Not quite, there is some evidence that things not in accordance with the law went on at that ranch, let me quote the article.
After interviewing five minors who were or had been pregnant, CPS removed all of the children, based on the assumption that the community's belief system allowed minor females to marry and bear children, lawyers for the women argued.
So, minors were getting pregnant there, presumably due to being married to adult men, which btw the cult's belief system considers as being perfectly fine. Are you really saying that 5 girls, pregnant or already mothers and married to older men is perfectly fine and lawful and does not constitute evidence that they were effectively being sexually abused when seen from the viewpoint of mainstream standards?
And to continue:
"Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue," the panel wrote.
To me this sounds mostly like splitting hairs, there is evidence that children raised in that particular environment are more likely to have their physical health and safety threatened than is the case with children raised in the surrounding mainstream environment. But because the danger is "not imminent" the state does not have a right to remove the children from this environment. Well, what is this moment when the danger can be considered imminent then? The moment a marriage between a 14 year old girl and someone twice her age is arranged? The moment when they are wed? The moment they're about to "consume their marriage"?
While I'm generally against the state intervening with people's private lives, this is a case where I think it's necessary because it involves children which have no means of defending themselves.