Louisiana Supreme Court Steps In as East Baton Rouge Family Court Faces Renewed Scrutiny

By Michael Phillips | TXBayNews / Father & Co.

BATON ROUGE, La. — The Louisiana Supreme Court has intervened in a contentious child-custody case out of East Baton Rouge Parish, appointing an outside judge to hear a motion to recuse Lilynn Cutrer amid allegations of bias, procedural irregularities, and prolonged delays that kept a mother from seeing her children for nearly a year.

The case centers on Katherine Diamond, who says court-ordered supervised visitation with her 14-year-old twins—reaffirmed in late 2024—collapsed in May 2025 after she requested a more affordable supervisor. Rather than promptly resolving that issue, Diamond alleges the court allowed months of continuances, discovery disputes, and shifting hearing scopes that effectively suspended contact altogether, costing her the summer and Christmas holidays.

The developments were first reported by Unfiltered with Kiran, an award-winning Baton Rouge outlet that has led recent coverage of East Baton Rouge Family Court operations.

Why the Supreme Court’s Move Matters

Louisiana quietly revised its judicial recusal standard, lowering the burden from proving actual bias to demonstrating an objective appearance of bias. Under that framework, the Supreme Court’s decision to assign a different judge to hear Diamond’s recusal motion is notable—and signals heightened sensitivity to due-process concerns in family court, where delays can function as de facto custody decisions.

Diamond’s attorneys argue hearings drifted from the narrow question of a supervisor change to re-litigating whether supervised visitation should exist at all—without formal motions justifying the pivot. They also allege strategic continuances and side disputes were tolerated at the expense of the children’s best interests.

A Broader Pattern Under the Microscope

The Diamond case arrives amid conflicting assessments of East Baton Rouge Family Court. An official review last year concluded there was no evidence of widespread corruption. But a separate, sharply critical account by Jeff Hughes—drawing on complaints he said were overlooked—described a “club” culture marked by favoritism, coercive practices, courtroom closures, and fee-driven litigation that prolongs cases while families fracture.

Hughes’ recommendations included live-streaming proceedings, tighter limits on continuances, reforms to fee-shifting statutes, and referrals to law enforcement where quid-pro-quo favoritism is substantiated. To date, most proposals remain unimplemented.

Center-Right Takeaway

For conservatives and civil-liberties advocates alike, the episode underscores a persistent problem: in family court, process is outcome. When hearings stall and rules blur, time itself becomes a weapon—often against the parent with fewer resources. The Supreme Court’s intervention does not resolve the merits, but it restores a basic safeguard: that allegations of judicial bias receive an independent hearing before months turn into years of lost childhood.

Whether this step becomes a catalyst for reform—or a narrow fix in a single case—will be closely watched across Louisiana and beyond.