By: Paul Young • Caddo Juvenile Judge (Retired)

Recently, the Caddo Juvenile Court has come under scrutiny by the State Supreme Court. The Court said it received allegations of judicial absenteeism, disputes among staff, judges starting and ending court late, and concerns about the delegation of duties to hearing officers. When I retired from the Court three years ago, I too have heard reports of some of these problems at the Court.

Lacking firsthand knowledge, however, I defer to the proper authorities on most of these issues.

However, allegations have been made by agents of the State Supreme Court that the Judges of the Caddo Juvenile Court “over the past 5-8 years” have improperly delegated judicial functions to hearing officers. I served on the Court from 12/99 - 11/20, and I know this allegation to be false. The Court’s Judges faithfully complied with the Children’s Code article dealing with hearing officers.

Article 423 allows Judges of the Court to hire qualified attorneys as hearing officers in Child Support, Domestic Violence Protective Order cases, and other matters. The Hearing Officer is authorized by statute to conduct various preliminary matters and, take testimony, make findings of fact, and submit a written recommendation (an HOR) to the Judge assigned the case regarding how the case should be decided. Most importantly, the Hearing Officer is authorized to conduct the “hearing and make recommendations on all restraining orders and protective orders filed in accordance with Articles 1569 and 1570.” These are the Domestic Violence provisions. The assertion that a Hearing Officer cannot do so is wrong.

This Article further provides that if a party to the case disagrees with the HOR, the Judge MUST schedule a new hearing at which the Judge must preside.

In many, if not most, cases the parties stipulate or agree to a resolution of the case and the Hearing Officer will present this agreement as the HOR. In no more than 10% of the cases, a party will disagree and ask for the assigned Judge to hear the case.

As one of the Judges supervising the Hearing Officer, I know that this statutory procedure was always followed. There was never a court case appealed on the grounds that the Hearing Officer exceeded these boundaries.

The Court also allowed the Hearing Officer in domestic violence cases to review cases to assure compliance with Court ordered treatment and stay away provisions. In Child Support cases, the Hearing Officer likewise conducted reviews to ensure compliance with Court orders. In both types of cases this review process often resulted in the defendant rehabilitating himself and regaining contact with his children and financially supporting them properly. These review processes were the subject of very favorable publicity and national awards for their pro-family results. The Juvenile Court should not be criticized for this very proper use of Hearing Officers.

Finally, the Caddo Juvenile Court has been criticized by agents of the State Supreme Court for being the only specialized Juvenile Court in the State to allow alleged victims of domestic violence to file petitions for protection from such abuse in the Juvenile Court. It is true that the Caddo Juvenile Court is the only specialized Juvenile Court of the four in the state to fulfill its statutory obligation to handle these difficult cases. The Court should be praised for this fact, not criticized.

The Children’s Code, Article 307(A)(6), grants juvenile courts jurisdiction or authority to hear such cases. This jurisdiction is concurrent with the district court. The limit to this jurisdiction is that there must be children living in the household. Article 1565(2). Those criticizing the Caddo Juvenile Court mistakenly stated that the children must be alleged to have been abused.

No appellate court decision has ever restricted this jurisdictional statute in such a manner.

The reason all of this is important is that for over thirty years, the Caddo Juvenile Court has been the primary place where victims of domestic violence in Caddo Parish can go for relief, protection, and justice. Its location out of the downtown area, its less imposing structure and parking ease with a bus stop on the premises all makes it easily accessible, especially to the poor. The Court’s clerk’s office has always been helpful to litigants in the preparation of petitions, as required by statute.

The Judges, all the way back to Judges Gorman Taylor and Andrew Gallagher, have always placed a high priority on such cases. We know that protective orders ARE effective in protecting parents and the children, help prevent further violence, and provide stability to the family and the community. Also, the expense of an attorney is not required to obtain this needed protection. Community providers such as the YWCA and Project Celebration know all of this to be true and have always turned to the Caddo Juvenile Court knowing it would provide easy access, compassionate personnel, without the necessity of an expensive lawyer, and a fair hearing. The District Attorney has billboards throughout town referring people to the Juvenile Court for Protective Orders and other services, because they have proven to be effective.

Such a history of service should not be terminated by agents of the State Supreme Court unilaterally issuing an edict depriving the Caddo Juvenile Court of its statutory authority to hear these cases and serve these needy citizens of our Parish.