The Full Story
Joel Hanger and Stephanie Stephens — husband and wife — two cases, one fraud architecture, linked by the same actors and carried forward by the same courts. This is not advocacy. This is the record.
Why This Organization Exists
The Family Justice Alliance grew out of a documented fact. A fraud was committed in a Maricopa County courtroom in 2012. It was proven in that same courtroom in 2021. Nine years later, the court that heard the admission has still made no finding on it. The restriction framework built on that fraud is still operative today.
We are Joel Hanger and Stephanie Stephens — husband and wife. Joel is the respondent in FC2012-070854, a divorce and custody proceeding that should have concluded by decree in 2012 but became a twelve-year documented pattern of false reporting, perjury, financial fraud, and judicial carry-forward of a contaminated record. Stephanie is the petitioner in FC2017-002028, survivor of domestic violence and parental alienation.
FC2017 is not a separate version of the same playbook. It is the same playbook, run by a later actor who was actively coordinating with the original one. Kovacs funded and directed cross-case attorney contact between his FC2017 counsel and Schudel's FC2012 counsel (RT1322-8SD, May 2019). Schudel's authenticated text to Kovacs (RT1296-8SD, May 24, 2019) supplied the architecture for the 2019 DCS reports that ran in FC2012. The two cases share a single contamination chain, sourced by the same actors, carried forward by the same courts.
Between us, we have six children. Two of them were abducted by Kovacs and held in a DCS dependency for one year before the juvenile court vacated it on coached-allegation grounds. Three others remain subject to a restriction framework in FC2012 that traces directly to a perjured order of protection, a suppressed DCS finding, and a contaminated record that FC2012 court refuses to correct.
The fraud in my case was not a theory. It was admitted under oath, on the record, in open court, by the person who committed it. The judge sitting that day made no finding on it. Three subsequent judges have treated the contaminated record as settled fact. The supervised-only restriction framework derived from that fraud remains in force.
This is what FJA.family was built to document and expose: not the fraud itself, but the system's indifference to it once it is proven.
What follows is the record. Citations are to docket entries, page numbers, and transcript line numbers. Where a court or witness spoke directly, I quote it.
Case One
FC2012-070854 — Schudel v. Hanger
Maricopa County Superior Court • 2012 to present
Where It Actually Started: 2012
The fraud did not begin in 2019 with the neck allegation. It began at the very first hearing in this case — May 8, 2012, before Judge Chavez — with a coordinated scheme between Robyn Schudel and her employer, Sommer Kinnan.
Schudel filed an Order of Protection against me in April 2012 containing a false allegation: that the youngest child, McKinleigh, might not be mine. That allegation was placed on a sworn document under penalty of perjury. McKinleigh is my daughter. The allegation was fabricated.
At the May 8, 2012 hearing, Sommer Kinnan appeared as a witness and testified under oath that she and Schudel were not close friends. Schudel testified at the same hearing, under oath, that they were friends who socialized outside of work. My attorney, Mr. Thomas, identified the contradiction directly on the record. One of the two witnesses committed perjury. Both were under oath. Both were sworn.
Simultaneously, Kinnan filed her own separate harassment injunction against me, based on the same fabricated narrative that I had threatened her at work. Both instruments — Schudel's OOP and Kinnan's harassment injunction — were later quashed and dismissed. The original harassment narrative was false.
Despite that, Judge Chavez entered the following finding at the May 8, 2012 hearing:
Temporary Orders Hearing — May 8, 2012 (Judge Chavez)
"Clearly, I'm hearing a lot of evidence regarding coercive control ... Threatening her boss is domestic violence. I mean, it's in the realm of domestic violence by threatening and intimidating, which seems to be a pattern. And threatening mother also. But all the threatening and intimidation, I think clearly falls within the realm of domestic violence and coercive control."
The "pattern" Chavez identified rested entirely on Schudel's testimony and Kinnan's corroborating testimony. Both witnesses had been directly contradicted at the same hearing. The OOP was later quashed. Kinnan's injunction was later dismissed. The fabricated "threatening the boss" narrative that supported both instruments was provably false.
That Chavez finding — "coercive control," "domestic violence," "pattern" — was then carried forward by every subsequent judge in this case without re-examination: VandenBerg (2019-2020), Kiefer (2021-2022), Francis (2024). The supervised-only restriction framework in the 2024 UAR still traces back to this hearing and those two witnesses.
2019: The DCS Report and the Neck Allegation
In May 2019, Schudel alleged that I had physically assaulted my son Keegan during a handoff, pulling him from a car by his neck.
The allegation originated with a DCS report filed by Keegan as directed by his Mother. DCS investigated. DCS examined Keegan. DCS found no bruising and no physical evidence of any injury. The physical abuse finding was UNSUBSTANTIATED. That examination occurred within days of the alleged event. The result is in the DCS record as case 408934.
What DCS found instead: holding a child by the arms in self-defense. Law enforcement concurred. The Buckeye PD officer who responded documented the same account.
2021: The Admission on the Record
On April 22, 2021, at an evidentiary contempt hearing before Judge Kiefer, I cross-examined Schudel. She admitted, under oath, that she had intentionally lied on the 2012 OOP under penalty of perjury. Then her own attorney, Marc Grant, conducted redirect examination and extracted the full conspiracy on the record.
April 22, 2021 Hearing — Cross-Examination (Hanger v. Schudel)
Joel Hanger: "Isn't it true that the record reflects that you have misled the Court and intentionally lied on a document, subject to penalty of perjury, on an order of protection in 2012?"
Robyn Schudel: "Are you asking if I lied on the order of protection?"
Joel Hanger: "I'm asking if you've lied to the Court intentionally in the past on a—under penalty of perjury?"
Judge Kiefer: [Overruled Grant's objection] "Go ahead, ma'am, you can answer."
Robyn Schudel: "I would say, yes, I did."
Apr. 22, 2021 Hearing Tr. 3329-3395
April 22, 2021 — Redirect Examination (Attorney Marc Grant)
Marc Grant: "Did you lie in an order of protection in 2012?"
Robyn Schudel: "Yes."
Marc Grant: "And what did you say in that order of protection?"
Robyn Schudel: "That our youngest child, McKinleigh, may not be Joel's."
Marc Grant: "Where did you come up with the idea of saying that Mr. Hanger might not be the father of the child that you were currently pregnant with?"
Robyn Schudel: "Through my boss at the time."
Apr. 22, 2021 Hearing Tr. 3641-3758
"Through my boss at the time" is Sommer Kinnan. Schudel admitted under oath that the false paternity allegation on the 2012 OOP was directed by her employer. This is the confirmed, record-grounded conspiracy origin: a coordinated scheme between Schudel and Kinnan to fabricate a sworn court instrument. Both the OOP and Kinnan's simultaneous harassment injunction had already been quashed and dismissed. The admission in 2021 confirmed what the quashed instruments had already implied.
Judge Kiefer, who heard this admission directly and compelled the answer over Grant's objection, made no finding on it. He did not return to address it. He did not disturb any prior order that relied on the 2012 OOP as predicate. He entered no contempt finding. Schudel left that hearing with the same custody framework she entered with.
2019: The Playbook Runs Again
Seven years after the quashed OOP, the pattern repeated. In May 2019, a new DCS report alleged I had dragged my son Keegan from a car by his neck. The report was filed by Robyn Schudel's son from a prior relationship.
An authenticated text message (RT1296-8SD, May 24, 2019) shows what was happening behind the filing:
Authenticated Text Message — May 24, 2019 (RT1296-8SD) — Schudel to Kovacs
"Did they say how he was ripped out. By neck or arms? I had my son make a report..."
Schudel sent that message after the DCS report was already filed. She was asking Demetrius Kovacs — a man involved in a separate custody dispute against my wife — to confirm the mechanism of the allegation she had already directed her son to report. She had not witnessed the incident. She was constructing it.
The same day, Kovacs forwarded three evidence packages to Schudel: custody records from his own case, a notary forgery comparison, and a psychological report containing coached-allegation material against me. This was coordinated. It was not spontaneous.
DCS investigated. DCS examined Keegan. DCS found no bruising, no physical evidence of any injury. The physical abuse allegation was UNSUBSTANTIATED. Keegan told DCS he was held by his arms, not his neck. A Buckeye PD officer who responded documented the same account.
Then, at the October 14, 2020 trial, Schudel testified under oath:
Transcript — Oct. 14, 2020 (Tr. 10170:19-20)
"dragged him out of his car by his neck outside their window, on the side of the freeway and I made the report to DCS."
Transcript — Oct. 14, 2020 (Tr. 10239:16-17)
Q: "Did you observe bruising on Keegan's neck?"
Robyn Schudel: "Yes, I did."
Transcript — Oct. 14, 2020 (Tr. 13079-13080 — Cross)
Q: "Did DCS find any bruising on Keegan?"
Joel Hanger: "No."
The DCS record (case 408934) was available to both court-appointed advisors (CAA Lisa Dodd and BIA Claudia Work) under A.R.S. § 8-807(M). Both were present at the October 14, 2020 hearing. Neither disclosed the UNSUBSTANTIATED finding. Both carried the "neck" narrative forward.
That finding was not a surprise revealed at trial. The DCS investigation closed as UNSUBSTANTIATED in May 2019 — sixteen months before the October 14, 2020 trial. DCS case 408934 had been in existence, with its result documented, for the entire intervening period. Dodd and Work had statutory access to it throughout. When they stood before the court in October 2020 and presented — or failed to correct — the neck-injury narrative as though it reflected credible abuse, they were doing so with full access to a DCS record that had already disproved it more than a year earlier. The coached fabrication had been identified by DCS long before either advisor put pen to paper.
Kovacs's role here is as a facilitator, not the originator. The false DCS report was Schudel's instrument, directed by Schudel, filed by Schudel's son. Kovacs supplied supplementary materials and coordination. The method is identical to 2012: Schudel uses a third party to file the false instrument and denies direct involvement.
The November 2020 Ruling
The court-appointed advisor's report filed November 24, 2020 (IOR 413, Judge VandenBerg) contained the following finding on pages 9-10:
UAR — Nov. 24, 2020 — pp. 9-10 (IOR 413)
"There are no credibly presented acts of domestic violence or child abuse in this trial proceeding by either parent against to any of the Children at issue."
The same order imposed: sole legal decision-making to Mother; Father restricted to alternating weekends, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. only, no overnights; all prior holiday and graduation time suspended; expansion conditioned on a DV class, Sage assessment, treatment, and a full psychological evaluation.
A.R.S. § 25-411(J) is a SHALL NOT statute. It prohibits a court from restricting parenting time without a specific serious-endangerment finding. The order's own language negates the predicate for every restriction it imposes.
That framework has been carried forward in every subsequent order in this case. The January 2024 ruling by Judge Francis (IOR 645) — the currently operative order — restricts me to two hours of supervised parenting time every other Saturday. I bear 100% of the supervision costs.
My son Keegan. I have not had unsupervised time with him in over three years.
Three additional children in this case remain subject to the same restriction framework derived from the same contaminated record. At no point in any FC2012 proceeding has any court formally inquired into, recorded, or credited the wishes of any of those children regarding their relationship with their father. No guardian ad litem was appointed to represent their independent interests. No judge asked what they wanted. A.R.S. § 25-403(A)(4) requires courts to consider "the wishes of the child as to the custodian" when determining parenting arrangements. The orders restricting these children from unsupervised time with their father contain no findings on that factor — because no court ever asked them.
The Financial Record
Alongside the physical abuse allegations, the record documents more than $81,000 in financial fraud across the life of this case:
- Childcare costs overstated by $7,356 to $9,924+ per support period
- Income understated on Affidavits of Financial Information across 16 documented filings
- False dependent claims on federal tax returns from 2016 through 2022 at approximately $7,096 per year
- Fraudulent spousal maintenance claims
These figures come from the petitioner's own financial disclosures cross-referenced against tax records and check stubs in the record. The court-appointed advisors in this case had access to those disclosures. None of the overstatements were flagged in any advisor report filed in this proceeding.
Where FC2012-070854 Stands Now
The active Rule 85 motion in this case seeks the hearing that has never been held on the fraud-contamination chain that begins with the 2012 order of protection and runs through the still-operative 2024 restrictions. Every iteration of the restriction framework traces back to the same unadjudicated false-aggressor narrative.
FC2012 direct appeal avenues are exhausted. 1 CA-CV 24-0128 FC (decided February 13, 2025) affirmed the January 2024 Francis ruling. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review in CV-25-0085-PR on August 7, 2025. The Rule 85 / IOR 501 motion is the remaining active vehicle in FC2012. Two previously scheduled merits hearings on that motion were vacated before adjudication: IOR 469 (March 15, 2021) and IOR 617 (April 18, 2023). The motion has never been heard on its merits.
Case Two
FC2017-002028 / JD39289 / CR2020-118164
Maricopa County Superior, Juvenile, and Criminal Courts • 2017 to present
How Kovacs Entered the Playbook
Stephanie Stephens is my wife. Her custody case against Demetrius Kovacs (FC2017-002028) is the second case in this record. Kovacs was not the originator of this fraud pattern; he was a later adopter who connected with Schudel, used the same methods, and was eventually held accountable in ways Schudel never was.
The connection between the two cases is not inference. In May 2019 (RT1322-8SD), Kovacs directed his FC2017 attorney Lindsay Bautista to contact Schudel's FC2012 attorney Nicole Stoutner at Rader Sheldon Stoutner, and offered to pay any resulting costs. This is documented attorney-level coordination between Schudel's case and Kovacs's case, funded by Kovacs, targeting the same person (Joel Hanger), at a time when Kovacs was not a party to FC2012.
Stephanie's case ran the same sequence Schudel had already proven in 2012: false OOP, false DCS report, coached abuse allegations, biased court advisors omitting prior findings. The September 2017 decree in FC2017-002028 contains the following findings against Kovacs, all entered by the trial court after evidentiary proceedings:
The September 2017 decree in FC2017-002028 contains the following findings against Kovacs, all entered by the trial court after evidentiary proceedings:
FC2017-002028 Decree Findings — Sept. 22, 2017
"The report and OOP did not have a good faith basis."
"Father also made a complaint to DCS about Mother that did not have a good faith basis."
"He also filed a civil case against her that did not have a valid basis."
"Father did intentionally present evidence to the Court that he knew was not accurate or genuine and that he created the emails he presented after the fact."
"Father has engaged in alienating behaviors. He has told the Children negative things about Mother. Further, paternal grandmother also has bad mouthed Mother to the Children."
FC2017-002028 Decree / UAR pp. 7, 9
The September 2017 decree gave Stephanie primary custody. It should have ended the matter. It did not. Kovacs continued with the same methods for another four years until a criminal conviction and a dependency vacatur closed out his case with adverse findings on every point. He did not avoid consequences; he delayed them. He received a Class 3 Felony conviction and five years of supervised probation. The system, eventually, held him accountable.
The Abduction and the February 2020 Finding
In early 2020, Kovacs abducted the children. Before that happened, Judge Blaney entered the following finding in FC2017-002028 on February 14, 2020:
Temporary Orders — Feb. 14, 2020 (Judge Blaney, FC2017-002028)
"THE COURT FINDS that Father has worked to alienate the children away from Mother and that Father's actions create a risk to the children's mental and emotional wellbeing."
Kovacs absconded with the children despite that order. A warrant issued. Stephanie's path to recovering custody ran through a DCS dependency proceeding, case JD39289, filed by DCS investigator Oglesby. The dependency petition omitted the four family court findings listed above. All four were available to Oglesby before she filed.
The Dependency Proceedings and the Coaching Finding
In the JD39289 dependency proceeding, a different judge found the following. This is from the Report and Review / Permanency Planning Hearing order, entered March 12, 2021 by Judge Whitten:
RNRPRM Order — March 12, 2021 — pp. 2-3 (JD39289, Judge Whitten)
"THE COURT FINDS that it is harmful for the father to have contact with the children based on the father's coaching the children to make malicious allegations against the mother and her significant other, which could affect the children's mental health."
"The mother's significant other" is Joel Hanger. The same person Schudel's son reported to DCS in FC2012. The coaching finding in JD39289 names the same pattern: Kovacs coaching the children to make false allegations against me in the context of Stephanie's case.
The dependency itself was vacated on July 15, 2021 (IOR 646). Judge Whitten vacated it after finding:
Vacatur Order — July 15, 2021 — pp. 1-2 (JD39289, Judge Whitten)
"Both girls revealed that Father had coached them to make up false allegations against Mother's boyfriend. They told the case manager that none of the abuse allegations which formed the basis of the July 9, 2020 dependency were true. ... The question, then, is whether the Court would have ever found a dependency on the record that existed on July 9, 2020 without the problems created by Father encouraging the children to falsely accuse Mother's boyfriend of abuse. It certainly would not have."
"Mother's boyfriend" is, again, Joel Hanger. The juvenile court found independently that all abuse allegations against me in the JD39289 dependency were coached fabrications, and that the dependency would not have been entered without those fabrications.
Kovacs pleaded guilty in CR2020-118164 to a Class 3 Felony. He received five years of supervised probation.
Schudel: The Original Actor. Never Prosecuted.
It matters who started this and who has faced consequences for it. The answer to the first question is Robyn Schudel. The answer to the second question is: no one — except Demetrius Kovacs, who was a later-stage participant and was actually punished.
What the Record Shows About Robyn Schudel
- 2012 OOP fraud: Filed a sworn order of protection containing a false paternity allegation. Admitted under oath on April 22, 2021 that she intentionally lied on that document under penalty of perjury. Identified her employer Sommer Kinnan as the source of the false claim.
- Coordinated perjury with Kinnan: Both Schudel and Kinnan testified at the May 8, 2012 hearing. Their testimony about their own relationship directly contradicted each other under oath. Father's attorney impeached both at the same hearing. The OOP was quashed. Kinnan's simultaneous harassment injunction was dismissed. The narrative underlying both instruments was false.
- 2019 DCS fabrication: Directed her son to file a DCS report, then asked Kovacs after the fact: "Did they say how he was ripped out. By neck or arms?" (RT1296-8SD, May 24, 2019). Filed the report before knowing the mechanism of the allegation she was making.
- 2020 perjury at trial: Testified under oath that she observed bruising on Keegan's neck (Tr. 10239). DCS had already examined Keegan after the alleged incident and found no bruising. UNSUBSTANTIATED. No bruising. No physical evidence. The testimony was false.
- Financial fraud: Over $81,000 in documented AFI overstatements, income concealment, and false tax dependent claims spanning 2012 through 2022.
- Ongoing custodial interference: Parenting time ordered by the court has been denied, blocked, and circumvented. The children have been used as instruments against their father. The court has treated her testimony as credible at every proceeding despite the documented record of deliberate deception.
Robyn Schudel has not been charged with false reporting, perjury, fraud on the court, or conspiracy. She continues to receive child support under orders derived from the fraudulent record she created. She holds sole legal decision-making authority. The courts have never made a single adverse finding against her on any of the above items — including the perjury she admitted to on the stand.
Demetrius Kovacs: A Facilitator Who Was Actually Punished
Kovacs is the bad actor in Stephanie's case (FC2017-002028). He connected to my case in 2019 as a coordinator — supplying Schudel with evidence packages, offering to fund attorney-level coordination between their cases (RT1322-8SD), and being the recipient of Schudel's "By neck or arms?" message.
Unlike Schudel, Kovacs eventually faced consequences. He pleaded guilty to Abduction of Child from State Agency, Class 3 Felony (CR2020-118164). He was sentenced to five years of supervised probation. The juvenile dependency he caused was vacated. A juvenile court found expressly that he had coached children to fabricate abuse allegations and that contact with him was harmful to them.
The contrast is instructive. The man with the felony conviction, the coaching finding, the vacated dependency, and the credible-threat OOP against him faced actual legal consequences. The woman with the admitted perjury, the proven false DCS report, the authenticated coaching text message, and $81,000+ in documented financial fraud has faced none.
That asymmetry is what this organization exists to document.
Active Legal Fronts
1 CA-CV 24-0309 — Stephens v. State of Arizona
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One • Decided Feb. 27, 2025
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Stephanie's wrongful institution of civil proceedings claim against the State. The panel held that defendants "acted with conscious disregard for relevant judicial determinations and that they concealed the same." The court found that "defendants pursued the juvenile-court case based on abuse allegations that recent family-court rulings directly undermined." The case is remanded for further proceedings.
The State of Arizona petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. That petition (CV-25-0070-PR) is pending.
23-16019 — Stephens v. State of Arizona (9th Circuit)
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit • Decided Oct. 24, 2024 • Reversed and remanded
The 9th Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the federal civil rights claim. The panel held that social workers have no absolute immunity for fabricated evidence or false statements in dependency petition affidavits. The Section 1983 familial association claim was reinstated. The time-bar ruling was reversed; Oglesby's omission of the four family court findings was a continuing violation. Qualified immunity was deferred for the district court on remand.
CV-25-0070-PR — Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Supreme Court • State's petition for review of 1 CA-CV 24-0309 • Oral argument held Oct. 28, 2025
The State of Arizona petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals reversal in 24-0309. Oral argument was held October 28, 2025. Supplemental briefing was ordered March 26, 2026. The case remains pending. If the Supreme Court affirms, the "conscious disregard for relevant judicial determinations" malice standard applies with equal force to the FC2012 proceeding.
FC2012-070854 — Rule 85 Motion
Maricopa County Superior Court
The pending Rule 85 motion seeks the hearing that has never been held on the fraud-contamination chain running from the 2012 order of protection through the currently operative 2024 restrictions. The motion identifies a single connected chain: the same unadjudicated false-aggressor narrative, carried forward through every advisor report and modification order for twelve years, producing the current two-hour supervised framework. The fraud is not historical. It is producing current parental deprivation as of today.
CV-25-0085-PR — Hanger v. Schudel (Arizona Supreme Court)
Arizona Supreme Court • Petition for review of 1 CA-CV 24-0128 FC • Denied Aug. 7, 2025
Joel's petition for review of the 2025 Court of Appeals affirmance was denied August 7, 2025. FC2012 direct appeal avenues are exhausted. The Rule 85 / IOR 501 motion is the sole remaining active vehicle in FC2012.
1 CA-CV 24-0128 FC — Hanger v. Schudel (AZ Court of Appeals)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One • Decided Feb. 13, 2025
The Court of Appeals affirmed the January 2024 Francis ruling (IOR 645). The panel declined to reach the fraud-contamination argument, characterizing it as relitigating prior orders — the same characterization IOR 645 itself applied. The underlying sworn admission was not independently reviewed.
Action center
Campaign infrastructure is live. Public actions will appear here when they are real.
We are not publishing placeholder petitions or invented signature counts. When a live action is approved, this slot will point to it.
This Is Not an Isolated Case
The same dynamics that produced these outcomes exist in courtrooms across the country. Coached allegations, suppressed DCS findings, carry-forward of unadjudicated narratives, and courts that decline to look at what is directly in front of them. If you have experienced this, you are not alone. If you can help, we need you.