Buckley v. Buckley

Citations: 73 Ark. App. 410; 43 S.W.3d 212; 2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 353Docket: CA 00-1368

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; May 2, 2001; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Walton Thomas Buckley appeals a chancery court decision granting custody of his two minor children to Kimberly Kay Carter Buckley and denying him visitation rights. He asserts the trial court wrongly found Ms. Buckley fit and him unfit for custody, arguing that this decision is not in the children's best interests. The couple married in Tennessee in 1990, had two daughters together, and later separated in 1996. Ms. Buckley filed for divorce in Arkansas, while Mr. Buckley filed in Tennessee; the Arkansas case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. A new divorce complaint was filed by Ms. Buckley in 1998, culminating in a trial in June 2000, where extensive testimony was heard. The final order, issued on August 14, 2000, granted Ms. Buckley custody and denied Mr. Buckley visitation, appointing a guardian ad litem to assess the children's welfare. 

On appeal, Mr. Buckley contends the evidence does not support the court's findings regarding Ms. Buckley's fitness or the children's best interests. He cites testimony suggesting Ms. Buckley’s unfitness, including allegations of allowing alcohol consumption at home and administering sedatives to her children. However, the chancellor found Mr. Buckley manipulated the testimony of a key witness, Trey Boals, which undermined Mr. Buckley’s claims. The appellate standard requires findings not to be disturbed unless clearly against the evidence's preponderance, a threshold not met in this case. The court ultimately affirmed the chancellor's decisions.

Kelly and Randall Bailey testified that Ms. Buckley was intoxicated during a lake outing and behaved inappropriately with a young boy, claims Ms. Buckley denied, stating she had previously terminated Ms. Bailey’s employment. The chancellor acknowledged that Ms. Buckley had shown some negligence in providing adequate supervision for her three minor children since separating from Mr. Buckley, but concluded that this did not warrant removing the children from her custody, considering their welfare. Although Ms. Buckley was described as “less than forthright” regarding her parenting, the chancellor deemed her a fit parent, subject to restrictions against overnight male guests and providing alcohol to the children.

Evidence indicated Ms. Buckley is a registered nurse, the sole income provider for her family, and a good mother, as supported by four witnesses and the children’s academic performance. Four years post-separation, she briefly cohabited with a man she intended to marry due to her frustration over the divorce process.

In contrast, Mr. Buckley was found to have failed to support his children financially or otherwise for over four years without justification. He claimed significant legal expenses without pursuing visitation or custody. The chancellor noted Mr. Buckley unlawfully entered Ms. Buckley’s home to collect evidence and took his daughter’s undergarments for forensic examination without consent. Additionally, he showed nude photos of his daughter to several individuals and engaged in inappropriate behavior around his children, which raised concerns for their welfare. Mr. Buckley was described as manipulative regarding witness testimony and lived in unsuitable conditions for child custody or visitation. 

Despite Mr. Buckley’s claims of disability and lack of evidence from DHS against him, the chancellor concluded that Mr. Buckley was not a fit parent or suitable for visitation, particularly given his inaction regarding the children’s support and his monitoring of their activities.

Mr. Buckley has not maintained contact with his children, failing to call or send gifts, and admitted to inappropriately handling his daughter’s belongings. Testimonies revealed that he stalked and threatened Laura Thomas, and made false claims about Ms. Buckley’s character to her colleagues. His adopted daughter testified to his inappropriate sexual conduct with his biological children before their separation. The chancellor found Mr. Buckley unfit for custody, a conclusion supported by credible evidence, and determined it was in the children’s best interests for Ms. Buckley to have custody. A guardian ad litem was appointed to monitor the children's welfare every four months. 

Mr. Buckley challenged the chancellor's findings and the decision to deny him visitation rights, arguing that such denials are typically upheld by the courts. However, the court clarified that Mr. Buckley never formally pursued visitation, and the chancellor deemed any visitation detrimental to the children’s welfare. The court recognized that while visitation rights are generally upheld, Mr. Buckley's actions were serious enough to warrant a denial, paralleling a past case where a father lost visitation due to severe misconduct. Thus, the court affirmed the chancellor's decision regarding both custody and visitation rights.