|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED December 28, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-3163
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
In the Matter of Fees
In re the Marriage of:
Richard Yaun and Diane
Yaun (Lehman):
DANE COUNTY,
Appellant,
v.
DIANE LEHMAN,
Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Dane County:
PATRICK J. FIEDLER, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Dane County appeals from an order requiring it to pay
the fees of a private counselor who provided services to an indigent party in a
divorce action. We conclude the court
has authority to do so. We affirm.
Richard Yaun and Diane
Lehman were divorced in 1983. In
January 1991 the circuit court issued a "Revised Order for Periods of
Physical Placement." The court
ordered that Diane Lehman, the respondent in the divorce action, not have
face-to-face or telephone contact with her daughters until she had complied
with certain requirements. Among those
requirements was that Lehman, an indigent resident of Green County,
continue
her counseling therapy through the Green County Human Services, with her
current therapist being Bruce E. Enger.
Ms. Lehman may pursue her counseling therapy through another agency or a
private counseling group provided the new treatment professional is approved,
in advance, by [the guardian ad litem] and Dane County [Family Court Counseling
Service].
At some point following
that order, Enger went into private practice.
Lehman continued to use his services and accumulated unpaid bills. Lehman subsequently asked the circuit court
to order Dane County to pay Enger's bill of approximately $2,000.[1] The court did so in an order entered in
December 1993. Dane County did not
appear at the proceedings related to that issue.
In March 1994, Dane
County filed a "Motion for Modification on Payment of Respondent's
Fees." The County asserted that it
had not received notice of the relevant hearing and that there is no statutory
authority authorizing payment of private therapy fees by the County. The circuit court held a hearing on this
motion in April 1994 and issued a written order in October 1994, concluding
that the County had notice and the court had proper authority. The court also increased the ordered payment
to approximately $2,500 to cover Enger's services since the original
order. Dane County appeals.
The guardian ad litem[2]
argues that the circuit court has authority to order payment of the counseling
fees under § 767.23(1)(i), Stats.,
which allows the court to make a temporary order "[r]equiring counseling
of either party or both parties" in an action affecting the family.[3] We agree.
Section 767.01(1), Stats.,
provides the circuit court in an action affecting the family with
"authority to do all acts and things necessary and proper in such actions." In W.W.W. v. M.C.S., 185
Wis.2d 468, 483-85, 518 N.W.2d 285, 289-90 (Ct. App. 1994), we held that this
provision gave the circuit court authority to issue a certain injunction to
protect its judgment in a paternity action.
Here, it was necessary and proper for the court to effectuate its
counseling order by requiring the county to pay the fees.
Dane County also argues
that it did not receive adequate notice of the hearing resulting in the
original fee order. However, because
the County eventually appeared before the circuit court and this court, both of
which addressed the County's argument on the merits, the issue is moot.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.