SAN ANGELO, Texas — Perhaps bowing to the pressure at the center of the FLDS custody case, a spokesman for the church today released a prepared statement saying members will be counseled to not allow or participate in marriages below the age of consent.

FLDS member Willie Jessop released the statement this afternoon and said it would apply to all members of the church.

"The church commits it will not preside over the marriage of any woman under the age of legal consent in the jurisdiction in which the marriage takes place," Jessop said.

The statement comes on the heels of a judge's order today that released all FLDS children in custody has already reunited some mothers with their children and has parents criss-crossing the state of Texas to get their children back.

But not every attorney is happy.

Natalie E. Malonis, a guardian ad litem who represents a child who is also a mother in state custody, has filed an an emergency motion to prevent the return of her client, saying the court's order will cause "immediate and irreparable harm to the physical safety and welfare of the child."

The threat, she said, is because the female is an identified victim of sexual abuse.

Malonis filed the emergency request this afternoon with the 51st District Court in Schleicher County asserting that Judge Barbara Walther's order lacks restrictions or provisions that take into account the immediate risk of the alleged perpetrator having access to the girl.

The attorney, in her request, said several of these concerns were brought up before Walther on Friday but she was told by the court to wait until after the hearing to discuss them because they did not apply to the other children.

Malonis said she waited, but then Walter abruptly left the bench without addressing the concerns.

"I'm working with her mother's attorney and we are going to enter our own orders that are just little more tailored to my client," she said today.

Malonis complains that she and the attorney representing her client's mother had worked out an agreement that would have kept her client under the purview of the state Department of Family and Protective Services for 30 additional days with a review set at that time. The custody arrangement would continued regardless of any of the court rulings releasing FLDS children.

The agreement would have given time for DNA testing to come back. That, she argues, was a critical component in her case because her client is a mother to a child in custody being cared for by another person. "Ad Litem requested that the court await the outcome of DNA results before entering an order so that a person entitled to possession could be properly identified for each infant in custody."