ST. LOUIS — A Missouri attorney has filed a sweeping federal lawsuit accusing multiple state officials, family court judges, commissioners, attorneys and guardians ad litem of participating in an organized criminal enterprise within the St. Louis County Family Court.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, invokes the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and the Civil Rights Act, alleging systemic corruption, extortion, wire fraud, obstruction of justice and perjury designed to manipulate custody outcomes for financial and political gain.
Matthew R. Grant, a former litigation partner at one of the 100 largest law firms in the United States and founder of Stop Missouri Corruption, contends that the alleged enterprise — dubbed in his complaint as the “Clayton Kids for Cash” scheme — retaliated against him for exposing corruption, culminating in the loss of nearly all custody of his teenage sons despite his proven sobriety and prior history of joint custody.
Before the legal battle began in March 2024, Grant shared equal custody, averaging about 15 nights a month with his two children, according to the complaint.
After publicly raising corruption allegations to the Missouri Court of Appeals and Missouri Supreme Court, his custody was reduced to one overnight per week and is now at risk of being cut to two nights per month.
The lawsuit names numerous defendants, including St. Louis County Presiding Judge Bruce F. Hilton, former Commissioner Mary W. Greaves, Guardian Ad Litem John Fenley, the children’s mother Rebecca A. Copeland, her attorney Maia Brodie, two relatives of the children and others.
Grant alleges that Fenley attempted to coerce him in a recorded June 2, phone call, offering to restore custody if Grant would publicly recant his corruption claims.
When Grant refused, he says Fenley retaliated by recommending further custody reductions.
Grant asserts that the defendants have used false pleadings, fraudulent court orders and perjury to justify restricting his parental rights and to punish him for refusing to settle on terms favorable to the mother.
He cites a series of incidents, including what he calls fabricated allegations from Copeland during trial—such as claims of sexual coercion and threats to harm the children—that were never raised in depositions or earlier testimony.
The complaint alleges that the corruption is longstanding and protected by political connections, including ties between judges and attorneys involved in the case.
Grant claims he has obtained text messages, court transcripts, recorded conversations, and internal communications as evidence and that he plans to present witnesses from other cases who experienced similar patterns of conduct.
He also claims the scheme exploits children as leverage in custody disputes to generate excessive legal and guardian ad litem fees, forcing unfair settlements and retaliating when parents resist.
Grant’s filing describes prior efforts by others to expose similar conduct that failed due to judicial immunity defenses or insufficient pleadings.
He argues that, as an experienced attorney with a background in class action defense, he has drafted a complaint that meets the legal standards to overcome those obstacles. The case includes class action claims on behalf of other alleged victims of the enterprise.
The Missouri Supreme Court previously intervened in Grant’s underlying family court case in March, issuing an order sua sponte, which Grant calls unprecedented and indicative of the seriousness of his allegations.
Despite this, he says retaliation has continued, and he remains under a gag order prohibiting discussion of the case with his children.
Grant seeks injunctive relief to reform court practices, damages for harm suffered, and oversight by an impartial federal judge.
He maintains that his case is not about a custody dispute but about dismantling what he calls “an organized criminal enterprise operating under the color of law in Missouri’s family courts.”
“This case is not about a custody dispute,” Grant said in a provided statement. “It is about dismantling an organized criminal enterprise operating under the color of law in Missouri’s family courts and restoring constitutional rights to Missouri’s families.”
