NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

In re the Matter of:

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., DEPARMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY 

(DAWN MARIE BARROSO), Petitioners/Appellees,

v.

SHANE STEVENS, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 22-0002 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2012-051832

The Honorable Michelle Carson, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Department of Economic Security

Shane Stevens, Phoenix

Respondent/Appellant

FILED 10-20-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA (BARROSO) v. STEVENS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Shane Stevens-El (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s 

order denying his motion to vacate a “void” child support judgment. For 

the following reasons, we decline to revisit the issues and affirm the 

superior court’s ruling. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 A full factual history is set forth in this court’s earlier decision, 

Stevens-El v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-CV 21-0307, 2022 WL 599115, at 

*1, ¶ 2–4 (Ariz. App. Mar. 1, 2022) (mem. decision). There, Father challenged

a 2020 income withholding order issued by the Arizona Department of 

Economic Security (“ADES”) to satisfy a 2013 child support order. Id. at *1,

¶¶ 4–5. To challenge the withholding order, Father argued the child

support order was void for improper service and because it was issued by 

a court commissioner, instead of a judge. Id. at *2, ¶¶ 8, 11. Father also

argued he had no contractual duty to pay child support. Id. at *3, ¶ 12. In 

March 2022, this court affirmed the withholding order and rejected all of 

Father’s arguments, holding the support order is not void. Id. at *2–3, ¶¶

10–12. 

¶3 In his opening brief, Father argues the superior court 

neglected to rule on his “Demand To Vacate A Void Judgment,” filed May 

14, 2020. And to “compel action,” Father filed a motion to vacate the 

support order as void in September 2021, raising the same arguments this 

court considered in his first appeal—lack of personal jurisdiction based on 

insufficient service of process, no court commissioner authority, and no 

contractual duty to support a child. The superior court denied Father’s 

motion to vacate in November 2021, and Father appealed. We have 

jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2102(A)(1).
STATE OF ARIZONA (BARROSO) v. STEVENS

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶4 The State argues issue preclusion applies because Father 

litigated his issues and this court rendered a decision. Under issue 

preclusion, a second suit arising from the same cause of action is barred if 

the decision involves the same parties and a judgment on the merits. See 

Chaney Bldg. Co. v. City of Tucson, 148 Ariz. 571, 573 (1986). But Father’s 

motion to vacate the “void” 2013 child support order arises from the same 

suit challenging the income withholding and support enforcement orders; 

it does not create a second suit. See Stevens-El, 1 CA-CV 21-0307, at *1, ¶ 6. 

In other words, the issues Father raises here are identical to those raised in 

his first appeal. Id. at *2–3, ¶ 8, 11–12. 

¶5 In this situation, the law of the case doctrine applies. See 

Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, 177 Ariz. 322, 327 (App. 1993) (“‘Law of the 

case’ concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously 

decided in the same case by the same court.”). The court’s decision in a case 

is the law of that case throughout all subsequent proceedings, “provided 

the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon 

which the first decision rested.” Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Indus. Comm’n, 

149 Ariz. 480, 482 (1986).

¶6 The law of the case doctrine does not apply if there has been 

a substantial change in the facts, issues, or evidence; the first appellate 

decision is erroneous or unjust; the applicable law has changed; the issue 

was not actually decided; the decision is ambiguous; or the prior decision 

was not on the merits. Id. at 483. Father has not shown that any of these 

exceptions apply to his appeal. 

CONCLUSION

¶7 The court’s March 2022 decision is the law of the case for this 

decision. We affirm.