Judges, experts tell task force courts need more mental-health evaluators and attorneys for children

Retired and sitting judges and child-welfare advocates told the Legislature’s task force on Oct. 16 that family courts frequently lack the legal and clinical resources judges say they need to decide custody and abuse cases fairly.

Guill Guy Holdridge, a retired district court and appellate judge, told the task force that judges often face contested abuse allegations without investigative or clinical evidence the court can rely on and sometimes handle cases involving self-represented litigants. “If the legislature could pass that every child that it says is a [reported] physical abuse gets an attorney, I mean, that would help,” he said, describing situations where a judge must decide a case with limited evidence or expensive private evaluations the parties cannot afford.

Why it matters: Judges said two tools would reduce risk — court-appointed attorneys for children in contested abuse and custody cases and timely, neutral mental-health custody evaluators. Panelists said both are scarce outside larger parishes, producing unequal protection across the state.

Madeline Landrieu, dean of Loyola University New Orleans College of Law and a retired family-court judge, urged policymakers to expand collaborative processes and make mental-health services accessible to low-income families. “What mental-health professionals say is this: as long as you’re putting me on the stand to rip them apart, to tell which one’s better and which one’s worse, I really don’t want to do that,” she said, arguing neutral evaluations and non-adversarial processes could better protect children while limiting courtroom harm.

Sitting judges agreed. Kelly Balfour, a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeal who previously sat on a high-volume family docket, said district courts are locally funded and many poorer parishes lack judicial expense funds to hire evaluators or attorneys for children. “If it is an opportunity for the state to be able to step in and offer some support … that possibly you set a standard, how much they make, who is eligible,” she said.

Advocates and CASA: State CASA director Miss Moody told the task force her office receives calls asking for volunteers to assist in family-court custody disputes, but CASA volunteers currently are limited to child-in-need-of-care (CINC) juvenile cases under state law. Judges and advocates suggested piloting court‑appointed CASA advocates in several family‑court pilot sites for high‑conflict cases, with careful role definition and statutory protections for volunteers.

Funding and local disparities: Witnesses said judicial expense funds are generated locally from filing fees and differ widely by parish; wealthier, more populous districts can fund evaluators and programs while poorer parishes cannot. Panelists suggested a state-level fund or formula that courts could tap for neutral evaluations and court-appointed counsel in cases with substantiated or credible abuse allegations.

What the task force will do next: Task force members asked staff to draft options for (a) a state-funded pool or grant to pay for neutral custody or trauma evaluations, (b) language clarifying and streamlining court appointment of counsel for children under existing statutory authority, and (c) a pilot test of expanded CASA representation for a limited set of family‑court cases.

Ending note: Speakers repeatedly emphasized that judges want accurate, timely information for decisions that can reshape children’s lives and urged lawmakers to close funding and access gaps so courts have the neutral experts and counsel they need.