Rodgers v. Rodgers

519 S.W.3d 324 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Chris (H) and W1 were married in 2002 and divorced in 2011. The divorce decree gave them joint custody of their four children. In May 2013, H married W2. On September 6, 2013, the circuit court, following a hearing, entered a temporary custody order that awarded H sole custody of the children because W1 had tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. It further suspended W1's visitation with the children. The court warned H that if he permitted any visitation between W1 and the children that it would hold H in contempt of court. The court told W1, 'When you decide that your children are more important to you than methamphetamine, then you can certainly come back, and you can ask the Court to reverse this ruling and the Court will certainly look at it. But until that happens, then there's not going to be even visitation with your children.' W1 filed two separate drug-test results with the circuit court in October 2013 and April 2014 showing that she was negative for methamphetamine and other controlled substances. She did not file a petition for visitation following the clean drug screens. W1 admitted that she relapsed after the October drug screen, but she claimed that she has been drug-free since approximately December 2013. On September 19, 2014, W2 petitioned the circuit court to adopt the children. W2 alleged that W1's consent was not required because for a period of more than one year, W1 failed to provide for the care and support of the children in a significant or meaningful fashion and had failed to communicate with or maintain any significant contact with them. W1 challenged the adoptions and filed a petition for visitation in the divorce action on October 19, 2014. W1 conceded that she had not communicated with or provided support for the children between September 2013 and September 2014. W1 believed that her failures were justified because the court had suspended her visitation and had not ordered her to pay any child support. The circuit court granted the petition for adoption. W1 appealed.