Rogers v. Rogers

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

In re the Matter of:

JOHNEL ROGERS, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

SPECIALTY UNIQUE ROGERS, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0467 FC
FILED 02-13-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2022-004094
The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Johnel Rogers, Tacoma, WA
Petitioner /Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
 ROGERS v. ROGERS
Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Johnel Rogers (“Father”) appeals from the child support order
in the decree dissolving his marriage to Specialty Unique Rogers
(“Mother”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Mother married in 2015 and share two children
together. In June 2022, Father petitioned the superior court to dissolve his
marriage and requested he and Mother share joint legal decision-making
authority for the children. Mother requested sole legal decision-making
authority and a child support award consistent with the Child Support
Guidelines. See A.R.S. § 25-320.

¶3 Despite initiating the dissolution proceedings, Husband later
argued that the superior court lacked jurisdiction and filed two motions to
dismiss. The court denied both motions.

¶4 The court awarded Father and Mother joint legal decision-
making authority and gave Mother final decision-making authority if the
parties cannot agree. The court awarded Father five weeks of parenting
time per year. It also ordered Father to pay $1,117 per month in child
support and entered a past-support judgment for $24,574. Father timely
appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶5 Mother did not file an answering brief. While we typically
treat an appellee’s lack of response as a confession of error, Hoffman v.
Hoffman, 4 Ariz. App. 83, 85 (1966), we may decline to do so when a child’s
best interests are at issue, In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525, ¶ 2
(App. 2002), as is the case here. We thus decline to treat Mother’s lack of
response as a confession of error.

¶6 Father argues (1) the decree is void because the superior court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) his constitutional rights were violated
in various ways, (3) the child support order is invalid because it lacks a
“judicial signature,” (4) he is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
(5) child support is not in the children’s best interests.

¶7 The superior court had subject matter jurisdiction because
Father petitioned for dissolution, joint legal decision-making authority, and
parenting time, and Mother, who lives in Maricopa County with the

2
 ROGERS v. ROGERS
Decision of the Court

children, requested child support. See A.R.S. § 25-311(A) (superior court has
jurisdiction to hear and decide matters relating to dissolution, legal
decision-making authority, and parenting time); A.R.S. § 25-502(A)
(superior court has jurisdiction to hear child support matters).

¶8 As to the remaining issues, the law Father cites does not
support his contentions. See ARCAP 13(a)(7). Apart from constitutional
amendments, Husband cites federal law that does not apply to this state
court action. Throughout his brief, Father cites general legal principles but
does not explain how they apply here. “Arguments that are unsupported
by legal authority and adequate citation to the record are waived.” J.W. v.
Dep’t of Child Safety, 252 Ariz. 184, 188, ¶ 11 (App. 2021). Father thus waived
these arguments and we do not address them.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm the superior court’s decree and child support
order. We deny the relief Father requests in his opening brief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3