Reed v. Reed

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion insofar as it holds that, absent an objection by the parties, the trial judge’s failure to permit cross-examination of the court-appointed mental health professional was reversible error.

I recognize that LSA-C.C. art. 131 H provides that “the mental health professional shall serve as the witness of the court subject to cross-examination by either party” and that the use of the word “shall” denotes a mandatory requirement. Admittedly, the clear wording of the provision requires that the court afford the parties an opportunity to cross-examine…