Teresa Loring et al. v. Carol Carter (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

A review of the record reveals that the plaintiffs (Lorings) are the paternal grandparents of the minor child, Lily Watrous.   The defendants, Catherine Watrous and Christopher Watrous, are the biological parents and the defendant, Carol Carter is the paternal step-grandmother.   Guardianship of the child was placed with the defendant Carol Carter in the juvenile court at Waterford.   Guardianship of the child's older brother, William was placed with the plaintiffs.   A hearing was held before the undersigned on April 8, 2013 wherein the court referred the matter to Family Relations for a study and appointed a Guardian ad litem (GAL) for the child.   The GAL filed a request for a status conference pertaining to the payment of her legal fees.   She had requested a retainer of $4,000 at the rate of $225 per hour as well as other terms and conditions contained in her fee agreement letter.   The plaintiffs (Lorings) objected to the GAL's request for fees for a number of reasons.   The parties appeared before the undersigned on May 21, 2013 to argue that motion.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The court appointed a GAL to represent the interests of the minor child on April 8, 2013.

2. The plaintiffs are represented by private counsel and the defendant (Carter) intends to retain private counsel.

3. Neither party claimed to be indigent.

4. A $4,000 retainer for a complicated and potentially contentious custody dispute billed at the rate of $225 per hour is customary for attorneys in this judicial district.

5. The court intentionally did not appoint a GAL from the limited list of GALs who are authorized to take appointments at state rates, paid by the state of Connecticut, as that is a limited resource reserved for indigent families.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

The authority of the court to order the payment of these fees is clear.   Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 107 Conn.App. 488, 945 A.2d 1043 (2008).   The court looks to and has considered the statutory factors in Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–62 in determining the allocation of the fee between the parties.

CGS § 46b–62 states:

In any proceeding seeking relief under the provisions of this chapter and sections 17b–743, 17b–744, 45a–257, 46b–1, 46b–6, 46b–212 to 46b–213w, inclusive, 47–14g, 51–348a and 52–362, the court may order either spouse or, if such proceeding concerns the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child, either parent to pay the reasonable attorneys fees of the other in accordance with their respective financial abilities and the criteria set forth in section 46b–82.   If, in any proceeding under this chapter and said sections, the court appoints an attorney for a minor child, the court may order the father, mother or an intervening party, individually or in any combination, to pay the reasonable fees of the attorney or may order the payment of the attorneys fees in whole or in part from the estate of the child.   If the child is receiving or has received state aid or care, the compensation of the attorney shall be established and paid by the Public Defender Services Commission.

The plaintiffs emphasize the last sentence of said statute arguing that since the child has received state assistance at some point in her life, the attorney representing that child should be paid by the taxpayers of the state of Connecticut.   Since it does not appear that the grandparents involved in this dispute are indigent, it seems illogical that they would be treated as if they were indigent.   The court cannot find any binding authority for the proposition that the GAL in this circumstance should be paid at state rates by the state of Connecticut.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Lorings shall pay to the GAL the sum of $2,000 and the defendant Carter shall pay to the GAL the sum of $2,000 within 21 days.   The parties shall not be bound by that portion of the GAL's retainer agreement charging interest or attorneys fees.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.