Judge Felix ordered Husband to pay half of a $6,000 guardian ad litem retainer within three days, at $325 an hour, while his written objection to the guardian's cost and risk sat 478 days with no ruling that addressed it, and no order found what either parent can pay.
Section 61.16(1) directs the court to consider each parent's financial resources before it imposes a cost. Judge Felix had a timely written objection, filed in opposition to the very motion and raised aloud before him. He rules on it, takes evidence of cost, and weighs each parent's ability to pay before he sets a three-day deadline.
- Apr. 1, 2025: Husband filed Doc 169 "in opposition of Wife's motion to appoint guardian ad litem," attaching a family-law magazine article warning that a party "will have spent thousands of dollars on an investigation and report that could cost them custody of their beloved child." N-039Read them: Notice of filing, Doc 169 (link pending redacted copy)
- May 29, 2026: Husband asked the witness about Docket 169. Davis objected on relevance. Judge Felix: "I agree." Husband's next question, about risks to the children, drew "Objection. Speculation." and "Sustained." On the one after: "you can make that argument in closing." N-039Read them: Hearing transcript, May 29, 2026, pp. 38-39 (link pending redacted copy)
- June 25 to Aug. 4, 2026: the order granting the motion found nothing about cost; its one cost sentence: "The cost of the guardian ad litem shall be divided equally between the parties, without prejudice subject to a potential letter [sic] reallocation." The July 23 order, then the Aug. 4 amended order: "six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) within 3 days of entry of this Order" at "$325.00 per hour." None of the three mentions Doc 169 or finds what either parent can pay. N-039, N-134What evidence of either parent's ability to pay supports a $6,000 retainer due in three days?Read them: Order, Doc 337 (link pending redacted copy) · Amended order, Doc 365, p. 7 (link pending redacted copy)
Judge Matthew Felix (sustained the objections; signed the three orders). Scott Davis, Wife's counsel (the relevance and speculation objections). One written objection, one hearing, three orders. Every duty here arises from section 61.16(1) and the objection on this docket alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const. guarantees a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Section 61.16(1), Fla. Stat. requires the court to consider each party's financial resources before imposing costs. The record held no evidence of the guardian's cost.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
On 4/1/25 Husband filed a notice opposing Wife's guardian ad litem, psychological evaluation, and vocational-file motions, attaching a magazine article warning that "There is always a risk that a Guardian ad Litem will make recommendations that are not in a child's best interest". He raised it at the 5/29/26 hearing; Wife's counsel objected on relevance, Judge Felix agreed, and the question was narrowed to whether the witness had read that article. She had not. Doc 337 granted the appointment on 6/25/26 on findings that mention neither cost, risk, ability to pay, nor the notice; its only cost sentence divides an unstated amount equally. Doc 351 then ordered "$6,000.00 within 3 days of entry of this Order" at $325 per hour, with no cost evidence and no mention of the notice. 498 days from filing to 8/12/26, with no engagement in any order. [IGNORED]
Section 61.16(1) requires a finding of what each parent can pay before a cost is imposed on him, and section 61.401 requires the court to find, on the movant's showing, that the appointment serves the children. The objection here was timely: captioned as opposition to the motion it opposed, it sat on the docket over a year before either order issued, and was raised aloud in court. It sat through three hearing days and two orders and drew no sentence.
Husband's written objection to the cost and risk of a guardian ad litem sat on the docket 450 days before the order granting one and 478 days before the order pricing it at $6,000; neither order mentions cost, risk, or ability to pay.
- Doc 169 (Filing #220088124, e-filed 4/1/25 5:32:32 PM, 3 pp.); the article text is at pp. 2-3, including the sentence that a party "will have spent thousands of dollars on an investigation and report that could cost them custody of their beloved child."
- 5/29/26 Tr. 38:6-17, 38:24-39:2, 39:4-9, 39:21-24 (relevance objection, "I agree," narrowing, and the sustained speculation objection on the follow-up question).
- Doc 337 (2 pp.) and Doc 351 (5 pp.), both read in full, neither referencing Doc 169, the article, cost evidence, or ability to pay.
- Doc 345 (3 pp.), no reference. Doc 342 p. 5.
- Caution on file: Doc 169's certificate of service carries a stale "13th day of December, 2024" template date; the 4/1/25 clerk stamp controls and every day count here uses it.
- DINs 346-350 and 352-359 are absent from this tree, so the absence of an order on Doc 342 (the reconsideration motion raising this a third time) is stated as to this record, not as a certified docket absence.
- Related decision points: N-038, N-134.