In re Kristin L.

MOYLAN, Judge. This appeal presents a single, narrow question: In a CINA action, is a parent against whom attorney’s fees for the child are assessed entitled to have a jury determine whether the assessment is proper and, if so, what the amount of assessment should be? Our answer is, “No.” This issue arose when Kristin L. and Jennifer L. were alleged to be Children In Need of Assistance (CINA). The CINA petition was filed in the Juvenile Division of the District Court for Montgomery County.

The juvenile court judge appointed Coleen S. Clemente, Esq. to represent the interests of the two children. The power so to appoint ¹⁴² counsel for the children is clear. Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 3-834(a) (1984) provides, in pertinent part: “... [A]t any time during the pendency of any action where it appears to the court that the protection of the rights of a child requires independent representation, the court may, upon its own motion ... appoint an attorney to represent the interest of the child in that particular action. Such actions include ... those involving a child in need of assistance.” With respect to payment for the services of such attorney representing the children, § 3-834(b) is equally clear: “The compensation for the services of the attorney may be assessed against any party or parties to the action.” After a protracted three-year litigation in this case, Ms. Clemente filed with the court her Petition for Legal Fees with supporting documentation.

The court awarded to Ms. Clemente legal fees in the amount of $15,920. The fees were assessed against both the children’s mother and their father, Dr. L. After repeated requests to Dr. L. to make payment had been unavailing, the court issued a show cause order. Dr. L. filed an Answer to Petition for Legal Fees in which he denied liability for services, alleged legal incompetency and unsatisfactory service, alleged an excessive hourly rate, alleged lack of benefit to the children from the services, alleged that the scope of the services exceeded what was reasonable and necessary, alleged that much of the service had accrued to the benefit of the mother and not the children, and alleged a statute of limitations defense. Most significantly, Dr. L. prayed a jury trial with respect to his alleged obligation to make the payment.

The court ruled that Dr. L. was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of the legal fees and ordered the case transferred to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The minor children, through their counsel Ms. Clemente, have appealed from that order. When the case was filed in the circuit court, the two minor children, in turn, filed a Motion to Strike Demand for Jury Trial. Judge William Cave granted the motion and remanded the case to the Juvenile Division ¹⁴³ of the District Court.

Dr. L. appealed from Judge Cave’s order. Upon the motion of both parties, we have consolidated the two appeals. Dr. L. predicated his argument and the juvenile court judge based his ruling upon Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 4-402(e) (1984, 1988 Supp.), which