Kim Sport’s recent letter opposing House Bill 278 overstates what the bill does and shifts attention away from the accountability concerns that led to it.
Rather than directly addressing why greater transparency is being sought in East Baton Rouge Family Court, the letter frames HB278 as a threat to abuse victims, children and privacy. But the bill itself contains safeguards, including in-chambers testimony for minors in certain circumstances, the use of initials or pseudonyms in custody matters and closure of custody hearings upon a showing of good cause on the record and written agreement of the parties. Those are not the features of a reckless bill. They are the features of a bill attempting to balance privacy with accountability.
The larger issue is not whether sensitive matters deserve protection; they do. The real question is whether a court exercising enormous power over children, custody, support, protective orders, contempt, family integrity and the financial survival of litigants should remain so shielded from public scrutiny while families endure prolonged proceedings, escalating costs, repeated enforcement actions and serious financial pressure…