N.C. District 15B - Judge Joseph M. Buckner - Issues/Complaints
Posted by: NorthWoodsMom on 01-15-2013
My husband recently lost a custody battle with his ex-wife despite the fact that the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) strongly advised the court that it would be in the best interest of the child to be placed with her father. The GAL based his recommendation mainly on the fact that the child shares a very strong emotional bond with her father and receives the bulk of her emotional support from her relationship with her father. The GAL described the mother as “detached†and “uninvolved†with the child. Additionally, the child – currently age 13 – voiced a strong preference to living primarily with her father (and continues to have that preference despite being denied by the court). Judge Joseph Buckner presided over this case.
We sincerely hope that Judge Buckner was not unduly influenced in his decision by biased sources. It troubles us that the mother’s former attorney, Lunsford Long, was appointed to be a judge in the same courthouse where our case was being heard, requiring the mother to hire a new attorney. The mother also comes from an extremely wealthy and well-connected family. We all know that judges are supposed to be objective in their decision-making; but we also know that judges are human and not always as purely fair and honest as we would hope them to be. In 1998, Judge Buckner was sued by one of his own staff for sexual harassment (he settled out of court) and has been formally reprimanded by the Appellate court for his actions as a judge. One custody case he handled in 2010 was described by the Appellate Court as an “entire charade.â€
Buckner offered no explanation or reason for his decision. My husband appealed, but the Appellate Court upheld the Order saying “teenage girls need their mothers.†Again, the court ignored the GAL’s finding that the child does not have a close emotional bond with her mother and that the mother does not provide adequate emotional support to a growing, developing child.
Obviously we are upset that we lost custody of a child we deeply love. However, we also feel cheated by the legal system that we trusted to make a fair decision. Here are our specific grievances:
1. We were required by the court to pay $5000 for an objective recommendation that the court then ignored
The Court ordered and appointed a GAL to investigate the case. We were required to pay nearly $5000 for his time to investigate, write a report, and testify at the custody hearing. Yet the Court ignored the GAL’s recommendation without cause or explanation. It does not seem fair or legal that a court should be able to require citizens to pay thousands of dollars for an investigation that can be ignored on a whim.
2. Biased witness was given the same validity as the GAL.
The mother refused to cooperate with the GAL (refused to allow the GAL to observe her with her child) and then brought her own biased witness to testify that mother and daughter do indeed have a close, loving relationship. This witness has a financial interest in having the child remain with the mother since this person works for the private school where the mother pays tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and donations. Even though the witness testified that she had never even met the child and barely knew the mother, the Appeals court ruled that the testimony of this biased witness was equally valid to the GAL’s testimony, and therefore upheld the lower court’s ruling that the child should remain living primarily with her mother. We were shocked by this ruling – is there no precedent for valuing the recommendation of an expert, professionally trained, objective, court-appointed investigator over the opinion of a witness brought in by one party? If so, why did we spend nearly $5000 for the GAL? We could have saved a lot of money by bringing in our own witness.
3. The court allowed the mother sole authorship of the new visitation schedule, which cut in half the amount of time the child is allowed to spend with her father.
The amount of visitation was reduced from 38% to 18%. The GAL recommended that the non-custodial parent should have summer plus at least three visits during the school year, including a majority of the winter break. A fair visitation schedule would have allowed at least 26% of time with the father despite the increased travel distance resulting from the father’s relocation. Unfortunately, the mother dictated that the child only be allowed to visit her father twice during the school year, one of those visits being only a few days of winter break with the majority of winter break with the mother. Allowing one parent to dictate the schedule obviously does not seem fair or legal.
This case makes a mockery of fairness, justice, and the “best interests of the child.†The actions and decisions of both courts undermine faith in the legal system. If the above actions are legal by the court, then the laws need to change so that children are truly protected and served by the courts and not subject to the whims of selfish, vindictive parents whose desire to hurt an ex-partner is stronger than their desire to do right by their child. I thought the very purpose of the GAL was to serve the needs of the child and ensure that the court makes a decision that is truly in their “best interest.â€
<< o >> Rate this post + move -
Posted by: Anonymous on 11-01-2012
Courthouse located in Hillsborough, NC.
<< o >> Rate this post + move -
Posted by: Anonymous on 12-29-2012
When the justice system fails to provide justice then none are secure in their person or possessions - including judges.
<< o >> Rate this post + move -
Posted by: iDrafted on 08-21-2015
N.C. District 15B - Judge Joseph M. Buckner:
Remains Chief District Court Judge for the 15B Judicial District.
<< o >> Rate this post + move -
Posted by: Anonymous on 01-17-2013
I feel your pain.
I've seen this judge and he seems to show extremely poor judgement. Making "Judge Judy" like snap decisions and passionately sticking with them regardless of additional facts (or consideration for justice).
In other words, it looks like Orange County is currently stuck with a bad judge.
<< o >> Rate this post + move -
Posted by: Anonymous on 11-01-2012
http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/NCMap/Courthouse.asp?CountyID=68
<< o >> Rate this post + move -
Posted by: Anonymous on 12-31-2012
No doubt.
How can there be respect for law if the law is one-sided?
<< o >> Rate this post + move -
close