Tam Nguyen Husband filed for divorce, and Dung Dinh Wife answered and counterclaimed. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a final decree which, in material part, awarded her custody of their young daughter and which permanently restrained him from any contact with her that was unconnected with the child. Husband applied for a discretionary appeal, which was granted in accordance with the pilot project currently in effect for domestic cases. 1. Husband urges that the evidence does not authorize an award of custody to Wife. Where, as here, divorcing parents contest the issue of custody, the interest of the child is paramount and the trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining which parent can best serve that interest. Urquhart v. Urquhart , 272 Ga. 548, 549 1 533 SE2d 80 2000. In this case, the trial court was presented with evidence, including the report of a guardian ad litem and the testimony of a psychologist, which authorized a finding that awarding Wife custody was in the child’s best interest. Because there was evidence to support the finding, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Urquhart v. Urquhart , supra at 550 1.
2. Husband asserts that the trial court erred in requiring that he pay the fees of the guardian ad litem and the psychologist. OCGA § 9-11-54 d provides that, when no express statutory provision exists, costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party in a civil action, “unless the court otherwise directs.” That statute applies in divorce cases. See Paul v. Paul , 236 Ga. 692, 693 225 SE2d 45 1976. In such actions, the trial court has broad discretion to award the costs. See Johnson v. Johnson , 260 Ga. 443, 444 396 SE2d 234 1990. There is no requirement that, in exercising its discretion in making such an award, the trial court consider the parties’ relative financial circumstances. Compare OCGA § 19-6-2 a 1 attorney’s fees. Husband’s status as the losing party on the contested custody question is sufficient to authorize the discretionary assessment against him of the costs associated with that issue. See Paul v. Paul , supra.
