UNEXPECTED Hunter Johnson’s mom Stacie files answer in custody battle FULL RECAP
The heated custody battle over 14-year-old Unexpected dad Hunter Johnson continues to play out in Arkansas court — and on blogs covering the show.
As Starcasm previously reported, Hunter’s dad Casey Johnson filed an amended motion for custody of Hunter last week. In the filing, Casey claimed that Hunter was still being allowed to stay over with girlfriend Bella Vaughn despite a court order forbidding it.
Casey’s filing made numerous other allegations against Hunter’s mom Stacie Riddle and Bella’s mom Falen Vaughn as he asked for an expedited hearing to grant him full custody of Hunter. (Casey later filed for full custody of Hunter’s son Wesley, too.)
HUNTER’S MOM STACIE RIDDLE FILES ANSWER
Hunter’s mother Stacie Riddle filed her answer to Casey Johnson’s amended motion on Wednesday. In her response, Stacie denies many of the allegations made by Casey and she provides information backing up some of her denials.
Here are a few highlights from Stacie’s filing:
• Stacie claims Casey was “going through drug rehabilitation from 2013 until 2017.”
• Stacie confirms she lived with Casey for a while after she lost her house in a fire in 2021.
• Stacie admits Hunter got Bella pregnant, “but this was not allowed or encouraged by [Stacie] in any manner.”
• Casey claimed he objected to Hunter’s appearance on Unexpected, but Stacie says Casey “signed consent forms to appear on the program himself and was fully aware of the program and raised no objection to the minor child’s participation.”
STACIE RIDDLE’S ANSWER FULL RECAP
Below we have combined Casey Johnson’s allegations with Stacie Riddle’s answers. If Stacie didn’t provide any additional information in her affirmation or denial, and Casey’s allegation was not really noteworthy, we have excluded those from the compilation.
Starcasm has substituted “Casey” and “Stacie” for “First Defendant” and “Second Defendant” for easier readability and less confusion. Casey’s allegations are in bold. Stacie’s answers are in italics.
CASEY: The parties separated in or around 2013 and, for several years thereafter, successfully co-parented the minor child without the need for court intervention, sharing custody on an informal basis.
STACIE: Casey was going through drug rehabilitation from 2013 until 2017 and was able to see the minor child when the minor child visited Casey’s parents, the paternal grandparents.
CASEY: In or around 2017, Stacie entered rehabilitation for substance abuse issues, at which time Casey exercised primary custody of the minor child.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY: By approximately 2018, Stacie had achieved sobriety, and the parties resumed a shared custody arrangement.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY: In or around 2021, Stacie was unable to maintain stable housing or provide adequate structure for the minor child. As a result, Casey allowed Stacie to reside in his home with him, his current wife (whom he married in 2017), his other child with his wife, and H.J., in order to provide stability and support.
STACIE partially admits the allegations. Specifically, Stacie lived in Casey’s home after a house fire destroyed her home and substantially all of her possessions. Affirmatively stating, the arrangement was not due to any instability on the part of Stacie.
CASEY: Under information and belief, after Stacie later obtained separate housing through a HUD program, she was subsequently evicted from that residence due to issues related to drug use. Following such eviction, the minor child primarily resided with Casey during his fifth (5th) through seventh (7th) grade years of school.
STACIE denies the allegations. Stacie moved out of HUD housing upon her marriage to her current husband and was not evicted. Further, the minor child did not live with Casey, though he exercised extra visitation but never maintaining a permanent room or keeping clothes at Casey’s home.
CASEY: While in Casey’s care, the minor child performed well academically and was actively involved in extracurricular activities. Casey’s home has consistently provided a structured, stable, and supervised environment, including appropriate monitoring of the minor child’s activities.
STACIE denies the allegations. The minor child did not live with Casey, though he exercised extra visitation but never maintaining a permanent room or keeping clothes at Casey’s home.
CASEY: Beginning in or around late 2023 and continuing into 2024, Stacie began allowing the minor child unfettered access to a cellular phone, social media, and relationships beyond what is appropriate for his age, including permitting him to engage in a romantic relationship without reasonable supervision or boundaries.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY maintained reasonable and age-appropriate restrictions regarding phone usage, social media, and dating. However, Stacie undermined those efforts and, in or around 2024, removed the minor child from First Defendant’s care and began denying Casey meaningful access.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY: Due to the absence of a formal custody order at that time, Stacie was able to do so without immediate legal remedy, and Casey subsequently filed for full custody in April 2025, though service was delayed for a few months due to not knowing the Stacie’s new address.
STACIE denies the allegations. Casey has had full knowledge of Stacie’s address since before filing any action.
CASEY has significant concerns regarding the minor child’s education while in Stacie’s care. Upon information and belief, Stacie has failed to ensure the minor child attends school regularly, resulting in excessive absences and declining academic performance.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY has required consistent school attendance and appropriate accountability; however, Stacie has failed to do so resulting in excessive absences and low grades.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY: Since the airing of the television program, Casey has become aware of additional concerning conduct occurring within Stacie’s parenting time, including a lack of supervision, lack of monitoring, and permissive behavior that places the minor child at further risk.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY is concerned that Stacie, in conjunction with the girlfriend’s parent(s), is failing to impose appropriate boundaries and may be facilitating continued inappropriate conduct, including the risk of an additional pregnancy.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY:There is clear and convincing evidence it is in the best interest of the minor child that custody is awarded to Casey subject to reasonable visitation.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY: Stacie’s household lacks appropriate supervision, structure, and parental guidance, and permits conduct inconsistent with the minor child’s age, maturity, and responsibilities.
STACIE denies the allegations.
CASEY provides a stable, structured, and supervised home environment, enforces appropriate boundaries, and prioritizes the minor child’s education, development, and overall well-being.
STACIE denies the allegations.
STACIE prays that this Court deny and dismiss Casey’s Amended Motion for Custody and Request for Expedited Hearing; attorney’s fees and costs; and for all other relief to which she is entitled.
Asa Hawks is a writer and editor for Starcasm. You can contact Asa via Twitter, Facebook, or email at starcasmtips(at)yahoo.com
