What’s going on in the Baton Rouge Family Court these days?
If you think there’s a glut of personal-injury attorneys out there competing for clients, you should see the online advertisements and web pages for family practice attorneys.
That’s not to disparage either specialty because there probably wouldn’t be such a supply if there were no demand. Couples split every day and usually, the kids wind up as pawns in a legal chess match between parents who suddenly hate and wish to somehow hurt each other—and it’s invariably the children who suffer.
And the courts do little to alleviate the emotional strife and in fact, often do considerable additional injury. Two reports, released simultaneously, do little to clear the air with each reaching contrasting conclusions about the way family courts are administered.
LouisianaVoice usually receives contacts from disgruntled parents about every two weeks or so and we are reluctant to wade into the fray that is sure to be fraught with bitterness, he said-she said back-and-fourths, revenge motivations and heartbreak.
But when allegations include stories of child and/or spousal abuse, that gets our attention.
More alarm bells went off when a whistleblower from the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) went on record as saying new departmental policies in prioritizing online reports of abuse have resulted in significant delays, prompting fears that “children will die.”
But for now, attention will be focused on family courts and one report, to say the least, is withering in its criticism of East Baton Rouge Parish’s four family court judges as a collective group, if not individually while another appears to smooth over the festering problems.
In the 2024 regular session of the Legislature a resolution by State Sen. Cleon Fields (D-Baton Rouge) and Rep. Kathy Edmonston (R-Gonzales) was passed unanimously that requested that the Louisiana Supreme Court study the East Baton Rouge Family Court and to make recommendations to address any problems it found.
Co-sponsors of the resolution included Reps. Kimberly Coates (R-Ponchatoula), Kellee Hennessee Dickerson (R-Denham Springs), Peter Egan (R-Covington), Shane Mack (R-Livingston), Dixon McMakin (R-Baton Rouge), Charles Owen (R-Rosepine), and Jerome Zeringue (R-Houma) and Sens. Valerie Hodges (R-Denham Sprints) and Larry Selders (D-Baton Rouge).
The state’s high court appointed retired First Circuit Court of Appeal Judge James E. Kuhn to “observe and collect tata and information relative to the Family Court and to preside over any of the court’s divisions.”
The result was a 35-PAGE REPORT by Kuhn that did little to lay the issue of concern about the court to rest.
That’s because there was push-back from the judicial administrator as well as a sitting Louisiana Supreme Court justice on most of Kuhn’s recommendations.
For instance, Kuhn found that:
- Family Court needed a hearing officer to make findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations regarding child support cases. Instead, the judicial administrator’s response was: “Considering the comments of the Family Court judges, including the manner in which child support cases are handled, we do not recommend the hiring of a hearing officer.”
- Family Court should “develop and implement” a plan to ensure that self-represented litigants receive fair and uniformly consistent treatment. Response: “Overall, it appears that the Family Court’s programs for self-represented litigants meet or exceed what other Louisiana courts currently provide.”
- Family Court’s process of assigning judges to address emergency orders encourages “judge-shopping” by litigants and attorneys. In response, the Family Court adopted a new local rule whereby all emergency rules/motions are referred to the judge who is already assigned the case. Response: “[T]here is no recommendation on this matter.”
Kuhn also noted:
- A practice of judges holding discussions and status conferences outside the presence of the parties involved. He recommended that while it is a standard practice to move cases forward, judges should “take special care to have the attorneys summarize any negotiations, settlement discussions, etc.” that take place outside the presence of the parties on record “in front of the parties to better their understanding and participation in the process.
- Closing courtrooms during family proceedings should be done in compliance with law and done “sparingly and only with good cause.”
- A conflict with state law by charging an administrative fee of $5 plus $6.50 per page for transcripts of court proceedings. Kuhn referenced state law that says in part, “In all civil and criminal cases a fee not to exceed one dollar and fifty cents per thirty-one-line page and twenty-five cents per copy reported and transcribed shall be charged by and be paid to the court reporter who reported and transcribed the testimony.
The report prompted an immediate report by State Supreme Court justice Jeff Hughes who compiled a list of his own, much harsher recommendations to the Family Court—including the eventual abolishment of the court itself.
Hughes, in his six-page response, was critical of what he perceive as:
- A closed “club” between judges and a small group of lawyers;
- Actual as opposed to Kuhn’s “perception” of favoritism. A “line has been crossed,” including the calling of a night status conference at a restaurant where alcohol was served. “Non-favorite” attorney withdrawing from representation, telling client she “could not compete” with the paring of a particular attorney’/judge pairing.
- “Club” vs. outcasts (pro se parents treated as pariahs), including staff members “smirking, rolling their eyes and calling ‘Security, Security!’ when certain litigants approach.”
- Attorneys who use delay as a weapon and who control the pace of a case instead of judges doing so. In cases in which an attorney “puts up a good fight,” specious grounds are employed as a means of disqualifying the attorney, leaving the parent without legal representation “at critical moments.”
- Status conferences employed to intimidate and coerce litigants—clients being told they must accept a judge’s “recommendation” or the result will be more severe. In cases where there is a prior contempt finding, clients are told they will go to jail.
- Contempt charges are used as a weapon as a means to “beat the non-favored parent into submission” and that “it’s all about the money, not the best interests of children.” Attorney fees in contempt cases routinely run between $10,000 and $20,000 and one was nearly $80,000. “It cannot be in the best interest of the children for one parent to have to pay $80,000 to the other parent’s attorney,” Hughes said.
- Economic pressure is applied to some parents via the cost of therapists, counselors and psych evaluation. In one case, an attorney began to tell a judge that a psychological evaluation had shown favorable result when the judge cut him off, saying he only wanted to know if the evaluation was “completed.” The “content of the report doesn’t matter—only that the ‘hurdle’ has been imposed,” Hughes said.
- Narrative-smearing without evidence through letters, emails and status conferences, suggesting a parent has problems, needs counseling or are dangerous—without life testimony or cross-examination. This results in long delays and no actual hearing.
- Closing courtroom to isolate and threaten litigants with screaming and threats of jail.
- Procedure at the judge’s whim. Motions for contempt are filed by a parent who isn’t getting visitation are invariably met with counter-motions from the favored parent and the first-filed motion is never set for hearing. Instead, if there is a hearing, both motions are heard together so that the original complainant loses the “moral force” of bringing the violation to the court.
- Family law has been turned on its head. The best interests of the children and facilitating relationships with both parents should be paramount. Instead, there is endless litigation that “mainly enriches attorneys, often back by a wealthy family on one side.” Moreover, community property and equity become targets because attorney fee judgments “can be attached to them.” Routine requests are met with discovery, experts and stacks of largely irrelevant exhibits with the “abuser” bein openly told they’ll be made to pay for everything, including the other’s legal fees. “Sacrificing children to make money is immoral,” Hughes said.
Hughes concluded his report by recommending:
- Criminal investigation where quid-pro-quo favoritism can be shown;
- Limit closing of custody hearings;
- Mandatory live-streaming of EBT Family Court;
- Cease temporary restraining order/proclaimed offender continuances;
- Change the “abuser pays everything” statute.
LouisianaVoice reached out to EBR Family Court judges (Pamela Baker, Erika Green, Charlene Day and Kyle Russ) and each of the legislators for comment on the reports.
Only Rep. Kathy Edmonston responded: “I am very concerned about the issues and complaints that have been raised by the public about the East Baton Rouge Family Court; which was the reason I co-authored Senate Resolution 81.
“I am considering drafting legislation in the following areas: 1) introduce cameras / live-streaming in the courtroom; 2) addressing the contempt of court issue; and 3) addressing the issue of the cost for transcripts.
“Finally, I want to state that I highly respect and appreciate Justice Jeff Hughes’ assessment of the situation. As an attorney for 47 years as well as a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice, he is more than qualified to make the recommendations outlined in his report.”
Louisiana Voice 