fees are in the nature of maintenance or support of the former spouse or of the child of the debtor.” Id. In In re Miller, 55 F.3d 1487, 1488 (10th Cir.1995), the Tenth Circuit asked whether guardian ad litem and psychologist fees, incurred in divorce and child custody proceedings and ordered to be paid directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist, were dis-chargeable. The court held that the appropriate emphasis was on whether the debt was in the nature of support and not on the identity of the payee. Id. at 1490. In so holding, the Tenth Circuit rejected a lower court’s plain-language interpretation that, similar to the one here, would have required the debt to be payable to the child or former spouse. Id. at 1488, 1490; see also In re Jones, 9 F.3d 878, 881-82 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). In In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th
holding that counsel fees awarded to debtors wife in a divorce action were nondisehargeable under  523a5 holding that fees incurred by debtor were not in the nature of support holding that legal fees for a childs guardian ad litem in a custody proceeding were clearly for the ehilds benefit and support and as such were nondischargeable under  523a5 holding that guardian ad litem and psychologist fees incurred in child custody proceedings and ordered to be paid directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist were nondischargeable under  523a5 holding that attorneys fees incurred in a custody action were nondischargeable under  523a5