Indiana Supreme Court has addressed, in direct appeals from underlying action, who is responsible for the payment of attorney fees. See, e.g., Dunson v. Dunson, 769 N.E.2d 1120, 1126-1128 (Ind.2002) (addressing pauper child’s request that court order his parents to pay his counsel, who had not been appointed); Sholes v. Sholes, 760 N.E.2d 156 (Ind.2001) (considering within appeal of trial court’s refusal to set aside default judgment of divorce whether trial court had authority to appoint and pay for counsel). And see In re the Termination of Parental Relationship of J.G., 911 N.E.2d 36 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (addressing court’s order that DCS pay cost of mother’s court-appointed lawyer for termination proceedings); and In re Guardianship of M.K., 844 N.E.2d 555, 557-558 (Ind.Ct. App.2006) (<HOLDING>). The law does not prohibit a party from
holding that although son was eighteen years old and paid rent mother could consent to search of sons bedroom where nothing suggested mother lacked access to room holding trial court should have ordered payment of sons attorney fees from mothers property after son successfully petitioned for guardianship of mother holding that the trial court properly denied a fathers motion for attorney fees where there was no misconduct by the mother holding that trial court properly assessed mothers attorneys fees as necessaries against father in case in which trial court ordered father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support but did not state that the fees were necessaries holding that a trial court commits plain error by imposing courtappointed attorney fees where the record is silent as to the defendants ability to pay the fees ordered