CHARLESTON – A Raleigh County Family Court judge has been charged with violating at least seven rules in the Code of Judicial Conduct after she admitted to visiting homes of litigants appearing in front of her to check on disputed property.
Judge Louise E. Goldston was named in a Formal Statement of Charges from the state Supreme Court dated September 23.
According to the statement, Goldston violated Rules 1.1 (compliance with the law), Rule 1.2 (confidence in the judiciary), Rule 1.3 (avoiding abuse of prestige of office), Rule 2.2 (impartiality and fairness), Rule 2.4(B) (external influences), Rule 2.5 (competence, diligence and cooperation) and Rule 3.1(A)(B)(D) (extrajudicial activities in general).
Goldston
The complaint against Goldston, who has been a family court judge or family law master for 26 years, was opened March 11 by the Judicial Disciplinary Counsel after a March 4 contempt hearing in a divorce case involving Matthew Gibson. Gibson, who is a federal law enforcement officer, filed a similar complaint against her March 18.
“There was an allegation that Mr. Gibson negligently damaged marital property he was ordered to turn over to the opposing party,” the statement reads. “The opposing party further alleged that Mr. Gibson failed to turn over several items of sentimental value as previously ordered by the court.”
During the hearing, Goldston asked Gibson for his address. Goldston then stopped the hearing and ordered the parties to meet her at Gibson’s house in 10 minute without any explanation. Gibson, who was representing himself in the case, said he couldn’t raise any objection because Goldston failed to explain the reason for the home visit.
“Once everyone arrived at Mr. Gibson’s home and the purpose of the visit became clear, Mr. Gibson moved to recuse respondent (Goldston) on the ground that she had become a potential witness in the case,” the statement reads. “Respondent denied the motion as untimely.
“Mr. Gibson then verbally refused to allow respondent or anyone else in his house without a search warrant. Respondent threatened to put Mr. Gibson in jail if he denied them entry into his house. Mr. Gibson felt he had no choice but to relent.”
A bystander recorded the interactions outside of the home. That video can be found online. Gibson also secretly recorded several minutes of audio. Goldston ordered both recordings stopped, but a bailiff who accompanied Goldston used his cell phone to record video and audio of the separation of marital assets.
Goldston admitted that she failed to inform Gibson of the purpose of the home visit and didn’t give him a chance to object. She also said she thought it was proper to visit litigants’ homes. In fact, she said she had done so 11 times in different cases over the years.
“In every instance except Mr. Gibson’s case, all of respondent’s home visits were prompted by a motion by a litigant’s attorney and not objected to by the opposing party and with full knowledge of the purpose therein,” the statement reads. “Most of the respondent’s home visits occurred during a court hearing in the case.
“A party’s attorney would move the court to leave directly from the bench and accompany the parties to the home. After granting the motion, respondent would meet the parties at the home.”
Goldston could provide no statute, rule or case that gave her authority to conduct home visits. She also never entered any order following one of these home visits reflecting what had happened. She also said she never took a court reporter to the scene. She also agreed such visits could make her a potential witness to a future proceeding that could then result in her disqualification.
Goldston has 30 days after the service of the formal charges against her to file a response. Gibson is being represented by attorney John Bryan of Union. Bryan said a civil lawsuit against Goldston is likely at some point.
West Virginia Supreme Court of appeals case number 20-0742