Tortuous Killing of Timothy Paul Stone

After the Kidnapping and Death of Their Father, Federal Judge Susan M. Brnovich Followed the Defendant Officials in Keeping the Children with Their Captors and Preventing Their Day in Court

The 'Wrongful Death' and 'Civil Rights' lawsuit filed in Federal Court tells of a troubling chain of events involving a continuing kidnapping, protection orders, law enforcement inaction, and the death of Arizona father, Timothy Paul Stone.

The civil lawsuit, brought by Timothy's parents, Reverend John Stone and Shirley Stone, raises serious questions about the protection of vulnerable adult and children, the enforcement of court orders, and the responsibilities of public officials when families report imminent danger. The lawsuit seeks accountability for what the plaintiffs describe as a series of failures that culminated in the death of Timothy Paul Stone on March 2, 2024, after 54-days of attempting to retrieve his children.

A Family in Crisis

According to the court filings, Timothy was a dedicated father of three boys, two of whom had been diagnosed with autism. He was employed by Cox Communications for 12-years and had lived with Type 1 diabetes since childhood.  The lawsuit provided that Timothy became the children's primary custodial parent after his estranged wife, Sarea McCree, abandoned the family and relocated to Nevada in March 2023. Court proceedings that followed reportedly resulted in protection orders intended to protect both Timothy and the children from alleged threats of kidnapping and harm. The Stones had presented proof that the legal system had already recognized concerns regarding the children's safety months before the events that would unfold on January 9, 2024.

January 9, 2024: The Day Everything Changed

The lawsuit stated that on January 9, 2024, Timothy was hospitalized during a serious diabetic emergency. While he was awaiting his release, Brittany Houston, the babysitter and household resident, took his automobile and removed his three children from their home without authorization. The children were transported and delivered to Sarea and her sister, Heiress Dupree, despite existing court orders that prohibited contact between them. When Stone returned home from the hospital and discovered his children were gone, he immediately contacted law enforcement. What followed forms the core of the Stones' claims.

Claims of Inaction

The lawsuit claims that local law enforcement officers were informed that the children had been taken without permission and were made aware of the existence of valid protection orders.  According to the complaint, officers acknowledged the court orders and recognized the potential danger posed to the children, yet no meaningful effort was made to recover them. The Stones also professed that Timothy and his family repeatedly contacted police departments, elected officials, judges, and state agencies seeking assistance; more than 200 notices, complaints, reports, emails, and communications were said sent to various government officials during the days of non-action. Among those contacted, according to the lawsuit, were representatives of the Governor's Office, the Attorney General's Office, local police leadership, and members of the judiciary. The Stones assert that despite these repeated warnings, no agency took effective action to secure the return of the children.

The Human Cost

As the weeks passed, Timothy reportedly became increasingly desperate to locate and recover his children. The lawsuit describes a father caught between a medical condition that required careful management and an escalating emotional crisis involving the loss of contact with his children. Family members witnessed the ongoing separation, combined with the stress of navigating the legal system and seeking help from authorities, severely affected his health. On March 2, 2024—54 days after the children were taken—Timothy was found dead in his apartment. The lawsuit contends that the emotional trauma associated with the kidnapping and the subsequent failures of authorities directly contributed to his death.

What Happened After His Death?

The controversy did not end with Timothy's passing. According to the complaint, hearings were held after his death concerning emergency motions that had been filed in an effort to rescue the children and enforce existing court orders. The lawsuit stated that the court declined to address key issues surrounding the children's welfare and that opportunities to present evidence regarding their safety were denied. The lawsuit further claimed that the children remained separated from their paternal family and that concerns regarding their well-being continue today.

Protection Orders Issued, Ignored to Not Enforce

Beyond the specific facts of one family's tragedy, the Stone's case raises broader questions about how government agencies respond when parents report that children are in danger.

In Timothy's last motion filed with the municipal court and entered as an exhibit with their 'Emergency Motions", he told the court, "The defendant (Sarea) has displayed to this Court that She is subject to disregard any Order this Court issues. The defendant has also shown that she will abandon her Children whenever she feels like it. She believes there should be NO consequences for emotionally abusing her children. The defendant knows that 2 of her children are autistic. The defendant's acts against her children are “Cold-Blooded”. The plaintiff has evidence where the defendant made sure the children were watching her attempt suicide on 2-separate occasions, the a few months later abandoning the family when she fled to Las Vegas, NV."

The above was evidenced in the court filings indicating why the protection order were against the mother and why the grandparents are concerned. Municipal Judge Michael Parascandola, a defendant, dismissed the protection order he gave the children, taking away their protection, violating their constitutional rights because their dad had died.

The lawsuit challenges whether existing child-protection systems function effectively when multiple agencies possess information about the harm or possible harm but fail to coordinate action. It also raises questions regarding accountability when court orders exist but are not enforced.

The Insurance Dispute

The case also involves a dispute over life insurance benefits. Following Timothy's death, the plaintiffs contend that they submitted extensive documentation to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) challenging the eligibility of the policy's primary beneficiary. The lawsuit alleges that despite receiving numerous documents and communications concerning the circumstances surrounding Timothy's death, the insurer ultimately declined to disqualify the beneficiary, Sarea. As a result, the complaint includes claims involving insurance benefits, fiduciary duties, and related financial damages.

The Legal Claims

The Stones filed the wrongful death claim, under Arizona Revised Statute § 12-612, which states that minor children are "parties in interest" (statutory beneficiaries) and that the statute explicitly requires the lawsuit to be filed on their behalf. ARS 12-612 designates surviving spouses, children, and parents as the primary statutory beneficiaries. But Judge Brnovich ruled that the children were "not parties in interest" and questioned the grandparents' "standing".

The federal lawsuit contains a wide range of allegations, including:

• Wrongful Death
• Civil rights violations
• Custodial interference
• Kidnapping and false imprisonment
• Conspiracy to violate civil rights
• Negligence
• Emotional distress
• Elder abuse
• Child endangerment
• Vulnerable Adult and Child abuse
• Insurance-related claims
• Breach of fiduciary duty

The defendants named in the lawsuit include private individuals, law enforcement personnel, public officials, judges, and corporate entities. At this stage, the claims asserted by the plaintiffs had not been addressed in court by a jury, and as such, the Stones and their grandchildren were denied due process of law, and the "Order is Void" for "Fraud on Court".

Why This Case Matters

For the Stone family, the case is about far more than legal claims or financial damages. They argue that it concerns the constitutional rights of children, the government’s duty to protect vulnerable individuals, and the responsibility of institutions to follow the law and act when lives are at stake. In their view, the litigation should have been allowed to move forward, and the questions at issue should have been examined by a jury rather than decided by what they believe was a partial judge acting on camaraderie rather than statutory law.

The US Constitution and Case Law Provides the Following:

Article VI Clause 2 declares: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; [...] under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...

"The concept of the written constitution is that it defines the authority of government and its limits, that government is the creature of the constitution and cannot do what it does not authorize and must not do what it forbids."

In Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803) it is stated that "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

Chief Justice Taney similarly stated that, "so long as the Constitution remains in its present form, it speaks “not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent” as when it was framed, ratified, and adopted by the people of the United States. "Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 426 (1857).

[...] judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding acting upon seditious legislative acts joins the conspiracy of subversion; “[...] if then the courts are to regard the constitution and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Supreme Court Justice Field stated, "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, [...]" Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)

"The recognition of children's right to be heard and to participate in decision-making processes is an essential aspect of their civil rights in the United States. This principle is rooted in various international conventions, most notably the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which emphasizes that children should have the opportunity to express their views freely on all matters that affect them."

Children Violated, Statutory Rights Denied

The Stones contend that within days of filing the complaint they and their three grandchildren were retaliated against by Federal District Court Judge Susan M. Brnovich. Judge Brnovich set-forth in her May 28, 2026, order that she did not believe that the three minor children were kidnapped and were in much DANGER.

On November 19, 2025, the Stones filed an EMERGENCY MOTION, with correlating documents, that justified the "rescue' of the children. Judge Brnovich had before her all the evidence that she has now. Judge Brnovich knew that all three kidnappers had valid protections orders against them and that all three children and their father were the petitioning plaintiffs on those protection orders. The kidnappers were not to come near the children or the father because they were a danger to them. The kidnappers had crossed from Nevada to Arizona to severely injure the kid's father and kidnap the children. Court documents provided that the kidnappers had threatened to "MESS UP" the father and kidnap the kids on April 5, 2023, during a telephonic conversation.

Judge Brnovich left the children with the "dangerous" kidnappers knowing that one of the kidnappers "self-diagnosed as having PTSD” and is the children's estranged mother who had abandoned them for almost a year. Sarea has a long history and pattern of psychotic episodes as demonstrated in court documents that she literally gathered the children together and attempted suicide on several occasions. One of the other kidnappers, Brittany Houston, was out of jail on bond for crimes committed against her own minor children and was believed caused Timothy's diabetic condition, that led to his hospital visit on January 9, 2024, the day of the kidnapping.

The Stones asserted in their Motion to Vacate May 28, 2026, Order, Judge Brnovich “elected” to grossly violate her oath and numerous laws by getting rid of by first sanitizing and twisting the facts in the First Amendment Complaint (FAC) and the Emergency Motions into a narrative that would AID the unlawful escape from justice for Governor Hobbs, Attorney General Mayes, and the other defendants; and keep the children as kidnapped victims, denying their beneficiary and constitutional rights.

Read the Stones "Omnibus Motion to Vacate the Order", "First Amendment Complaint", and "Emergency Motions". Get the Judge's May 28, 2026, order for federal Case No: CV25-04158-PHX-SMB from Pacer.com.

The Stones vow to exhaust every legal remedy available to them to restore the rights of the children. The Stones are asking for public support to fight for the children's constitutional civil and human rights that give rise to violations of all children, as a pattern and practice of Arizona's legal system that ignores the law at a whim.  See video; Broken System-Fight for Civil Rights 

Help Restore the Children's Civil and Human Rights. Click Here to Donate to the Stone's Legal Fund.

Common law, often referred to as judge-made law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. It is fundamentally different from statutory law, which is explicitly enacted through legislation by legislative bodies. Common law evolves through judicial decisions, where the rulings made by judges in individual cases become precedents for future cases. This process ensures that laws adapt over time, reflecting changes in societal values and norms while still providing consistency and reliability in legal interpretations.

In the Constitution Memorandum of Law for ARTICLE III COURTS, it states, "God’s covenant founded upon the law of the land is eternal and cannot be broken on behalf of another. This law is called common law because it is common onto all men or natural law because it is innate, written in the hearts of men. Thereby the authority vested in 'We the People' instituted by decree in our Constitution created a republican form of government to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

The Foundations of Common Law

Within the constitutional memorandum, common law is regarded as 'God’s covenant,' illustrating its essential role in upholding morality and justice within society. This characterization emphasizes that the principles of common law are not merely constructed by human legislation but rather are seen as divinely ordained guidelines that all individuals are bound to respect. The moral underpinnings of common law establish an innate sense of right and wrong that transcends the written law, providing a compass for legal and ethical behavior.

"Persons similarly situated should be treated the same and criminal justice must be evenly dispensed". State laws must be applied fairly, not with a heavy hand and evil eye". Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

When Statutory Law Falls Short in Clarity

Common law plays a pivotal role in the legal system, acting as a crucial gap-filler when statutory law falls short in clarity or comprehensiveness. Statutory laws are often drafted with a specific intent, addressing particular scenarios. However, they may leave certain situations unaddressed or ambiguous, creating a void that must be filled to uphold justice and legal consistency. In these instances, common law steps in to provide guidance and resolution. Common law, through judicial decisions, establishes precedents that clarify liability and compensatory measures in unregulated scenarios, ensuring that every individual’s rights remain protected.

In the Stones’ wrongful death lawsuit and their emergency motion to regain custody of the children, their claims rely on both common law and statutory law. While statutory law can supersede or modify common law, the two systems often operate together in a layered and interconnected way. In this case, however, the statutory and common law grounds invoked by the Stones create a clear and explicit legal framework. Because these laws are already well-defined, there are no gaps that require the court to fill them in through additional judicial interpretation.

In the Stone’s ongoing legal proceedings highlighted in the complaints, an alarming factor emerged: a communication from the chief of police, which indicated that the authorities decided that the case was not kidnapping but custodial interference, and they would not intervene in his circumstances. This raises serious questions regarding the adherence to statutory obligations and the processes followed by police in such delicate cases.

Custodial interference is a legal term that refers to the act of one parent unlawfully retaining or taking a child from the legal custody of the other parent. It is important to distinguish custodial interference from kidnapping; while both involve the unlawful taking or retention of a child, kidnapping typically implies a malicious intent to harm or exploit the victim as well as the unlawfully retention of the child. In contrast, custodial interference often arises from disputes pertaining to custody agreements, where one parent may feel justified in their actions, despite violating the other parent's legal rights.

Custodial interference usually involves violating a custody agreement (like keeping a child longer than allowed or taking them without permission), while kidnapping is the unlawful taking and restraint of a person with intent to harm, hide, or deny access. Custodial interference is often a misdemeanor; kidnapping is always a felony.

Implication of Having a Court Order

In the Stone's claims they provided copies of court orders; the paternity order, the conditions for custodial rights, and the protection orders, all indicating full custodial rights of the father.  The mother ignored those orders and took the children in violation.

The implications of having a protective order in place significantly influence instances of custodial interference. Such orders are designed to protect custodial parents and their children, particularly in cases where there is a history of child abuse, domestic violence, or threats. When a protective order is issued, it clearly outlines the custodial rights of the primary caretaker, asserting that any attempt by the other parent to contravene those rights may result in legal consequences. Unfortunately, the vulnerable adult custodial parents must constantly navigate the emotional and legal ramifications of non-compliance from the other parent, which can lead to significant distress.

The Father's Battle: A Timeline of Events

The heartbreaking story of a father's struggle to secure the safety and return of his children unfolds through a series of harrowing events. The timeline begins with the father experiencing a diabetic episode that led to his admission to a medical facility. This medical crisis left him vulnerable, highlighting the necessity for a proactive approach by law enforcement to safeguard his civil rights and the rights of his children. Despite a protective order in place, which should have served as an assurance against potential kidnapping or custodial interference, the situation escalated. Upon his release from medical care, the father was met with the devastating news that his children had been taken by their mother.

The abduction occurred in a shocking violation of the protective order designed to safeguard both the father and the children. The father's immediate attempts to reach out to the authorities were met with obstacles that further compounded his distress. It became evident that the mandatory duty of police in such sensitive circumstances was not adequately executed, as the father faced significant challenges in asserting his rights. He navigated a series of interactions with law enforcement, expressing concern not only for his children’s safety but also for the possible implications of child abuse and neglect due to the mother’s actions.

As days turned into weeks, the father remained steadfast in his pursuit of justice. He diligently documented each encounter, carefully noting the responses from authorities who seemed to not care to take decisive action. The father also reached out to various support organizations aimed at protecting vulnerable adults and children, seeking assistance in response to the civil rights violations he and his children faced. This challenging timeline serves as a stark reminder of the critical role that law enforcement must play in preventing such distressing situations and ensuring the well-being of families embroiled in custody disputes. 

The Role of Law Enforcement: Response and Accountability

The duty of police encompasses a broad range of responsibilities, particularly in responding to incidents involving vulnerable individuals such as children. In this case of custodial interference, the law enforcement's response raises significant questions regarding their decision-making process when labeling the incident. The classification of the situation as custodial interference, rather than a direct act of kidnapping, indicates a tendency to downplay the severity of the offenses involved, which can have dire consequences for the children involved. Custodial parents often expect police to act decisively in retrieving their children and enforcing protective orders, yet in this instance, such enforcement was lacking.

When police encounter situations involving custodial disputes, there exists an expectation of swift action, particularly in scenarios where the safety of a vulnerable adult or a minor is at risk. Not only does the immediate intervention serve to protect the rights of the custodial parent, but it also contributes to ensuring that civil rights violations do not occur. A failure to act can inadvertently perpetuate child abuse and further the cycle of custodial interference, leaving victims vulnerable and without recourse. Legal experts emphasize that in circumstances warranting intervention, it is the mandatory duty of police to enforce protective orders rigorously and swiftly to avoid tragic outcomes.

Arizona Revised Statute 8-901

According to Arizona Revised Statute 8-901, law enforcement officers are required to take specific actions when allegations of custodial interference or kidnapping arise. This statute establishes a mandatory duty, indicating that police cannot simply choose to refrain from assisting in cases where custodial rights are jeopardized. In the context of a recent wrongful death lawsuit and certified criminal complaint, this duty becomes particularly critical.

Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 8 for Child Safety states under ARS § 8-901 for missing, kidnapped or runaway children, provides that:

1. A law enforcement agency that receives a report of a missing, kidnapped or runaway child shall do all of the following:
2. Within two hours after receiving the report and all necessary and available information, submit the following information to the Arizona crime information center, the national crime information center computer networks and the national missing and unidentified persons system:

(a) The name, date of birth, sex, race, height, weight and eye and hair color of the child.

(b) A recent photograph of the child, if available.

(c) The date and location of the last known contact with the child.

(d) The category under which the child is reported missing.

2. Not later than thirty days after the original entry of the record, verify and update the record with any additional information, including, where available, medical and dental records and a photograph taken during the previous one hundred eighty days.
3. Institute or assist with appropriate search and investigative procedures.
4. Maintain a close liaison with state and local child welfare systems and the national center for missing and exploited children for the exchange of information and technical assistance in the missing child case.
5. Grant permission to the national crime information center terminal contractor for this state to update the missing child record in the national crime information center computer networks with additional information that is learned during the investigation and that relates to the missing child.
6. A law enforcement agency that receives a report of a missing, kidnapped or runaway child who is in the foster care system shall notify the national center for missing and exploited children in addition to the entities listed in subsection A of this section.
7. An entry may not be removed from any database or system until the child is found, or the case is closed.

When law enforcement dismisses their mandatory duties as outlined in statute 8-901, the implications of law enforcement's inaction are profound, as they not only affect the immediate situation but can also set a precedent for future cases of custodial disputes. By examining the systemic failures within law enforcement responses to cases of custodial interference and kidnapping, a clearer understanding emerges regarding the need for accountability in protecting civil rights.

A Tragic Conclusion Calls for Reform

The painful experience faced by the father in this gripping case serves as a somber reminder of the broader implications stemming from police inaction. As he fought desperately to regain custody of his children, the emotional toll on not just him but the entire family was profound. The journey toward battling what many perceive as a mandatory duty of police to protect children's rights unfortunately oftentimes leads to feelings of abandonment and despair among family members caught in the crossfire of custody disputes.

Unfortunately, the culmination of this fight ended tragically, as the father ultimately lost not only his children but also his life due to the overwhelming emotional distress. This heartbreaking outcome starkly highlights the inadequacies present within the current system regarding custodial interference and the subsequent inability to protect the most vulnerable—the children. The case raises pressing questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement's response to kidnapping instances and civil rights violations that exceedingly occur in this context. Are the police equipped and properly trained to handle such sensitive situations, especially when they involve vulnerable adults and the dynamics of child abuse?  Do they care?

This tragic conclusion has inspired a clarion call for substantial reform in how custodial interference cases are approached. It underscores the need for a major reevaluation of existing policies and the implementation of better training for law enforcement officers tasked with enacting the mandatory duty of police. Stakeholders must engage in open conversations surrounding policy changes that can prevent such tragedies from recurring. A more compassionate and informed approach is essential to better protect children's rights and ensure that families are supported during these emotionally charged conflicts.  See, Understanding 'Shall' and 'May' in Child Safety Legislation

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.

See Custodial Interference or Kidnapping a Father's Fight

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 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.

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