citation omitted)). The bankruptcy court’s factual determination that Maddigan’s obligation to Falk & Siemer is in the nature of support for Maddigan’s child comports with the record in the family court below, the applicable case law, and congressional intent. We thus find no error in this determination. C. Maddigan’s Debt to Falk & Siemer Was Incurred “In Connection With” an Order of a Court of Record The third and final requirement of § 523(a)(5) is that the debt be “in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). The judgment for legal fees in the family court’s determination of custody is a debt “in connection with” an order of a court of record. See Peters, 124 B.R. at 435, 436; cf. Akamine, 217 B.R. at 109-10 (<HOLDING>). This element of the statutory provision is
holding that a credit transaction is not a consumer debt when it is incurred with a profit motive holding that fees incurred by debtor were not in the nature of support holding that a debt is not in connection with a courts order when that order only acknowledges a burden the debtor had already incurred holding that in the absence of a hold harmless agreement a former spouse has no claim against the debtor to pay a debt listed on the divorce agreement as belonging to the debtor because such a debt is not incurred in connection with the divorce but was incurred in connection with the debtors and former spouses original transaction with the creditor holding that when a courts statements from the bench conflict with its written order the order controls