BATON ROUGE — A Louisiana Supreme Court associate justice has issued a scathing report accusing the East Baton Rouge Family Court of systemic favoritism, coercive practices, and placing profit over children. Associate Justice Jeff Hughes goes as far as calling the findings “the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my 47-year legal career.”
Hughes’ assessment sharply contrasts a separate 14-page report issued the same day by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Administrator, which offered a broader overview of concerns.
The difference between the two reports, Hughes suggested, is stark. His findings raise a red flag, calling for immediate intervention in what he described as a system that places financial incentives over children, personal and political ties over families’ well-being, and routinely drags simple matters into years of litigation while attorney fees continue to mount for the less-favored parent.
“There were so many different people making the same type of claims,” Hughes told UWK, “and when I checked them out, they all proved to be valid.”
Those claims were never addressed in the Louisiana Supreme Court’s reporting.
How the investigation began
During the 2024 regular session, the Louisiana Senate passed Senate Resolution 81, authored by Sen. Cleo Fields and Rep. Kathy Edmonston. The resolution requested the Louisiana Supreme Court study the East Baton Rouge Family Court, citing increased number of court cases, a “steady rise in problems within dysfunctional families,” and allegations of favoritism.
The resolution asked the Supreme Court not only to examine daily operations inside Family Court, but also to recommend corrective actions.
The East Baton Rouge Family Court operates within the 19th Judicial District Court and handles family law matters, including divorces, child custody, support and visitation disputes, domestic violence cases, and spousal support.
It’s the only dedicated family courtroom in the state, and four judges are assigned exclusively to Family Court in Baton Rouge: Chief Judge Erika Green (elected 2021), Judge Pam Baker (2007), Judge Charlene Day (2011), and Judge Kyle Russ (2023).
Retired Judge James Kuhn was appointed as a supernumerary judge over the report and served through March 3, 2025, when his contract ended. Over a six-month period, Kuhn observed proceedings and collected data. His findings were submitted to the Supreme Court and used, along with responses from Family Court judges, to produce the court’s official report.
“I think you have to realize that the Supreme Court’s report was based only on information that the court received from Judge Kuhn,” Hughes told UWK. “My report was based on not only his findings, but many, many other complaints that we received.”
“Actual favoritism” inside the court
Justice Hughes wrote that while Judge Kuhn referenced a public perception of favoritism, the evidence he reviewed showed that line had been crossed.
“The problems at Family Court are both structural and cultural,” Hughes wrote, concluding the court suffers from “actual favoritism.”
The report describes what Hughes characterized as a “club” culture, where attorneys and judges with close personal relationships allegedly receive favorable treatment.
“There are reports of judges and lawyers having breakfast together at the City Club and then appearing in the same courtroom together 30 minutes later,” Hughes wrote in his rebuttal letter on the report. “There are reports of judges and lawyers after a day in court drinking together at the City Club. This is nothing new.”
Hughes cited one example in which an unnamed judge allegedly called a nighttime status conference at a restaurant where alcohol was consumed. During that meeting, decisions were reportedly made about whether an expert witness would be allowed to testify during a courtroom hearing.
The “non-favored” attorney later withdrew from the case, telling her client she could not compete with that judge and attorney, according to the Hughes’ letter.
“It is well known that when a certain lawyer appears before a certain judge, that lawyer never loses,” Hughes wrote.
Multiple attorneys reportedly declined representation, or withdrew mid-case, because of this dynamic. While Hughes said there is no direct evidence of financial kickbacks, he noted allegations involving attorneys providing chauffeuring services to judges attending events where alcohol is served.
“It’s all about the money, not the best interests of the children“
One of the most troubling findings, according to Hughes, is how litigation itself is weaponized.
“The attorney, not the judge, controls the pace of litigation,” Hughes wrote. “Matters that are supposed to be heard by law within days are continued for months, until the parent who has not had any contact with their children caves and ‘stipulates’.”
Attorneys who push back may be disqualified on questionable grounds, Hughes wrote, leaving clients without representation at critical stages of their cases.
Status conferences, according to Hughes’ letter, are used to intimidate and coerce parents. “Clients are told they must agree with the judges’ recommendation or the result will be worse, or, if they have been held previously to be in contempt of court, they will go to jail. Contempt of court is used to beat the non-favored parent into submission. It’s all about the money, not the best interests of the children.”
Attorney fees that eclipse child support: “Another form of coercion“
Hughes’ review found attorney fees routinely awarded in the $10,000 range, with some cases climbing to $28,000 or even $80,000, sometimes exceeding the child support order itself.
“It cannot be in the best interest of children to have one parent pay the attorney for the other parent $80,000,” Hughes wrote.
Parents labeled as “abusers,” the report states, often end up paying all legal fees. Hughes described the threat of massive fee awards as “another form of coercion,” used against parents seeking visitation.
The report also details smear tactics allegedly used to paint parents as unstable or dangerous, not through evidence presented at hearings, but through letters and emails exchanged during closed-door status conferences that stretched on for months.
Courtrooms cleared & oversight blocked
Another tactic outlined in the report involves clearing courtrooms to isolate and intimidate parents. Hughes noted that, by law, courtrooms may only be closed under limited circumstances such as sealed cases involving children.
State Rep. Kathy Edmonston said she personally experienced this practice.
“They dismissed Sen. Hodges and myself,” Edmonston told UWK, referencing a case she was observing with her colleague. “If legislators that have a resolution to be in court can’t be in court to see what’s going on, that’s bad and that’s not the first time that happened either.”
“Everything Justice Hughes said in his report is 100% accurate. It speaks to the culture of this state,” Rep. Edmonston added.
“Sacrificing children to make money is immoral”
Justice Hughes concluded that Family Court should be used to foster relationships between children and both parents and not endless litigation that benefits attorneys financially.
“In many cases there appears to be a wealthy family on one side willing to pay the bill,” he wrote.
Family Court proceedings, Hughes said, should be swift and summary to minimize disruption to children’s lives.
“Instead, matters are litigated to the Nth degree,” Hughes wrote. “Simple requests that would normally just be a formality are met with discovery requests, expert witnesses, and stacks of exhibits because, as openly threatened, the “abuser” will have to pay for it all including the fees of the other attorney. Sacrificing children to make money is immoral.“
Hughes said he hopes lawmakers act on the recommendations. “I know there are problems and I hope the Legislature will focus on the recommendations to make some changes to the law. I think that would be the best remedy for the problems people have complained about.”
Finally, the report found the court is illegally charging $6.50 per page for transcripts, despite state law limiting the fee to $1.50, with the court itself collecting part of the excess.
What comes next?
Justice Hughes outlined five formal recommendations and highlighted two major legal concerns.
He said evidence of actual favoritism should be referred to law enforcement. He also called for revisions to the Civil Code requiring written consent from all parties before a courtroom can be cleared.
One of the most significant recommendations requires all East Baton Rouge Family Court proceedings to be live-streamed beginning Aug. 1, 2026.
Rep. Edmonston said she plans to pursue legislation to ensure courtroom transparency. “What’s wrong with transparency?” she told UWK.
Hughes also noted that the Legislature has the authority, by majority vote, to dissolve the East Baton Rouge Family Court entirely. It’s a move that Edmonston says is not out of the realm of possibility.
Before Hughes’ report was released, Judge Baker announced her resignation effective Jan. 1, 2026, prior to the end of her term. Credible sources told UWK that issues later detailed in the report were among the reasons for her sudden departure.
Download the Unfiltered with Kiran app from the Apple App Store and Google Play to stay updated on the latest news across the Capital area.
Support UWK and its mission to deliver The News You Deserve. Unfiltered. Become a monthly patron on Patreon today!
One Response
I’m grateful for judges who judge fairly. I noticed the print order of the names of the judges. Not by year but by race. I could be over stretching with that. I wonder how much race is a deciding factor of what happens in court.