an ad litem fee award is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be set aside absent a clear abuse of discretion. Garcia v. Martinez, 988 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.1999); Brownsville-Valley Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Gamez, 894 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Tex.1995). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Garcia, 988 S.W.2d at 222; Gamez, 894 S.W.2d at 756. A trial court abuses its discretion if it awards ad litem fees for work unrelated to an actual or potential conflict of interest or for work more appropriately performed by the plaintiffs attorney. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd. v. Gamez, 151 S.W.3d 574, 583 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.); see also Land Rover U.K., Ltd. v. Hinojosa, 210 S.W.3d 604, 609 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>); Jocson v. Crabb, 196 S.W.3d 302, 307
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 guardian ad litems extensive advice to plaintiffs attorney and daily involvement in case exceeded formal role of guardian ad litem holding the district court properly allowed guardian ad litem fees to be taxed as costs holding that the trial court did not err by permitting the guardian ad litem to give his recommendation or by relying on the guardian ad litems recommendation as the recommendation was supported by evidence received at trial holding the trial court had jurisdiction where summons was served on the attorney advocate for the juveniles guardian ad litem