In C.L. v. M.P., a custody dispute, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and granted access to the parties’ mental health over the past 3 years. Mother (C.L.) appealed and argued her mental health records were privileged. The Superior Court disagreed and held the parties privacy was protected because the trial court fashioned less intrusive alternatives by restricting the GAL’s access to records from the last three years, restricting the GAL’s disclosure of the records, allowing objections to the GAL’s testimony and/or report or recommendation, and sealing the record.