Tortuous Killing of Timothy Paul Stone

Introduction to the Stones' Case

The case of Reverend John W. Stone and Shirley D. Stone emerged in federal court as a poignant illustration of the emotional turmoil caused by family abduction. On November 19, 2025, the Stones filed an emergency motion addressing the unlawful abduction of their grandchildren, which has had a profound impact on their family dynamic and overall well-being. The urgency surrounding this case is underscored by the fact that children's safety and stability are often at stake during such distressing events.

The parties involved in this situation not only include the Stones themselves but also the children's parents and other relatives who have varying degrees of involvement. This complexity adds to the emotional weight of the motion filed in court. The Stones allege that their grandchildren were taken without legal consent or proper notification, igniting a series of events that left them in a state of distress and uncertainty. Family abduction cases like this exemplify the intricate and often painful relationships that can exist within families, drawing attention to the vulnerabilities that children face in these circumstances.

The emotional toll of family abduction is difficult to quantify, yet it is a reality that affects many families across the country. In this case, the Stones expressed their deep love for their grandchildren and the detrimental effects that separation has created within their family. Their emotional plea is a testament to the significant human cost associated with family abduction, as it disrupts not only the lives of the children involved but also those of their extended family. By examining this case, a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by families enduring such crises can be achieved, shedding light on the broader implications of family abduction in society.

The Emotional Language of the Emergency Motion

The emergency motion filed by the Stones serves as a poignant testament to the emotional anguish experienced by the family following the abduction of their children. The language presented in the motion is characterized by a sense of urgency, reflecting deep concern for the wellbeing of their autistic children. Within the document, phrases such as “immediate danger” and “irreparable harm” are employed to evoke a sense of crisis, aiming to persuade the court of the pressing need for intervention. This choice of words not only captures the gravity of the situation but also accentuates the heightened emotional state of the family, who are grappling with fear and uncertainty.

Throughout the motion, the Stones poignantly articulate the trauma they endured after the loss of their son, highlighting the devastating emotional toll it took on their entire family unit. The language is imbued with vulnerability, describing the profound impact on their children and the desperate need for protection. For instance, the depiction of the children’s anxiety and fear is critical, as it emphasizes their heightened susceptibility, given their unique challenges associated with autism. Such descriptions serve to illustrate the human cost associated with family abduction, underscoring not only the physical dangers but also the mental and emotional ramifications that linger. Each excerpt selected shines a light on the urgency of the situation, illustrating how language becomes a powerful tool to convey distress and the desperate need for relief.

This emotional discourse encapsulates the family’s plight, as the Stones employ transformative language to advocate for immediate action. By illustrating their turmoil and the pressing need for resolution, the motion compels recognition of the intricate emotional landscape constituting family abduction. Consequently, it becomes evident that the emotional language utilized is not merely rhetorical but serves as a vital representation of the multi-faceted distress experienced by those affected, reflecting the critical human costs that accompany such tragic events.

Legal and Social Implications of the Abduction

The abduction of children within the family context raises significant legal and social implications, as highlighted by the allegations made by the Stones. At the core of these implications is the violation of existing court orders, which are designed to safeguard custody arrangements and ensure the welfare of children. When such orders are ignored, it not only undermines the legal framework but also places the abducted child's safety at heightened risk. Legal precedents indicate that enforcement agencies must prioritize the execution of these orders to maintain the integrity of family law.

Compounding these legal challenges is the often inadequate response from law enforcement. Many families report a lack of urgency or understanding when it comes to cases of family abduction, which can lead to an inability to resolve crises in a timely manner. The failures of law enforcement not only exacerbate the immediate risks associated with abduction but also foster a perception of indifference within the judicial system. Victims of family abduction, particularly those involving vulnerable populations such as autistic children, highlight how systemic failures can leave families without critical support. This begs the question of accountability and suggests a need for training that equips law enforcement to handle these sensitive situations effectively.

Socially, the implications of family abduction extend beyond the immediate actors to affect broader community dynamics. Public awareness campaigns regarding the nature of family abductions are crucial in shaping how society perceives and reacts to these incidents. Furthermore, understanding that children with special needs, like those on the autism spectrum, face unique challenges during abduction scenarios necessitates a nuanced approach to prevention and intervention. Addressing these systemic failures and expanding resources for families can lead to improved outcomes and reinforce community trust in legal mechanisms designed to protect vulnerable children.

The Ongoing Trauma and Fight for Justice

The abduction of children can have devastating and lasting effects on the families involved, as seen in the case of the Stones. The emotional and psychological trauma stemming from such an event can manifest in numerous ways that deeply affect the individuals and their relationships. For the Stones, the abduction of their grandchildren has resulted in profound distress, with feelings of helplessness and despair permeating their daily lives. The absence of their grandchildren has created a void that is felt acutely at every family gathering, holiday, and milestone. This ongoing emotional turmoil is exacerbated by the tragic death of the children’s father, adding layers of grief and loss to an already precarious situation.

The Stones have not only been confronting the personal anguish brought on by their grandchildren's abduction but have also embarked on a strenuous journey to seek justice. This pursuit is often met with systemic hurdles, where legal processes can feel overwhelming and frustrating. The difficulty in navigating the legal system to secure their grandchildren's safety highlights a stark reality faced by many families in similar situations. It raises questions about the effectiveness of current child protection laws and the support available for families dealing with abduction. The Stones have become advocates for change, utilizing their story to raise awareness about the realities of family abduction and the inadequacies of legal protections available to victims.

Moreover, the long-term effects of this abduction extend beyond immediate trauma, potentially altering the children's development and their ability to form healthy relationships. The Stones strive for stability and safety for their grandchildren, urging society to acknowledge the complex emotions involved in such crises. The ongoing fight for justice not only reflects their personal struggle but speaks to a greater need for comprehensive reforms in child custody and protection laws. Ultimately, the resilience of the Stones in advocating for their grandchildren shines a light on the critical need for societal awareness and support in addressing the ramifications of family abduction

At the center of this federal court action is the legal relationship between the plaintiffs, Reverend John W. Stone and Shirley D. Stone, and the three minor children who are their grandchildren. The children are also the offspring of the decedent, Timothy Paul Stone, who was the children’s full custodial and decision-making parent until his tragic death.

Grandparents as “Next Friends” and Legal Representatives

Because the children’s father is deceased and the children are allegedly being unlawfully detained, the grandparents have stepped in as “next friends”—a legal term for individuals who represent minors or incapacitated persons in court when those individuals cannot advocate for themselves. This status gives Reverend John W. Stone and Shirley D. Stone the standing to file emergency motions and lawsuits on behalf of their grandchildren, seeking both immediate protection and long-term justice.

The Role of Custody and Protection Orders

Prior to the abduction, court orders established Timothy Paul Stone as the children’s full custodial parent, with legal authority over their care and decision-making. The filings detail multiple protection orders issued to safeguard the children from specific individuals, including their estranged mother and her associates. These orders are central to the legal arguments, as their violation forms the basis for claims of kidnapping, custodial interference, and ongoing civil rights violations.

Guardianship and the Court’s Duty

The emergency motion also requests the appointment of a guardian ad litem—a court-appointed advocate whose sole responsibility is to represent the best interests of the children during legal proceedings. This step is crucial in cases where minors are at risk and cannot participate directly in court actions. The filings emphasize that federal and state law guarantee children the right to have their interests represented and protected in civil litigation.

Why Legal Relationships Matter

This legal framework ensures that the children’s rights and welfare remain at the forefront of the case, even as their immediate family structure has been disrupted by tragedy and alleged criminal acts. By acting as “next friends” and seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, the grandparents are using every available legal avenue to protect their grandchildren and restore their access to justice.

Understanding Key Legal Terms

Injunctive Relief
A court order requiring a party to do or stop doing something. In this case, the plaintiffs are asking the court to immediately order the release of the children from unlawful custody.

Emergency Motion
A request for the court to take urgent action due to immediate risk or harm. Emergency motions are considered quickly because of the serious consequences of delay.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit
A civil lawsuit filed when someone’s death is caused by the wrongful act or negligence of another. The family seeks damages and accountability for the loss of their loved one.

Guardian ad Litem
A person appointed by the court to represent the best interests of minors or incapacitated individuals during legal proceedings.

Protection Order
A legal order issued by a court to protect individuals from harm or harassment, often used in cases of domestic violence or child endangerment.

Continuing Offense Doctrine
A legal principle stating that certain crimes, like kidnapping, are ongoing until the unlawful situation ends. Each day the children remain detained is considered a new violation.

Civil Rights Violation
An act that infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution or federal law, such as liberty, due process, or equal protection.

Bond Requirement (Rule 65(c))
A rule that sometimes requires plaintiffs to post a financial bond when seeking an injunction, to cover potential damages if the injunction is later found to be wrongful. Courts can waive or reduce this requirement in urgent or public interest cases.

See The Human Cost of Family Abduction

The motion invokes both federal and Arizona kidnapping statutes, emphasizing that kidnapping is a “continuing offense”—every moment the children remain unlawfully detained constitutes a new violation. The Stones cite Supreme Court precedent and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), arguing that the children’s ongoing detention is a grave civil rights violation and an urgent threat to their safety and well-being.

• Key legal authorities referenced include:
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (Federal Kidnapping Statute)
  • A.R.S. § 13-1304 (Arizona Kidnapping Statute)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (setting the standard for preliminary injunctions)
  • Troxel v. Granville (recognizing the fundamental right of parents in child custody)
  • Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
  • Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-1034 (Emergency Jurisdiction in child protection cases)

Allegations of Official Misconduct and Cover-Up

The Stones’ filing goes beyond the immediate abduction, alleging a coordinated cover-up and “state-created danger.” They claim that judges manipulated judicial proceedings to obstruct justice. A storage company (CubeSmart), and an insurance company (MetLife) were repeatedly notified of the ongoing kidnapping but failed to act.  The law officials purposely and intentionally failed to perform their prescribed duty.  Despite knowing the decedent’s vulnerable and protected class status, the First Responders Duties and Mandatory Statutes and Laws, A.R.S. §§ 8-901, 8-810, 13-3623, and 13-3620, the existence of protection orders and the danger the children were in, the police failed to locate or rescue the children they were compel by law to do. The motion argues that these actions and omissions amount to a conspiracy to deprive the children and their family of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

The Relief Requested

• The emergency motion asks the court to:
  • Order the immediate rescue and release of the three minor children from the custody of the defendants.
  • Prohibit further contact or interference by the defendants.
  • Direct law enforcement to enforce the order and ensure the children’s safety.
  • Appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the children’s interests.
  • Refer the matter for criminal investigation and prosecution.
  • Waive or reduce the bond requirement due to the urgent circumstances and the plaintiffs’ limited resources.

Why This Case Matters

This case highlights critical issues at the intersection of child protection, civil rights, and government accountability. The Stones’ filings underscore the devastating consequences when court orders are ignored, and officials fail to act. The outcome could set important precedents for emergency relief in child abduction cases and the responsibilities of law enforcement and the judiciary.  Click here to see The Legal Relationship

The human impact is demonstrated in the emergency motion filed by Reverend John W. Stone and Shirley D. Stone in the Federal Court. The emergency motion was filled with an urgent, emotional language that brings the human cost of this case into sharp focus.

The Stones allege that their grandchildren were unlawfully abducted on January 9, 2024, by a non-relative babysitter, with the assistance of the children’s estranged mother, and her sister. The children, two of whom are autistic and especially vulnerable, have been held in violation of multiple valid court orders and state and federal laws. Their father, Timothy Paul Stone, was the children’s full custodial parent and died tragically while trying to rescue them.

The complaint details a series of alarming events, including threats, ignored protection orders, and alleged failures by law enforcement and judicial officials to intervene, despite repeated pleas and clear evidence of danger showing the human impact involved. The Stones argue that these failures not only facilitated the ongoing kidnapping but also contributed to the wrongful death of their son. The filings describe the children’s ongoing trauma, the loss of their father, and the frustration of being denied access to justice and protection.

Here are a few direct quotes that illustrate the trauma and desperation experienced by the family:

• “This emergency arises from the ongoing and unlawful kidnapping of three minor children, two of whom are autistic and especially vulnerable.”
• “False imprisonment for even one second is a grave civil rights violation, and continued detention is a direct affront to their constitutional rights to liberty and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
• “The emergency remains as acute today as it was on the day of their abduction, and the Court’s intervention is both justified and required to halt the ongoing crime and restore the children’s rights.”
• “The children’s ongoing detention is a direct violation of their constitutional rights to liberty and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment: ‘No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”
• “It is a profound and tragic irony that, while the law recognizes the children as primary beneficiaries of the wrongful death and civil rights lawsuit, these same children are being actively obstructed from participating in or benefiting from the proceedings by their continued false imprisonment.”   

See The Legal Grounds for Court Filing

What would you do if your child was torturously murdered and your grandchildren kidnapped and kept from you?   "No one's above the law, and this shows that people can be held accountable...." Gov. Hobbs

These "Fair Use" Photos are being Lawfully used to Acquire Justice and Warn and Protect others from these Predators. In 2024 The DOJ Warned Arizonans about and found Hobbs' subordinates GUILTY of, a historical Pattern and Practice of Civil Rights Deprivations, and this Case was going on at that time. For the Safety and Justice for "OUR KIDS", their father who was Torturously Murdered, and All lawful abiding citizens, PLEASE Bear With us throughout this Attached Official Criminal Complaint and its Format that we have been forced to Draft.

Click Here for Full Report

State v. McLaughlin - 125 Ariz. 505, 611 P.2d 92 (1980)

In this case McLaughlin was hired by a mother who was not the custodial parent. McLaughlin was convicted of child abduction. He appealed and lost appeal.

A.R.S. § 13-841 provides in part: A person who maliciously, forcible or fraudulently takes or entices away a child under the age of seventeen years with intent to detain and conceal the child from its parent, guardian or other person having lawful charge of the child, shall be punished by imprisonment.

The case of State v. McLaughlin serves as a pivotal reminder of the gravity of child abduction and the legal consequences that follow such actions. The law in Arizona, as outlined in A.R.S. § 13-841, unequivocally states that anyone who maliciously, forcibly, or fraudulently takes or entices away a child under the age of seventeen with the intent to detain and conceal the child from their parent, guardian, or lawful custodian will face imprisonment.

The language of the law leaves no room for misinterpretation - the intent to detain and conceal the child from their lawful guardian is a crucial element for a conviction of child abduction. It is not enough for the accused to simply remove the child from the custody of someone who appears to have lawful control; there must be a deliberate and conscious effort to keep the child hidden from their rightful guardian.

In light of these legal provisions, it is imperative that we uphold the sanctity of familial relationships and the safety of children. The law exists to protect the vulnerable and ensure that those who seek to harm or disrupt the lives of children are held accountable for their actions. Let us stand firm in our commitment to safeguarding the well-being of our youth and supporting the enforcement of laws that serve to protect them.  See: Stone Family's Quest for Justice Part Two

Due process is a fundamental principle enshrined in the US Constitution to ensure that every individual is treated fairly and justly by the government. It guarantees that no one can be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without following the proper legal procedures. The Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment both emphasize the importance of due process, making it a crucial safeguard against arbitrary actions by the government. This essential protection ensures that all individuals have the right to a fair and impartial legal process, regardless of their circumstances. By upholding due process, we uphold the values of justice, equality, and the rule of law in our society.

Due Process requires that procedures for the treatment of laws must be applied the same, so that individuals are not subjected to arbitrary decisions of power.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified July 9, 1868, prohibited states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As to the natural persons protected by the due process clause, these include all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 216 (1923). See Hellenic Lines v. Rhodetis, 398 U.S. 306, 309 (1970).

The arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, [...] And the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the governments, both state and national, are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, [notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions].

God Forbid but What Would You Do?

Your grandchildren are kidnapped and your son, their dad was tortured by intentional infliction of mental distress leading to physical harm until death while trying to rescue them. You find out the murderers and kidnappers are the El mirage Police Chief and officers, the judge and mayor, while the governor and attorney general Mayers informed, did nothing.

Who Will Be Their Next Victim?

We are taking a stand to inform and bring the officials to justice to protect you or someone you know that may be their next victim(s). The Department of Justice proved and warned Arizonans that police corruption is encouraged by state officials.

Their Protection Should Have Continued

ChatGPT AI is considered to be a reliable source of information, giving objectivity to answering questions presented. When asked, should the protective order obtained for children by a parent who obtained it dies, should the order continue”?

The response, “When a protective order includes children and the parent named in the order passes away, the protection for the children remains in effect.

A protective order can be requested to safeguard both adults and children from dangerous situations. When a parent seeks a protective order on behalf of their child, it aims to shield the child from harm, whether physical or emotional. If one parent obtains a protective order against the other parent, it typically does not directly impact the accused parent’s visitation rights. However, it may affect logistics such as how the child is transferred between parents (in cases of shared physical custody) or supervised visitation schedules.

If a parent gets a protective order on behalf of the child, it usually arises when one parent suspects the other of abusing the child. In such cases, the protective order takes precedence over any existing custody order. Until a full hearing occurs in front of a judge regarding the order, the child will likely remain with the custodial parent or another relative.”

Concerning Continued Protection… AI-Copilot tells us “Even if the parent who sought the protective order passes away, the order remains in force during its duration. The court will continue to enforce the order to protect the child until any necessary modifications or hearings occur. Remember that protective orders play a crucial role in ensuring safety, especially for vulnerable individuals like children.”

AI Copilot says this, but Timothy’s protective order for his children was disregarded entirely. The elements of Timothy’s case according to court records reveal that Timothy had full custody and sole parental rights by law. He was the biological father, whose wife and mother had decided to work against an amicable divorce and had caused continued conflict and emotional distress upon him and their children. She purposely destroyed their home life and abandoned them without support and parental communication for almost ten months, then reappeared without notice and took the children away from their home and schooling again and kept them away from their father.

According to AI-Copilot, in cases of parental kidnapping and abuse, the safety and well-being of the children should be the top priority. It is crucial to ensure that they are protected from any further harm and provided with the necessary support and resources to help them heal from the trauma they have experienced.

The parent who abandoned the children, who reappeared, and kidnapped them, thereby causing the tragic death of the other parent due to lack of medical attention, has demonstrated a clear disregard for the safety and welfare of the children. This parent should be held accountable for their actions and face the consequences of their behavior.

In such a situation, it may be necessary for the children to be placed in a safe and stable environment where they can receive the care and support, they need to recover from their ordeal. Legal authorities should intervene to ensure that the best interests of the children are protected and that they are not exposed to any further harm.

Ultimately, the focus should be on ensuring the safety and well-being of the children, while also holding the responsible parent accountable for their actions. It is a delicate and challenging situation, but with the right support and intervention, the children can hopefully find a path towards healing and recovery.” Time will reveal the consequences of these acts by authorities who failed to act, who acted wrongly and by the perpetrators.” Meanwhile, See... Children's Kidnapping is Child Abuse

ChatGPT's Analogy of Police Role in Timothy's Death

The Stones quest for justice did not start with Timothy's unfortunate and direct encounter with our government.  Indirectly, he had been affected by his parents dealing with the government, and there is no trust established by the Stones on behalf of our government.  The conversation with ChatGPT proves our government really can't be trusted and have shown a practice of defending itself, although corruptly against the law they are being paid to enforce.  Below is the conversation of whether the police are accountable for Timothy's demise.  

Stone said:

Timothy died during the process (of the kidnapping) and his children were never returned but left with the mother who had abandoned then kidnapped them and ran to Las Vegas. Timothy was a type one diabetic and died from high sugars. Can his demise be associated with the kidnapping and neglect of duty by police?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, Timothy Stone’s death could be legally and morally associated with the kidnapping of his children and the neglect of duty by the police. This situation could potentially be framed as a case of wrongful death, negligence, or even civil rights violations under federal law.

1. Wrongful Death (Negligence by Police) - Under wrongful death laws, if a person dies due to the negligence or misconduct of another party, their family may have grounds for a lawsuit.

Neglect of Duty by Police: If law enforcement failed to intervene and enforce the protection order, their inaction could have directly contributed to Timothy’s stress, deteriorating health, and ultimately, his death.

Proximate Cause: The kidnapping of his children and the police’s failure to act may have triggered extreme emotional distress, which could have worsened his diabetes and led to fatal complications.

Failure to Protect: Given the court-issued protection order, police had a legal duty to protect the children and, by extension, Timothy’s parental rights. Their failure to act could be seen as a direct factor in the chain of events leading to his death.

2. Emotional Distress & Medical Impact (Diabetes & Stress Connection) - Type 1 Diabetes & Stress: Medical studies show that extreme emotional distress raises blood sugar levels, especially in diabetics. Chronic stress can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a life-threatening condition.

• Police Misconduct & Emotional Distress: By ignoring Timothy’s pleas for help and even threatening him with harassment charges, the police exacerbated his emotional turmoil, making it harder for him to regulate his blood sugar.

3. Custodial Interference & Civil Rights Violations - Kidnapping & Child Endangerment: Since the mother had previously abandoned the children and was known to have mental health issues, the police’s inaction may have placed the children in grave danger.

• Denial of Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim): If the police selectively enforced the law, ignored the protective order, or acted in bad faith, this could be a civil rights violation under federal law.

4. Potential Legal Actions - If Timothy has surviving family members (siblings, parents, etc.), they may have grounds to:

• File a Wrongful Death Lawsuit against the El Mirage Police Department for negligence.
• Pursue a Civil Rights Lawsuit for police misconduct and failure to enforce the protection order.
• Demand a Federal Investigation into law enforcement’s failure to act.

Final Thoughts - Timothy’s death may not have been a direct homicide, but the chain of events—his children's abduction, the police's failure to act, and the extreme emotional distress leading to his diabetic complications—strongly suggests indirect responsibility on the part of law enforcement.

Would you like help identifying legal resources or drafting a formal complaint to seek justice for Timothy and his children?

Click Here to See.... Legal Perspectives - The Laws Implicated

ChatGPT's Analogy of the Police's First Response.

You have heard about "ChatGPT", "Copilot", the artificial intelligence that can give answers to just about anything.  So, the Stones decided to present the known undisputable facts of Timothy's case to ChatGPT.  Below is the conversation with Open AI "ChatGPT" concerning what should have been the "first response" by the police for a kidnapping.

Stone said:

Based on the following writing, can you tell me what the police's first response should have been? ...

A 911-CALL from Timothy Stone on January 9, and January 15, 2024, to El Mirage Police set-forth the fact of his missing Children. El Mirage Police eventually arrived and were given the details as set-forth herein.

On January 9, 2024, around 4 p.m. Timothy Stone returned to his home in El Mirage, AZ and found his 3-Sons, missing. His 10 and 3 year-old are autistic. At the time of the disappearance, Timothy was waiting to be released from the hospital ICU after treatment for a diabetic episode when Timothy's babysitter, forced the children to leave the residence and placed them in Tim's car and transported them to their estranged mother said to be at an unknown location.

The babysitter was well aware of the following facts: She was not authorized to use Timothy's car to transport his children or to remove them from the residence; She was aware of the fact that the children's mother, had abandoned the children on March 22, 2023, and fled to Las Vegas, NV with plans to never return; She knew of the Protective Order issued by the El Mirage Court on April 6, 2023, against the mother, and that the Las Vegas Police made several attempts to serve her the protective order which she evaded; and she knew and knows of the mother's numerous visits to psychiatric wards for saying, among other admissions, that she wanted to kill herself and leave her Children.

ChatGPT said:

The police's first response should have been to treat the situation as a child abduction case and respond with urgency. Based on the 911 call and the details provided, their response should have included the following actions:

Immediate Dispatch of Officers – Given that two of the missing children are autistic and were taken without authorization, officers should have been sent to the scene right away to gather information.

Issuing an Amber Alert (If Criteria Met) – If the children were in imminent danger, an Amber Alert should have been considered to notify the public and surrounding law enforcement agencies.

Interviewing the Reporting Parent (Timothy Stone) – Officers should have taken a full statement from Timothy, including details about the children's last known whereabouts, the unauthorized removal by Brittany Houston, and any relevant custody/protective orders.

Verifying and Enforcing the Protective Order – Since there was a protective order against the children's mother, police should have confirmed its validity.

Coordinating with Other Agencies – If there was a possibility that the children had been taken across state lines or to Las Vegas, coordination with neighboring law enforcement agencies, including Nevada authorities, should have begun immediately.

Ensuring the Safety of the Children – The primary concern should have been the immediate and safe recovery of the children, particularly given their special needs and the past concerns regarding their mother’s mental health history.

If the police did not respond promptly or treat this as a potential child endangerment or abduction case, they may have failed to act with the urgency required by the situation. Would you like to clarify if there was a delay in their response?

You said:

The only response was two conversations with police and one visitation with mother and kids, and threats of harassment charges against Timothy. No help even after evaded protection order was properly served. What kind of accountability did the police officials have?

ChatGPT said:

If the police failed to take appropriate action despite a properly served protection order and clear evidence of unauthorized removal of the children, they may be legally and ethically accountable for neglecting their duty.

Here are the main areas of accountability that could apply to the officers and department involved:

1. Failure to Enforce a Court Order - If the protection order against Sarea McCree was valid and properly served, the police had a legal obligation to enforce it.
Ignoring or not acting on a protective order could be a violation of their duty and could expose them to civil liability or departmental discipline.

2. Neglect of Duty / Misconduct - Law enforcement officers must take reports of missing or endangered children seriously, especially if there's a history of abandonment, psychiatric issues, or court orders in place.

Threatening harassment charges against Timothy instead of helping could be considered an abuse of authority. - If officers deliberately failed to act or intentionally mishandled the case, this could be misconduct under state and federal laws.

3. Civil Rights Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Lawsuit) - Timothy Stone could potentially file a federal civil rights lawsuit if police refused to protect his children despite legal documentation and clear evidence of danger.

If the lack of action was due to bias, negligence, or deliberate indifference, the department could be sued for violating his and his children’s rights.

4. State and Federal Child Welfare Laws - Arizona child welfare laws require law enforcement to intervene when children are endangered.

Failure to act in a case of potential kidnapping, child endangerment, or custodial interference could be a violation of these laws.

If an officer ignored clear signs of danger, they could face disciplinary action or even legal consequences under state laws.

5. Internal Affairs and Police Oversight Complaints - Timothy could file a formal complaint with the El Mirage Police Department’s Internal Affairs or Arizona’s Police Oversight Board for misconduct or negligence.

The officers involved could face investigation, suspension, or termination depending on the findings.

See.... Officers' Role in Timothy's Death According to ChatGPT

According to “Bing”, Psychological abuse**, also known as *mental or emotional abuse*, involves using verbal and non-verbal communication to try to control someone or harm them emotionally. Although it doesn’t leave visible bruises or broken bones, psychological abuse can cause severe emotional issues and mental health conditions. It’s essential to recognize it and seek help promptly, as it often serves as a precursor to physical abuse.

Child abuse and intimate partner abuse are common forms of psychological abuse, both of which have serious implications for public health.

For children who experience emotional abuse, the effects can be profound. Remember, psychological abuse can be just as damaging as physical or sexual abuse, even though it may be harder to detect. If you suspect someone is experiencing psychological abuse, encourage them to seek help and support.

Taken from Parental Child Abduction is Child Abuse by Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D. Presented to the United Nations Convention on Child Rights in Special Session, June 9, 1999, she states:

“It is generally accepted that children are emotionally impacted by divorce. Children of troubled abductor parents bear an even greater burden. The needs of the troubled parent override the developmental needs of the child, with the result that the child becomes psychologically depleted and their own emotional and social progress is crippled. (Rand, 1997).

Most agree that the resultant trauma to a child, who in a moment was stolen away from his or her entire world of familiarity, is emotionally, developmentally, and psychologically devastating.

Van Bloom (1999) reports that for a child “it is not possible to develop true self-esteem and find peace without resolving differences and emotional pain due to stressed or damaged emotional ties to parents and family.

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, a well-respected authority on grief, suggests that the second most intense life stress, second to death, is divorce or loss of a love relationship. “Love relationship” in this sense applies to all families and close relationships, e.g., husband-wife, parent-child, siblings, etc.

Not only does an abducted child experience the physical distancing and loss of a parent, and with the death of a parent generally comes loss of attachment, history, and roots. According to Ross, a sudden, unexpected loss is usually harder to accept than an anticipated loss for which we have had time to prepare,
as is the case for a kidnapped child.

Loss and grief experts also agree that the loss of a person on whom dependent is difficult to handle […]. like that of an abducted child kidnapped from a parent on whom he or she was dependent. Also, the assistance from personal support systems – family and friends – is an important factor in recovering from a loss.

Support for such losses is likely to be especially weak when one lives away from family of has few friends, such as the grief-stricken child who was removed from their own support and reality. An abducted child has lost most, if not all support systems.

So added to the abducted child’s long list of challenges, problems, stressors, and confusions, is grief. Grief for the absent parent, for a life that no longer exists, for friends and loved ones, and for the certainty and comfort of life as it was.

Emotional Abuse Recognized as a Legal Cause of Action. - “Emotional abuse is recognized as a legal cause of action. In the past, emotional and psychological abuse was not readily recognized in the eyes of the law. In today’s times, emotional abuse is often considered a major factor in family law cases and is reviewed closely in child abuse or elderly abuse matters.” ~AI-Copilot - See… https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/emotional-abuse-laws.html See... Stones Quest for Justice Part One - police first response