Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs thereof are deleted.
Since the appointment of a Law Guardian in a custody proceeding is discretionary (see, Matter of Del Sordo v Maholsic, 199 A.D.2d 1038, 1039; Frizzell v Frizzell, 177 A.D.2d 825; Matter of Evans v Evans, 127 A.D.2d 998), the court exceeded its authority in appointing Charles Brofman as the Law Guardian for any and all future proceedings involving the parties' child. The determination as to whether a Law Guardian will be necessary in a future proceeding should be made at the time of the proceeding.
Although a court may retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the provisions of a divorce judgment (see, Matter of Silane v Silane, 173 A.D.2d 708; Matter of H.H. v P.G., 156 Misc.2d 730), it was improper for the court to direct that all future proceedings involving the child, not necessarily related to the enforcement of the judgment, must be maintained in Putnam County. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.