Panel tells task force evidence rules, appeals process and judicial training need tightening in family court

Judges, appellate panelists and legal advocates told the Legislature’s task force on Oct. 16 that ambiguity in family‑court evidentiary standards and uneven judicial training contribute to inconsistent outcomes in child‑custody and abuse cases.

What panelists said: Retired Judge Guy Holdridge described the family‑court provision that allows “relaxed” evidentiary standards and said judges are often left to decide what to admit. “The rules of evidence in family court … are relaxed and that’s I don’t know what that means,” he said, arguing the absence of clearer standards lets courts handle similar evidence differently.

Attorney and longtime child‑welfare advocate Richard DeCote told the task force, “The single most important thing this committee can do is restrict the evidence,” adding that applying conventional evidentiary rules where abuse or extreme parental conduct is alleged would reduce arbitrary outcomes.

Appeals and interim orders: Panelists described a recurring problem with emergency and interim custody decisions. Judges can issue expedited ex parte relief, but appellate courts generally review only final judgments. That means an emergency order that leaves a child’s custody unsettled can remain in place for months while appeals courts decline review. The task force asked staff to draft options to narrow what counts as a non‑appealable interim order or to create a faster appellate path for specified emergency custody orders.

Training and judicial education: Witnesses said judicial training varies by parish; some judges attend intensive family‑court courses while others only meet the minimum continuing‑education requirements. Dean Madeline Landrieu and other speakers urged more robust, targeted training on trauma, domestic violence dynamics and child‑sexual‑abuse indicators. The Supreme Court recently ordered an extra hour of mandatory domestic‑violence training for judges; panelists said the hour is insufficient for the breadth of family‑court issues.

Next steps: The task force asked staff to return with draft statutory language to (a) narrow the family‑court evidence exception so ordinary rules apply in serious‑conduct cases; (b) propose an expedited appellate path for a defined set of emergency custody rulings; and (c) identify curricular standards and delivery options (in‑person, regional roadshows and recorded modules) to expand trauma‑informed judicial education.