green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
36.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · 2 courts ·
…benefit and support, as the purpose of the hearing was to determine who could provide the best home for her.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re Guitterrez
a court ordered obligation to pay attorney's fees charge by an attorney that represents a child's parent in child support litigation against the debtor is nondischargeable as a debt to a former spouse for maintenance or support of such child.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sealock v. Portivent, esq.
(2×)
Tex. 2014). 18 E.g., Jones v. Jones (In re Jones), 9 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 1993); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir. 1993); In re Ramirez, 2000 WL 356314 , at *5 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simpson v. Carter
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Hutton, 463 B.R. at 829 (citing Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir. 1993); see also In re Beacham, 520 B.R. 561, 566 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCloskey v. McCloskey (In Re McCloskey)
See, e.g., Sonntag v. Prax (In re Sonntag), 115 Fed.Appx. 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); In re Hudson, 107 F.3d at 357 ; Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir. 1993); Hill v. Snider (In re Snider), 62 B.R. 382, 387 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trentadue v. Gay
See, e.g., Macy v. Macy, 114 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1997); In re Maddigan, 312 F.3d 589, 594 (2d Cir.2002); In re Peters, 964 F.2d 166 , 167 (2nd Cir.1992); In re Hudson, 107 F.3d 355 , 357 (5th Cir.1997); Rogers v. Morin, 189 Fed.Appx. 299, 302 (5th Cir.2006); In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); In re Rehkow, 2006 WL 6811011 , at *3-4 (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 17, 2006) aff'd, 239 Fed.Appx. 341 (9th Cir.2007); In re Catlow, 663 F.2d 960, 963 (9th Cir.1981); In re Miller, 55 F.3d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir.1995); In re Jones, 9 F.3d 878, 882 (10th Cir.1993); In re Ratcliff, 195 B.R. 466, 468 (Bankr.C.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Beacham
(2×)
Rogers v. Morin (In re Rogers), 189 Fed.Appx. 299, 302 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) and Hudson v. Raggio & Raggio, Inc. (In re Hudson), 107 F.3d 355, 357 (5th Cir.1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McNeil v. Drazin
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See also, e.g., Pauley v. Spong (In re Spong), 661 F.2d 6, 11 (2d Cir.1981) ("[I]t would be exalting form over substance to fail to treat appellee's agreement to pay his wife’s counsel fee as a debt to a spouse for alimony maintenance, or support, and that, therefore, it is nondischargeable in bankruptcy.”) (internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); Holliday v. Kline (In re Kline), 65 F.3d 749, 751 (8th Cir.1995); Matter of Hudson, 107 F.3d 355 , 357 (5th Cir.1997); In re Gwinn, 20 B.R. 233, 234 (9th Cir. BAP 1982…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Bub
LEXIS 12900, at *4-9 (4th Cir. June 18, 1998); Strickland v. Shannon (In re Strickland), 90 F.3d 444, 445-47 (11th Cir.1996); Holliday v. Kline (In re Kline), 65 F.3d 749, 751 (8th Cir.1995); Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1488-89 (10th Cir.1995); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); Giana-kas v. Gianakas (In re Gianakas), 917 F.2d 759, 763-64 (3d Cir.1990); In re Seibert, 914 F.2d 102, 104-07 (7th Cir.1990); Calhoun v. Long (In re Calhoun), 715 F.2d 1103, 1107 (6th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reissig v. Gruber (In Re Gruber)
First, in In re Dvorak, the Fifth Circuit held that court-ordered attorney fees incurred during a post-divorce custody dispute to be non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(5). 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aldrich v. Papi (In Re Papi)
(2×)
Falk & Siemer, LLP v. Maddigan (In re Maddigan), 312 F.3d 589, 597 (2d Cir.2002); Beaupied v. Chang (In re Chang), 163 F.3d 1138 , 1141 *463 (9th Cir.1998); Holliday v. Kline (In re Kline), 65 F.3d 749, 751 (8th Cir.1995); Miller, 55 F.3d at 1490 ; Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); Pauley v. Spong (In re Spong), 661 F.2d 6, 11 (2d Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kassicieh v. Battisti (In Re Kassicieh)
See Holliday v. Kline (In re Kline), 65 F.3d 749, 750 (8th Cir.1995) (concluding that “attorney fee awards that are in the nature of maintenance or support can be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5) even if payable directly to the attorney”); Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir.1995) (agreeing with other courts that “form should not be placed over substance and that it is the nature of the debt that controls, not the identity of the payee”); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (“Because the fees charged by [attorney and guardia…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Levin v. Greco (In Re Greco)
For example, Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993), held nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(5) an award of fees to a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interest of the debtor’s child in a custody dispute.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Strickland (In Re Strickland)
See, e.g., Macy v. Macy, 114 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1997) (“holding that attorneys’ fees incurred by a former spouse in the course of seeking to enforce support-related payments required by a divorce decree are properly nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5).”); In re Hudson, 107 F.3d 355 , (5th Cir.1997) (holding that “attorney’s fees related to establishment of support obligations [are] nondischargeable without reference to the financial need of the support obligee at the beginning of the litigation.”), citing Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stewart v. Walker (In Re Stewart)
(2×)
See In re Chang, 163 F.3d 1138 , 1141 (9th Cir.1998) (finding debt from guardian ad litem fees in custody battle non-dischargeable, noting that “[f]ees paid to third parties on behalf of a child or former spouse can be ‘as much for ... support as payments made directly to [the former spouse or child]’ ”) (quoting In re Catlow, 663 F.2d 960, 962-63 (9th Cir.1981)); In re Miller, 55 F.3d at 1490 (rejecting lower court’s “plain language” interpretation of “to a ... child of the debt- or” to find that debt from guardian ad litem fees incurred during divorce and support proceeding…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burnett v. Shain (In re Shain)
See Falk & Siemer v. Maddigan, 312 F.3d 589, 594 (2nd Cir.2002); Dvorak v. Carlson, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); In re Lowther, 266 B.R. 753, 757 (10th Cir. BAP 2001), noting that the majority of circuit courts have found that custody actions are for the child’s benefit and support and nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Egleston v. Egleston
For the same reason that we treat the reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with establishing support obligations as an integral part of the support obligations, see Matter of Hudson, 107 F.3d 355, 357 (5th Cir.1997); Matter of Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993), the reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with collecting support obligations should also be treated as support obligations.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Egleston v. Egleston
For the same reason that we treat the reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with establishing support obligations as an integral part of the support obligations, see Matter of Hudson, 107 F.3d 355, 357 (5th Cir.1997); Matter of Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993), the reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with collecting support obligations should also be treated as support obligations.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benjamin v. Douglas (In Re Douglas)
The court went on to analyze the circuit cases finding support, In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) and In re Peters, 964 F.2d 166 , 167 (2d Cir.1992), and one finding to the contrary, Adams v. Zentz, 963 F.2d 197 (8th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Klass v. Klass
See Peters v. Hennenhoeffer (In re Peters), 964 F.2d 166, 167 (2nd Cir.1992) (it is generally accepted that fees incurred on behalf of a child are nondischargeable because they are deemed to be support when those fees are inextricably intertwined with proceedings affecting the welfare of the child); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); Beaupied v. Chang (In re Chang), 163 F.3d 1138 , 1140-41 (9th Cir.1998); In re Jones, 9 F.3d 878 (10th Cir.1993); Miller v. Gentry, 55 F.3d 1487 (10th Cir.1995); Ceconi v. Uriarte, 215 B.R. 669, 673 (Bankr.D.N.J. 1997); Debts for A…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Falk & Siemer, LLP v. Craig Maddigan
See, e.g., In re Miller, 55 F.3d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that debts for a guardian ad litem and a psychologist were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5), because “the emphasis [is to be] placed on the determination of whether a debt is in the nature of support, rather than on the identity of the payee”); In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that legal fees for a child’s guardian ad litem in a custody proceeding were “clearly for [the ehild]’s benefit and support,” and as such were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Werthen v. Werthen (In Re Werthen)
Macy v. Macy, 114 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.1997) (attorneys' fees awarded in efforts to collect alimony, maintenance, or support are within the discharge exception); see also, e.g., Hudson v. Raggio & Raggio, Inc. (In re Hudson), 107 F.3d 355, 356-57 (5th Cir.1997) (attorneys’ fees awarded in paternity/support action non-dischargeable); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (attorney and guardian ad litem fee awards within discharge exception). 5 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowther v. Lowther (In Re Lowther)
See, e.g., Stark v. Bishop (In re Bishop), No. 97-2151, 1998 WL 325950 , at *3 (4th Cir. June 18,1998) (per curiam); Beaupied v. Chang (In re Chang), 163 F.3d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir.1998); Strickland v. Shannon (In re Strickland), 90 F.3d 444, 447 (11th Cir.1996); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); Peters v. Hennenhoeffer (In re Peters), 964 F.2d 166, 167 (2d Cir.1992) (per curiam), aff'g 133 B.R. 291, 296-97 (S.D.N.Y.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Paul Alan Leibowitz, Debtor. Paul Alan Leibowitz v. County of Orange Tony Rackauckas, 1 District Attorney of County of Orange
See Chang, 163 F.3d at 1141 (holding that a debt for professional fees and expenses arising from child custody proceedings is “in the nature of support”); In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that guardian ad litem fees were “clearly for the child’s benefit and support” and thus debt was not dischargeable under section 523(a)(5)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Olszewski v. Joffrion (In Re Joffrion)
(2×)
See In re Chang, 163 F.3d 1138 , 1140 (9th Cir.1998); In the Matter of Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robertson v. Fulton (In Re Fulton)
Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sinton v. Blaemire (In Re Blaemire)
Likewise, in Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (C.A.5 1993), the Fifth Circuit found that court-ordered attorney’s fees incurred in a post-divorce custody dispute were nondis-chargeable.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beaupied v. Chang (In re Chang)
In In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993), the Fifth Circuit considered the dischargeability of a child’s guardian ad litem fees and an ex-spouse’s attorney’s fees in a custody proceeding following a divorce.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stark v. Bishop
See, e.g., In re Miller, 55 F.3d at 1490 ; Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir. 1993); Peters v. Hennenhoeffer (In re Peters), 964 F.2d 166, 167 (2d Cir. 1992) (per curiam), aff'g, 133 B.R. 291, 296-97 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ceconi v. Uriarte (In Re Uriarte)
Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1488 (10th Cir. 1995);Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); Walter v. Neville (In re Neville), 1997 WL 419386 *1, *1 (Bankr.W.D.Tenn.); Madden v. Staggs (In re Staggs), 203 B.R. 712, 722 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1996); Pleban v. O’Toole (In re O’Toole), 194 B.R. 629, 630 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1996); Walker v. Laing (In re Laing), 187 B.R. 531, 532 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1995); Constantine, 183 B.R. at 336 ; Baillargeon v. Stacey (In re Stacey), 164 B.R. 210, 212 (Bankr.D.N.H.1994); Swartzberg v. Lockwood (In re Lockwood), 148 B.R. 45, 48 (Ba…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chang v. Beaupied (In Re Chang)
Only her argument that the Health Professionals' fees are dischargeable under § 523(a)(5) is addressed in this opinion. 15 .See, e.g., Miller v. Gentry (In re Miller), 55 F.3d 1487, 1490 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied,-U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 305 , 133 L.Ed.2d 210 (1995); Jones v. Jones (In re Jones), 9 F.3d 878, 881-82 (10th Cir.1993); Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); Peters v. Hennenhoeffer (In re Peters), 133 B.R. 291, 296-97 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, 964 F.2d 166 , 167 (2d Cir. 1992) (affirming substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s opin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
37 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1109, Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,390, 11 tex.bankr.ct.rep. 184 in the Matter of Scott Wesley Hudson, Debtor. Scott Wesley Hudson v. Raggio & Raggio, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hudson v. Raggio & Raggio, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beaupied v. Doe (In Re Doe)
Matter of Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1994) (duty to pay portion of guardian ad litem's attorney's fees nondischargeable because the custody hearing was "clearly for [the child's] benefit and support, as the purpose of the hearing was to decide who could provide the best home for her"); In re Jones, 9 F.3d 878, 882 (10th Cir.1993) (following Dvorak to find nondis-chargeable court-ordered attorney’s fees arising from post-divorce custody actions “deemed in the nature of support under § 523(a)(5) as being incurred on behalf of the child”). 13 .Cal.Family Code § 3153, relevant text…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Raggio & Raggio, Inc. v. Hudson (In Re Hudson)
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heintz v. Tremblay (In Re Tremblay)
See, e.g., In re Peters, 133 B.R. 291, 295 (S.D.N.Y.1991) aff'd, 964 F.2d 166 (2d Cir.1992); In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993); In re Richard Henry Ray, 143 B.R. 937, 939 (D.Co.1992); In re Lockwood, 148 B.R. 45, 48 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Snider, 62 B.R. 382, 383 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1986); In re Laney, 53 B.R. 231 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1985); In re Hicks, 65 B.R. 227, 229 (Bankr.D.N.M.1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Debbie Jean Jones, Debtor. Alvin Jones and John Mantooth v. Debbie Jean Jones
In Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1998), the Fifth Circuit held court-ordered attorney’s fees incurred during a post-divorce custody dispute to be nondisehargeable.
discussed
Cited "see"
Doolittle v. Doolittle (In re Doolittle)
See Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that § 523(a)(5) “does not discharge a debtor from any debt for support of his or her child, if that debt is in connection with a court order.”); see also Sontag v. Prax (In re Sontag), 115 Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Loe, Warren, Rosenfield, Katcher, Hibbs, & Windsor, P.C. v. Brooks (In Re Brooks)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) and Hill v. Snider (In re Snider), 62 B.R. 382, 385 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rogers v. Morin (In Re Rogers)
See Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that under § 523(a)(5) attorney’s fees and court costs from a custody hearing were not dis-chargeable because the “court hearing ... was for [the child]’s benefit and support”).
cited
Cited "see"
Madden v. Staggs (In Re Staggs)
See Matter of Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Pleban v. O'Toole (In Re O'Toole)
See Matter of Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hutton v. Ferguson (In re Hutton)
See, e.g., Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that attorneys’ fees awarded for services during a child custody hearing were non-dischargeable because the hearing was for the child’s benefit and support); Hill v. Snider (In re Snider), 62 B.R. 382, 387 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1986) (finding an award for attorneys’ fees in a child custody proceeding non-dis-chargeable because the award “was expressly found to be in the best interest of the[ ] child” and “so intertwined with the child support issues so as to make them inseparable when determining discha…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Anderson
Aug. 25, 2011) (“... a majority of jurisdictions that have analyzed this issue post-BAPC-PA appear to agree that guardian ad litem fees are ‘domestic support obligations’ and nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code.”); see also In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that legal fees for child’s guardian ad litem in custody proceeding were “clearly for [childj’s benefit and support,” and as such were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5)); and In re Chang, 163 F.3d 1138 , 1141 (9th Cir.1998) (holding debts owed by Chapter 13 debtor to the father of her child and…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sonntag v. Prax (In Re Sonntag)
In re Hudson, 107 F.3d at 357 ; see also Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
41 Collier bankr.cas.2d 305, Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,859, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9385, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9385, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,101, 3 Cal. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 30 in Re Amy Chang, Debtor. Aleta Beaupied George O. Ting v. Amy Chang
Id. at 1488, 1490 ; see also In re Jones, 9 F.3d 878, 881-82 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that attorney's fees incurred in a custody action were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5)). 15 In In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993), the Fifth Circuit considered the dischargeability of a child's guardian ad litem fees and an ex-spouse's attorney's fees in a custody proceeding following a divorce.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller v. Gentry (In Re Miller)
See, e.g., Dvorak v. Carlson (In re Dvorak), 986 F.2d 940 (5th Cir.1993); Stacey v. Baillargeon (In re Stacey), 164 B.R. 210 (Bankr.D.N.H.1994) (guardian ad litem fees are in the nature of support and are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5)); Tremblay v. Heintz, 162 B.R. 60 (Bankr.D.Me.1993) (guardian ad litem fees are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Gloria Jean R. DVORAK And, James O. Dvorak, Debtors. Gloria Jean R. DVORAK, Appellant,
v.
Roland CARLSON, Appellee
v.
Roland CARLSON, Appellee
92-7203.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 26, 1993.
986 F.2d 940
1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 6031
1993 WL 65770
Gloria Jean R. Dvorak, pro se., Larry D. Woody, Victoria, TX, for appel-lee.
Jolly, Duhé, Barksdale.
Cited by 65 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. Louisiana (1)
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:
Jean Dvorak appeals the district court’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court’s determination that attorney’s fees incurred during the custody battle over Jean Dvorak’s daughter are a non-dischargeable[*941] debt under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. We affirm.
I.BACKGROUND
After the dissolution of her marriage to Wesley Rich, Appellant Jean Dvorak (Appellant) sought custody of their daughter, Brandi Rich. During the ensuing child custody litigation in state court, Wesley Rich was represented by attorney Barbara Fritz, and attorney Roland Carlson was appointed by the state court as Brandi Rich’s guardian ad litem. After a jury trial, the state court terminated Appellant’s parental rights, awarded custody to Wesley Rich, and ordered Appellant to pay fees charged by Barbara Fritz and a portion of fees charged by Roland Carlson as guardian ad litem.
Appellant appealed to the state appellate court, and her appeal was dismissed. Shortly thereafter, she filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Appellees Barbara Fritz and Roland Carlson then filed a complaint in bankruptcy court seeking to declare as non-dischargea-ble under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(5) Appellant’s court-ordered obligation to pay them. [1]
The bankruptcy court concluded that the court-ordered payment of attorneys’ fees incurred in post-divorce/child custody litigation should be recognized as child support, and therefore non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(5). In reaching this conclusion the bankruptcy court relied on In re Snider, 62 B.R. 382 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1986) (visitation is sufficiently related to child support so as to render the award of attorney’s fees as non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(5)), and In re Laney, 53 B.R. 231 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1985) (fees awarded in domestic litigation should be recognized as alimony, maintenance, or child support and therefore non-dischargeable). The district court subsequently affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, but are free to review conclusions of law de novo. In re Consolidated Bancshares, 785 F.2d 1249, 1252 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank, N.A., 762 F.2d 1303, 1307-08 (5th Cir.1985)).
III. ANALYSIS
The issue we review is a narrow issue of law: whether Appellant’s court-ordered obligation to pay fees charged by Barbara Fritz and a portion of fees charged by Roland Carlson as guardian ad litem is considered child support, and therefore non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). Having carefully considered the relevant case law, we conclude that the bankruptcy court and district court correctly determined that Appellant’s debt is non-dischargeable.
Section 523(a)(5) does not discharge a debtor from any debt for support of his or her child, if that debt is in connection with a court order. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). Barbara Fritz, representing Wesley Rich, and Roland Carlson, as Brandi Rich’s guardian ad litem, supplied services during the child custody hearing of Brandi Rich. That hearing was clearly for Brandi Rich’s benefit and support, as the purpose of the hearing was to determine who could provide the best home for her. See In re Laney, 53 B.R. at 233. The state court subsequently ordered Appellant to pay fees charged by Barbara Fritz and a portion of fees charged by Roland Carlson.
Because the fees charged by Appellees were incurred during a court hearing that was for Brandi Rich’s benefit and support, and because the state court then ordered the fees to be paid by Appellant, we conclude that the fees constitute a non-dis-chargeable debt under § 523(a)(5).
[*942] IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
1
. 11 U.S.C. i 523(a)(5) provides in pertinent part: “[a] discharge under ... this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such spouse or child, in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record.... ”