BATON ROUGE — A Louisiana mother, who says failures inside the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court system kept her from seeing her children for months, is now asking that the judge overseeing her case be removed.
“I love my children dearly, and after doing everything I was told to do, recusal became the only responsible step left so their best interests can finally come first,” Katherine Diamond told UWK.
Attorneys for Katherine Diamond filed a motion to recuse Family Court Judge Lilynn Cutrer, alleging bias, procedural irregularities, and prolonged delays that Diamond says cost her months of court-ordered visitation. The filing argues the judge’s handling of the case created “a substantial and objective bias.”
MORE: “I just want to see my children”: A mother’s fight against EBR’s Family Court
“The motion to recuse speaks for itself,” Diamond’s attorney Lance Unglesby told UWK. “The judge appeared to be pretty upset. The defense was yelling, telling the judge she needed to hear the conflict motion first, which made no logical sense because I’m claiming there’s an appearance of bias so how could she hear anything after that.”
Unglesby recently enrolled as Diamond’s attorney, but lawyers for Diamond’s ex-husband are opposing his involvement, claiming a conflict of interest. They asked Judge Cutrer to remove Unglesby as Diamond’s counsel, despite not having filed a formal motion at the December hearing. Unglesby subsequently filed the motion to recuse Judge Cutrer, alleging judicial bias.
“Their tactic is to get rid of me so they can go back to taking advantage of her,” Unglesby added. “I think over the last eight months, the system has enabled lawyer manipulation and not protected Ms. Diamond’s rights.”
Supervised visitation and a sudden halt to the case
Diamond was awarded supervised visitation in 2022. According to the recusal filing, that order was reaffirmed in late 2024 by Judge Richard Kuhn, who was appointed by the Legislature to observe Family Court operations for six months.
Supervised visits resumed and were proceeding without issue until May 2025, when Diamond requested a new visitation supervisor, citing the $200-per-hour cost. Around that same time, Judge Kuhn’s temporary assignment ended, and Judge Cutrer assumed the case on April 1, 2025.
At a June 25th status conference, Diamond, then representing herself, told the court she had not seen her children since May and believed the hearing was meant to address visitation and the appointment of a new supervisor. Judge Cutrer responded that she understood the only matter before the court to be a property partition, stating that “according to the record right now, there is nothing pending” regarding visitation.
Judge Cutrer instructed Diamond to file paperwork related to supervision and visitation, adding that she only had three cases at the time and could likely hear the matter within a few weeks. “I’m free pretty much all the time,” the judge said, according to the filing.
Despite Diamond filing a formal request for a status conference two days later, on June 27, 2025, the next hearing was not held until Sept. 26.
By then, Diamond had gone more than four months without seeing her children.
Shift in the case
At the September hearing, the focus of the case shifted significantly. What Diamond says began as a request to appoint a new visitation supervisor turned into a discussion about whether supervised visitation should continue at all.
Diamond’s ex-husband’s attorney argued that changing supervisors required reassessing what was “healthy for the children.” Despite no motion being filed alleging a change in circumstances, Judge Cutrer allowed both sides to present evidence on whether Diamond should continue seeing her children.
In one exchange included in the court filing, Diamond asked the judge, “So that’s what we’re determining if I ever get to see my children again?” Judge Cutrer replied, “We’re working on your motion … Right now you are under supervised visitation, and you want to change the supervisor. You filed your Motion, go back and read it.”
Mounting delays & ‘manipulated procedure’
The filing also alleges repeated continuances that further delayed visitation. A hearing scheduled for Oct. 24, 2025, was continued after Diamond, who was still representing herself at the time, was ordered to produce 22 requests, including seven years of tax returns.
On the day of the hearing, the ex-husband’s attorney claimed Diamond had failed to produce the documents. Judge Cutrer moved the hearing to Nov. 14.
“The ex-husband’s attorney was allowed to use litigation tactics that have become part of the culture in Family Court to cause further delays,” Unglesby claimed.
At the November hearing, witnesses testified on whether Diamond should be granted a new supervisor. Still self-represented, Diamond was given until 4 p.m. to complete testimony. When time ran out, Judge Cutrer continued the hearing to Dec. 18.
By then, Lance Unglesby and his father, attorney Lewis Unglesby, had enrolled as Diamond’s counsel. The December hearing did not address visitation. Instead, the court focused on allegations that Lewis Unglesby had briefly met with Diamond’s ex-husband in 2016 regarding property advice.
A continuance was granted based on an unfiled motion to disqualify Diamond’s attorneys, delaying the case into January 2026.
As a result, Diamond’s children missed both summer and Christmas holidays with their mother.
“It is unconscionable that the 14-year-old twins lost their entire summer vacation and now their Christmas holidays with no opportunity for visitation,” the motion states, “The damage is irreparable.”
Supreme Court involvement
The State Legislature recently passed a subsection of the recusal statute, which no longer requires lawyer to prove actual bias on the judge’s part.
“From an objective viewpoint, Ms. Diamond went from being able to see her kids with hopes of eventually getting even more time and then Judge Kuhn gets off the case and all of a sudden, Katherine is no longer seeing her kids for a period of nine months. How do you go from one judge who is talking about how important it is that both parents see their kids to whether or not Ms. Diamond would get to see her children at all,” Unglesby said.
Diamond asked the court to either require Judge Cutrer to explain why she should not be recused or to remove her immediately and appoint an ad hoc judge. Under Louisiana law, a judge may deny a recusal motion with written reasons, assign it to another judge, or grant it outright.
The Louisiana Supreme Court will now appoint a judge to hear the recusal motion.
“Judge Cutrer has simply not cut through the litigation tactics, the delays, the distractions, and the quest for attorney’s fees to reach the best interest of the children in this case,” the motion stated.
Diamond echoed that sentiment to UWK in December, just one week before Christmas.
“It’s just difficult to describe. I kept thinking that the proper people understood what was going on and that it would be fixed, you know. So I always had hope, but I never imagined it would go on like this,” she told UWK.
“It really has shaken my whole belief in our constitutional republic,” she added. “I had no idea that our government would go in and just torture people like this and destroy families.”
Scrutiny of East Baton Rouge Family Court
The filing marks a significant escalation in a case that has drawn growing attention from parents and advocates who say Diamond’s experience reflects broader problems inside East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court. The concerns have been echoed by state and Supreme Court officials who previously spoke with UWK.
MORE: Supreme Court Justice blasts East Baton Rouge Family Court, alleging favoritism & coercion
MORE: Louisiana mother still fighting Family Court after exposing system failures
“There were so many different people making the same type of claims,” Associate Justice Jeff Hughes told UWK, “and when I checked them out, they all proved to be valid.”
Justice Hughes outlined five formal recommendations and highlighted major legal concerns in a scathing report accusing the East Baton Rouge Family Court of systemic favoritism, coercive practices, and placing profit over children.
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.
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!
