Louisiana Voice

LouisianaVoice has received numerous complaints about the abrasive manner in which a St. Tammany Parish family court judge conducts her court but the latest one takes on ominous implications in that her honor reportedly refused to view photographic evidence of alleged physical abuse of a child.

While it’s one thing to anticipate some grousing from the aggrieved party in court proceedings—you expect that because one side always loses—it’s quite another when the attorneys begin complaining about bias or ham-handed rulings by presiding judges.

And that’s what we’re getting more and more often: complaints from attorneys who grumble bitterly but privately that a particular judge favors certain attorneys and ignores compelling evidence. Of course, those attorneys don’t wish to give their names because they still must ply their trade before these same judges.

But one who consistently generates complaints about unfairness, bias or just plain rudeness is the Hon. Dawn Amacker, judge of the 22^nd Judicial District’s Division L and who is described on the 22^nd JDC’s web page as being “instrumental in the establishment of the 22^nd JDC Family Court” and “one of the first two judges elected in 2008 to the division of the 22^nd JDC that exclusively hear Family Court cases.”

Amacker has been the subject of growing whispered criticism for some of her decisions involving custody of children.

One such case involves a mother who said her husband was convicted of second-offense abuse after being booked on four separate counts—two for abuse of the couple’s daughter, the other two of the mother of the child. His first offense saw him found guilty of three counts after two others were dismissed. One of the two counts thrown out, the mother claims, was for child endangerment.

In Amacker’s defense, child protective services was never called for that first offense. The district attorney’s office allowed the child endangerment charges to be used for him to enter a plea for the 894 Diversion program so he would not lose his rights, according to the child’s mother.

“The court ordered investigations by a child advocate from the sheriff’s department and Department of Family Services,” the mother said. “Both ruled this case as child abuse. Amacker refused, while in her courtroom, to make a logical, common-sense decision and sent all three of us back to [a clinical psychologist],,who in early 2005 recommended to the courts that my ex (before his custody rights were restored) seek a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis, long- term treatment for OCD and anger issues.”

The mother provided LouisianaVoice with half-a-dozen photographs that revealed injuries to the child. Because of the child’s age, we will not publish the pictures which show bruises and abrasions to his head, face, arms and legs that the mother said were caused by the father. “When I tried to tell the judge, I was told to shut up—that she didn’t believe a word I said,” she said. “He literally beats my son and is getting away with it.”

Not only did Amacker award full custody to the father, but she also ordered the mother to pay $350 per month in child support. “I was served with it (the order) by email,” she said. “I also was ordered to pay all court costs—and I don’t have a job.”

Why would a judge refuse to examine evidence of child abuse in a custody case?

There are no clear answers but court observers say flatly that certain attorneys coming before family court judges never seem to lose. One attorney said if a certain attorney is representing the adversarial parent before a particular judge, “I won’t even take the case because it’s a waste of time and effort.”

The term “court observers” is somewhat misleading, however, because family courts traditionally do not allow those with no connection to a case to remain in the courtroom. Sometimes, they even clear the courtroom of family members in order to confer with attorneys for each side. No one really knows what goes on in such cases but normally, one attorney—not those mentioned earlier who tend to be favored—will emerge with a “deal” that in reality is anything but a “deal” for a parent who has spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting to maintain custody of a child only to be told they have no choice but to bend to the judge’s wishes.

The alternative, besides being hit with court costs and losing custody, could be jail time. How do you fight a system like that?

In this particular case, the mother says her ex-husband’s attorney “threatened my non-local attorney and myself that if we didn’t go along with what ‘they’ were doing that day and went before Amacker, she always favored the dads. She actually told us that. So, the bullying worked and a consent judgment was signed. My ex-husband’s family is very wealthy and they’ve threatened me for years they’d do whatever it takes to win and take my child away from me.

“I’ve spent more than $45,000 in court costs and legal fees and not once has Amacker made him (her former husband) be responsible for my fees.”

Her ex-husband’s attorney was suspended from practice for three years by the Louisiana State Supreme Court for neglecting legal matters, failure to refund unearned fees and failure to property supervise his non-attorney staff in an unrelated case.

Tomorrow: Judge Amacker removes teenage girl from mother’s custody and awards custody to a dad who had never developed any kind of relationship with his daughter. The father, a physician, promptly had Judge Amacker send his daughter to a Utah home for problem girls. That home was subsequently closed down by the State of Utah after a child died there.