LA Supreme Court judge, Jeff Hughes issue scathing report of EBR family court

quote:

---

A closed “club” between judges and a small group of lawyers;

Actual as opposed to Kuhn’s “perception” of favoritism. A “line has been crossed,” including the calling of a night status conference at a restaurant where alcohol was served.

“Non-favorite” attorney withdrawing from representation, telling client she “could not compete” with the paring of a particular attorney’/judge pairing.

“Club” vs. outcasts (pro se parents treated as pariahs), including staff members “smirking, rolling their eyes and calling ‘Security, Security!’ when certain litigants approach.”

Attorneys who use delay as a weapon and who control the pace of a case instead of judges doing so. In cases in which an attorney “puts up a good fight,” specious grounds are employed as a means of disqualifying the attorney, leaving the parent without legal representation “at critical moments.”

Status conferences employed to intimidate and coerce litigants—clients being told they must accept a judge’s “recommendation” or the result will be more severe. In cases where there is a prior contempt finding, clients are told they will go to jail.

Contempt charges are used as a weapon as a means to “beat the non-favored parent into submission” and that “it’s all about the money, not the best interests of children.” Attorney fees in contempt cases routinely run between $10,000 and $20,000 and one was nearly $80,000. “It cannot be in the best interest of the children for one parent to have to pay $80,000 to the other parent’s attorney,” Hughes said.

Economic pressure is applied to some parents via the cost of therapists, counselors and psych evaluation. In one case, an attorney began to tell a judge that a psychological evaluation had shown favorable result when the judge cut him off, saying he only wanted to know if the evaluation was “completed.” The “content of the report doesn’t matter—only that the ‘hurdle’ has been imposed,” Hughes said.

Narrative-smearing without evidence through letters, emails and status conferences, suggesting a parent has problems, needs counseling or are dangerous—without life testimony or cross-examination. This results in long delays and no actual hearing.

Closing courtroom to isolate and threaten litigants with screaming and threats of jail.

Procedure at the judge’s whim.

Motions for contempt are filed by a parent who isn’t getting visitation are invariably met with counter-motions from the favored parent and the first-filed motion is never set for hearing. Instead, if there is a hearing, both motions are heard together so that the original complainant loses the “moral force” of bringing the violation to the court.

Family law has been turned on its head. The best interests of the children and facilitating relationships with both parents should be paramount.

Instead, there is endless litigation that “mainly enriches attorneys, often back by a wealthy family on one side.”

Moreover, community property and equity become targets because attorney fee judgments “can be attached to them.”

Routine requests are met with discovery, experts and stacks of largely irrelevant exhibits with the “abuser” bein openly told they’ll be made to pay for everything, including the other’s legal fees. “Sacrificing children to make money is immoral,” Hughes said

---

quote:

---

Hughes concluded his report by recommending:

Criminal investigation where quid-pro-quo favoritism can be shown;

Limit closing of custody hearings;

Mandatory live-streaming of EBT Family Court;

Cease temporary restraining order/proclaimed offender continuances;

Change the “abuser pays everything” statute.

---