Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Child Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances package of child‑custody measures to codify standards, bar arbitration and prioritize expert testimony
Summary
The House Civil Law Committee reported three family‑law measures favorably: SB 76 would codify the Bergeron standard and set a five‑year heightened‑burden period for custody modification; HB 1198 would bar arbitration clauses in custody/visitation agreements and allow courts to refuse foreign custody laws that conflict with Louisiana public policy; SB 66 would prioritize medical expert testimony in abuse and neglect proceedings.
The House Civil Law Committee on Wednesday advanced a suite of bills aimed at clarifying how Louisiana courts handle child custody and related proceedings.
Professor Andy Carroll of LSU, presenting SB 76 (a Louisiana State Law Institute measure), said the bill codifies the Bergeron standard used in custody modification cases and adds a five‑year period after a custody judgment during which a higher burden applies to modification requests. "Those rules have never been codified, so this bill codifies for the first time," Carroll said, adding the five‑year rule is intended to "prevent continual and harassing, relitigation" of custody orders.
Carroll told lawmakers that within the first five years after a considered decree is entered, a party seeking modification must show, among other things, that continuation of the current arrangement "would be harmful to the child," or by clear and convincing evidence that benefits of change outweigh harms. After five years, the party would need to demonstrate only what is in the child's best interest.
Representative Amadeh presented HB 1198, which would declare arbitration agreements that attempt to resolve child custody or visitation unlawful and would permit Louisiana courts to decline to apply a foreign country's custody law if it is "manifestly contrary" to state public policy. Amadeh said the provision is narrowly tailored and does not affect commercial arbitration, property division or spousal support. "Any contractual provision that attempts to mandate arbitration in these matters would be void and unenforceable," she said.
Members asked whether arbitration is currently being used in custody cases; Amadeh and others said it is not widespread but that the bill removes a legal gap. Representative Melerine asked whether consent judgments and considered decrees would be treated differently; Carroll explained that a consent judgment is an agreement of the parties and a considered decree results from an evidentiary hearing by a judge.
SB 66, brought by Senator Hodges and discussed in committee as part of the same family‑law conversation, would require courts to prioritize testimony from medical or other qualified experts in abuse and neglect cases so those witnesses — who often cancel regular appointments to attend court — are not left waiting and forced to reschedule. "We have had instances where our counselor was there all day and then they didn't even call her to testify by the end of it," Morgan LaMondre of a victim‑support organization told the committee in support of SB 66.
Supporters said amendments in the Senate address concerns that the legislature should not micromanage judicial case management; the change would instead give judges clear authority and a statutory expectation to take expert testimony promptly in abuse and neglect matters.
All three measures were moved out of committee favorably. The measures now head to the full House (or next legislative steps) for further consideration.
The committee hearing also included technical questions and clarifications about standards of proof, the distinction between consent and considered decrees, and the narrow scope of the arbitration ban. No roll call votes were recorded in committee minutes beyond the unanimous voice approvals reported in session.
