Families tell Louisiana task force system failures left children unprotected; staff and agencies propose language, training and procedural changes

A Louisiana legislative task force on child sexual assault investigation processes heard extended public testimony on systemic failures on Monday, as families and grandparents described repeated reports, contested custody hearings and investigations that they said failed to protect children.

The testimony came as task force members and agency officials described draft legislative language and administrative fixes intended to narrow gaps between child welfare investigations, juvenile court actions and civil custody proceedings. Senator Barrow, who chaired the hearing, said the committee has a draft bill and will continue work before the legislative session.

Why it matters: Multiple speakers told the task force they had made repeated reports to child welfare and law enforcement but still lost custody or saw no criminal charges. Officials from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), the child ombudsman’s office and child advocacy partners discussed possible changes including revising DCFS report language, training judges on domestic violence and child abuse dynamics, and clarifying when juvenile-court safety orders should preempt civil custody actions.

Case studies and testimonies

Casey Robrey, a Lafayette mother, described a multi-year family court and child welfare case in which her children disclosed abuse in forensic interviews, a SANE examination was performed and investigators were involved, but she said she subsequently "lost all my parental rights and my two children for bringing my daughter to the ER." Robrey told the task force that forensic interviews and therapist reports, which she said documented sexualized behavior and disclosures, were not given the weight she expected in custody proceedings.

Kathleen Stewart Ritchie, of the Child Ombudsman’s Office at the Legislative Auditor, told the task force the ombudsman has "no statutory authority to intervene or review any judicial decisions," and explained that the proper remedies for alleged judicial error are appeals or complaints to the Judiciary Commission. She described recurring coordination problems: "the systems don't coordinate — they're on parallel tracks," she said, explaining that juvenile court, civil custody court and DCFS investigations often operate under different evidentiary rules and timelines.

Secretary Matlock of the child welfare agency acknowledged limits and defended frontline staff: "we're here for a reason and we want to protect children and we stay awake at night too," he said, while also describing ongoing work to change DCFS letters and internal practices.

Agency responses and proposed changes

Officials and task force members outlined several near‑term proposals discussed during the hearing: - Change DCFS investigative letter language currently framed as "valid/invalid" or "justified/unjustified" to terms such as "substantiated/unsubstantiated" and add explicit cautions that an investigative finding should not be used as dispositive evidence in civil custody determinations. Dr. Hook and DCFS representatives said they are already preparing new wording for those letters. - Work with the Judicial College and judges’ associations to reduce orders or practices that "chill" reporting, and promote judicial training on child abuse, trauma, domestic violence and the tactics of abusers. Task force members discussed resurrecting or reintroducing a prior bill (HB 831, by Representative Egan) that would mandate judicial continuing education on these topics. - Clarify when DCFS should file petitions to secure protections even when immediate removal is not sought, so protective legal mechanisms remain in place beyond an expiring protective order. - Examine options to give children stronger representation in civil custody proceedings (guardian ad litem or court‑appointed counsel), while noting fiscal and implementation questions.

Task force counsel and the child ombudsman emphasized procedural limits: juvenile court may issue an instanter removal order and holds exclusive original jurisdiction in certain child in need of care matters, while DCFS cannot unilaterally remove children without a judge’s order. But the agencies and task force members acknowledged cases in which families reported that civil custody rulings and DCFS determinations appeared to influence each other in ways that left gaps in protection.

Grandparents’ testimony

Quincy and Sharon Verret, grandparents who said they raised a granddaughter for two years, testified that law enforcement and local prosecutors did not pursue some investigative leads they provided and that a court‑appointed attorney for the child communicated with the opposing side but not with the grandparents who said they paid the attorney’s fees. The Verrets said they had authenticated phone evidence and other documentation they believed showed neglect and sexualized conduct by a relative but that the evidence had not produced the outcomes they sought.

Task force process and next steps

Senator Barrow said the task force will continue work on proposed legislation and directed staff to circulate draft language to members. Officials committed to working with the Judicial College, district attorneys and CACs (child advocacy centers) to refine letter language, judicial training proposals and mechanisms for ensuring forensic materials can be reviewed appropriately by judges in camera where needed.

The hearing recessed for staff meetings and planned follow‑up; no formal votes or final committee actions were recorded during the session.

Ending: Task force members and agency officials repeatedly stressed the limits of each institution’s authority while also saying they would pursue language changes and trainings intended to reduce the coordination problems families described. The committee asked families and interested parties to follow the draft bill and sign up to testify when it reaches legislative committees.