Several parents, attorneys and child‑protection advocates used public comment time during a Senate hearing on Sept. 6 to describe cases they said show failures in family‑court and child‑welfare processes, and to ask lawmakers for changes that would better protect children.

Nut graf: Testimony ranged from clinicians and child-advocacy leaders describing standard procedures to family members and lawyers recounting individual cases; speakers repeatedly urged clearer protocols so criminal investigations, DCFS investigations and family‑court proceedings do not conflict or delay protection for children.

What witnesses said

Attorney Richard DeCote told the committee that child‑custody courts sometimes treat DCFS investigation findings as dispositive for custody matters even when those investigations are unsubstantiated. “DCFS's findings and investigations are designed for the state to come in and protect kids who have no other option for protection,” DeCote said. “When DCFS gets involved in family‑court proceedings … the family‑court judge says, ‘well, DCFS didn't do anything,’ and we don't have a way to challenge what DCFS did or didn't do.”

Multiple parents and guardians described cases that are still pending in local courts and said forensic interviews or medical reports had not been used or had been set aside in family‑court proceedings. One speaker, Michael Ryle of Livingston Parish, said he had an arrest warrant issued in a related criminal matter and that a family‑court hearing nevertheless returned custody to the alleged abuser; he told the committee he then pursued new counsel and appeals.

Advocates and practitioners described how child‑advocacy centers (CACs) conduct recorded forensic interviews and only accept referrals from law enforcement or DCFS. Crystal Mitchell, executive director of the Louisiana Alliance of Children’s Advocacy Centers, said CACs schedule forensic interviews only after receiving a referral and that “forensic interview[s] must be observed by law enforcement and the Department of Children and Family Services.”

Concerns and proposals raised

Speakers urged several reforms: clearer separation of DCFS investigation work from family‑court custody determinations; better training for mandated reporters (medical providers, teachers) on reporting duties; faster, centralized access to transcripts at reasonable cost for litigants; limits on agency employees representing parties in private custody matters; strengthened multidisciplinary‑team protocols so children are not interviewed repeatedly; and judicial training or standards to reduce conflicts-of-interest.

Attorney Richard DeCote recommended legislation to restrict how family courts use DCFS investigative findings in custody decisions or, alternatively, to require judges to make findings based on courtroom evidence rather than agency labels. Multiple parents told the committee they had spent significant sums on attorneys, supervised visits and transcripts while their children remained in disputed custody arrangements.

Committee response and next steps

Committee members thanked the witnesses and said they will examine statutory options and administrative remedies. Several senators asked DCFS, the Attorney General’s office and court administrators to produce follow‑up materials. The committee also asked staff to review transcript costs and to consider whether rules are needed to avoid overlap between criminal investigations and family‑court proceedings.

Ending: The committee will gather additional information

Witnesses left the committee with a request for follow-up: written material from DCFS on interagency protocols, a review of transcript policies from court clerks, and a report from the Judicial Branch or Court Improvement Commission on judicial training and recusals. Lawmakers said they will circulate committee staff contacts to parties who testified and will review possible statutory fixes before the next session.

Quotations in this article are attributed to witnesses who testified publicly before the committee, including Richard DeCote (attorney), Crystal Mitchell (LACAC), and multiple family members and litigants who identified themselves during the hearing. This article reports allegations as testimony and does not make findings about active cases.