Wealthy Palm Beach polo patron John Goodman has a history of cocaine abuse and was accused this past April of dodging divorce-court-ordered drug screenings, according to records in his divorce court.
Goodman, who is under investigation for his high-speed stop-sign-running Bentley crash that killed 23-year-old Scott Wilson in Wellington last week, was accused last year in court papers of violating an agreement with his ex-wife to undergo random drug-screening tests for cocaine use, according to a Houston Press report.
His ex-wife, Carroll Goodman, with whom he has two children, alleged this past April in a Houston court that Goodman failed to follow through with the agreement, ignoring a psychiatrist's attempts to set up drug screenings, and that as a result she "is fearful for the safety and well-being of her children" when they are in his custody.
Though he violated the agreement, the court didn't punish him.
This is just the latest bombshell in the case. Recently a witness came forward to say Goodman had apparently left the scene of the crash after he ran a stop sign and smashed into Wilson's Hyundai Sonata, knocking it into a canal, where Wilson died. Before the 1 a.m. crash, Goodman had been seen at the Players Club Bar and Restaurant, and before that, he reportedly attended a charity bartender's competition at the White Horse Tavern.
From John Nova Lomax's post in the Houston Press, a sister paper owned by the Village Voice Media:
[Goodman] and Carroll agreed to each see Dr. Milton Altschuler, a psychiatrist, "within 14 days of entry of this degree," and that each of the parties would "follow Dr. Altschuler's recommendations."
No reason was given for the existence of this provision in the final divorce decree, which became official on November 21, 2008. Clarification would only come in Carroll Goodman's motion for enforcement of that decree, which she filed in April of 2009.
According to that motion, Goodman did not follow Altschuler's recommendations. And the motion went on to say the following:
"Respondent has a history of
substance abuse, namely cocaine use. Because of this, both Movant [Carroll] and Respondent [John] agreed that Respondent would submit himself for the purpose of the random drug screen for cocaine as requested by Dr. Altschuler."
The motion goes on to state that John Goodman did not return Altschuler's phoned attempts to set up the drug screening. The motion notes the standard visitation schedule for the children, then goes on to state: "Movant is fearful for the safety and well-being of her children while they are in the possession of Respondent because of his history of substance abuse and his refusal to submit himself for drug screening."
Carroll asked the court to enforce the provision that John Goodman submit to Altschuler's recommendations. She also stated that "based on the conduct of Respondent alleged above," he would "continue to disobey the order of this court." Therefore, Carroll requested that the court suspend John's visitation with the children until he both followed Dr. Altschuler's recommendations and "tests negative for any non-prescribed drug as a result of any such testing performed under Dr. Altschuler's direction."
In January of this year, the court dismissed Carroll's motion. The Court stated that the "order sought to be enforced by [Carroll] is incapable of enforcement by contempt, in that it is ambiguous and not clear and specific enough in its terms that Respondent knows what duties or obligations are required of him."
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
The most amazing aspect of the story from the witness who came forward to WPTV in West Palm Beach wasn't so much that he said Goodman was "nowhere in sight" at the scene of the accident but that deputies apparently ignored them.
"I think it's odd that they never took a statement from us and they never asked us what we did and they just told us to leave," he explains.
That's an investigative oversight that just can't be defended. The guy is a key witness in a potential leaving-the-scene case. There are so many questions about this case. It's time for PBSO to start answering them to the public.