participant in the proceeding....’” Davis v. United States, 567 A.2d 36, 39 (D.C.1989) (citations omitted). There are times when a trial judge “has not only the right but the duty ... to participate directly in the trial, including the propounding of questions when it becomes essential to the development of the facts of the case.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Since it is primarily the responsibility of counsel to develop the facts of the case, the authority of the court to develop the facts should be used sparingly. Id. (citations omitted). However, we have recognized that more active judicial participation may be required in circumstances where the court has a parens patriae responsibility. See In re A.R., 679 A.2d 470, 476 (D.C.1996) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). This court has also recognized that “the
recognizing that a district court has the authority to award attorney fees in postdivorce proceedings involving child custody holding that the mclendon standard applied where an agreement between the parties granted the parties joint legal custody of the child with physical custody to the mother and the agreement had been adopted by the trial court recognizing the need for limited modifications of the adversary system in custody proceedings where the court acts as parens patriae for the child and must obtain the information essential to a judicious disposition recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants recognizing that the child custody act required that the natural parent presumption must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent but that the presumption is rebutted if the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the third party