Louisiana High Court Clears Baton Rouge Family Court — But a Scathing Dissent Raises Alarms About Transparency and Insider Power

By Michael Phillips | TXBayNews

The Louisiana Supreme Court has formally cleared the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court of systemic corruption following a year-long investigation — but a blistering dissent from one justice is fueling renewed concerns about transparency, insider favoritism, and the treatment of self-represented families in high-stakes custody cases.

The controversy centers on Louisiana’s only dedicated family court, which handles divorce, child custody, and support matters in the state’s most populous parish. The court’s operations came under scrutiny after public complaints, advocacy from lawmakers, and allegations from litigants who claimed the system favored a small circle of judges and attorneys at the expense of ordinary citizens.

The Investigation and Majority Findings

The probe began with a state Senate resolution prompted by complaints raised by families and championed by State Rep. Kathy Edmonston (R-Gonzales). The Louisiana Supreme Court appointed retired Judge James Kuhn to conduct a comprehensive review of the court’s operations, including interviews with litigants, attorneys, and court personnel.

In a 14-page report released December 10, the Supreme Court — through Judicial Administrator Justice Sandra Vujnovich — concluded that investigators found no evidence of unethical conduct, criminal wrongdoing, or systemic corruption by the four sitting family court judges.

The report acknowledged concerns about the perception of favoritism, including informal interactions between judges and attorneys in restricted areas of the courthouse, as well as chronic underfunding and administrative inefficiencies. However, it stopped short of substantiating claims that cases were being decided unlawfully or through improper influence.

A Stark Dissent: “The Worst Thing I’ve Seen”

Despite the majority’s conclusions, Supreme Court Justice Jefferson Hughes III issued a sharply worded dissent that painted a dramatically different picture.

Calling the situation “the worst thing I’ve seen in my 47-year legal career,” Hughes alleged the family court operates as a closed system dominated by a “runaway cabal” of judges and favored attorneys — referred to by litigants as “the club.” According to Hughes, attorneys within this circle routinely receive favorable outcomes, while self-represented litigants and outsiders are marginalized or intimidated.

Hughes cited allegations of:

• Judges and attorneys resolving matters informally outside court proceedings
• Abusive use of contempt powers to coerce compliance
• Closed courtrooms where litigants were allegedly threatened with jail without witnesses present
• Court staff treating pro se litigants dismissively, including calling security on them
• Certain attorneys reportedly “never losing” cases before specific judges

While these claims were not upheld by the majority report, Hughes stated he personally observed proceedings that reinforced concerns about fairness and judicial conduct.

Illegal Transcript Fees Confirmed

One finding all justices agreed on involved illegal transcript fees charged to litigants. The family court imposed fees of $6.50 per page plus a $5 administrative charge — a rate the Supreme Court acknowledged violates Louisiana law.

The court noted this practice appears to be widespread statewide and referred the issue to the Louisiana Judicial Council for possible reform. As of mid-December, no timeline has been announced for changes, refunds, or standardized pricing — a critical issue for self-represented litigants who rely on transcripts to appeal decisions.

High-Profile Cases and a Judge’s Resignation

Central to the controversy is Ragland v. Ragland, a case involving litigant Katherine Diamond, who accused the court and Judge Pam Baker of bias and racketeering. Diamond claims she was denied access to her children for years despite raising abuse allegations against her former spouse.

While the Supreme Court rejected claims of racketeering or corruption, Hughes cited the case as emblematic of broader problems. Notably, Judge Pam Baker announced she will resign at the end of 2025, citing “unfair scrutiny” from what she described as “unhinged litigants.”

To date, there has been little reporting on Baker’s replacement process, any exit statements, or whether her resignation will prompt operational changes within the court.

Calls for Reform — and Silence After the Report

Justice Hughes suggested significant reforms, including:

• Allowing cameras or livestreaming in family court proceedings
• Legislative review or possible restructuring of the court
• Greater oversight of contempt powers and courtroom access

Rep. Edmonston also indicated interest in pursuing legislation to improve transparency, but as of now, no bills have been pre-filed for Louisiana’s 2026 legislative session.

Public discourse has also been notably quiet since the report’s release. There have been no major follow-up stories, legislative hearings, or Judicial Council announcements, despite the court handling some of the most consequential cases affecting families and children.

Why This Matters Beyond Louisiana

While this controversy unfolded in Baton Rouge, its implications extend well beyond Louisiana. Family courts nationwide operate largely out of public view, wield sweeping authority over custody, finances, and parental rights, and often involve high numbers of self-represented litigants.

For Texans and others concerned about due process, judicial accountability, and access to justice, the Louisiana case highlights a broader question: What happens when courts clear themselves, but public confidence remains shaken?

Without transparency reforms or legislative follow-through, critics warn that investigations like this risk becoming procedural endpoints rather than catalysts for change.

As one justice warned, the appearance of fairness can be just as important as fairness itself — especially in family courts, where decisions permanently reshape lives.