SAN ANGELO, Texas — The day after FLDS mothers celebrated an appeals court decision ordering the return of their children, child welfare officials went to the Texas Supreme Court to prevent it.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services asked the Supreme Court to stay the 3rd Court of Appeals order and keep the children where they are, in foster facilities, until the high court considers its arguments. Attorneys argued the more than 450 children will "suffer irreparable harm" if the appellate court order is followed and says the children "will be at risk of sexual and emotional abuse" if returned to their parents.

Attorneys for dozens of FLDS mothers wasted no time responding, filing papers with the high court just hours afterward. The mothers argued any delay returning the children will cause "continuing, irreparable harm every day that they are separated from their parents."

Ostler McCarthy, staff attorney for the Texas Supreme Court, said the justices requested the trial record Friday from the 3rd Court of Appeals — an indication that it plans to work on the case over the weekend.

Rod Parker, a Salt Lake attorney representing the Fundamentalist LDS Church, said the state's appeal will be an uphill battle for Texas authorities.

"They ought to take a step back and think about what they're doing here and if it's really best for the children in the face of what's happened to them so far and their inability to produce any evidence," he said.

"This is an agency that's out of control."

In the first paragraph of its appeal, attorneys for DFPS wrote: "This case is about adult men commanding sex from underage children; about adult women knowingly condoning and allowing sexual abuse of underage children; about the need for the department to take action under difficult, time-sensitive and unprecedented circumstances to protect children on an emergency basis ... "

It also questions the appeals court's order to return the children "without giving the court the opportunity to determine which parents are entitled to possession of which children."

DFPS has complained that children switched names and both children and mothers have refused to answer questions about identities or family relationships, making it difficult to determine which child belongs to which parents.

"The children have a constitutional best interest right to know with absolute certainty who their parents are. Due to the orchestrated conspiracy of silence, neither the department nor the trial court was able to match alleged parents with the children," state attorneys argued, adding that it was important to establish relationships to determine potential risks of sexual abuse.